POLITICAL PULSE
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
Armstrong Williams is called "one of the most recognizable conservative voices in America" by The Washington Post. Williams is a pugnacious, provocative and principled voice for conservatives and Christian values in America's public debates.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS' BLOG
05/17/12
A Polarizing White House
BY: Armstrong Williams
A polarizing White House
VP Joe Biden indicated in a passionate speech yesterday that the American dream was dying (Obama was elected President) for those not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. It is difficult to understand how he has arrived at such conclusions. In fact there are many hard working Americans that despite the difficult economic times, are finding ways to be successful and productive. By stirring up doubt Biden hopes to also create resentment towards those that have achieved success, in an attempt to strengthen the political positions of his party. During the great depression the leaders of our nation attempted to provide hope and encouragement, for they understood that a person with hope and confidence is much more likely to be successful than a person who is discouraged and angry. Let us hope that someone can get this message to Vice- President Joe Biden and his cronies.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
A Polarizing White House
BY: Armstrong Williams
A polarizing White House
VP Joe Biden indicated in a passionate speech yesterday that the American dream was dying (Obama was elected President) for those not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. It is difficult to understand how he has arrived at such conclusions. In fact there are many hard working Americans that despite the difficult economic times, are finding ways to be successful and productive. By stirring up doubt Biden hopes to also create resentment towards those that have achieved success, in an attempt to strengthen the political positions of his party. During the great depression the leaders of our nation attempted to provide hope and encouragement, for they understood that a person with hope and confidence is much more likely to be successful than a person who is discouraged and angry. Let us hope that someone can get this message to Vice- President Joe Biden and his cronies.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/15/12
Government, Fix God's mistakes
BY: Armstrong Williams
Democrats take their complaints with God to the altar of government. To say that it is not “fair” that someone live in poverty while others are wealthy, or, to use a more melodramatic example from Nancy Pelosi, that “women die on the floor,” is a complaint to God; it is to ask for a theodicy. Why is there evil in the world? Surely the government didn’t invent it; surely the government didn’t create poverty (though with policies like President Obama’s, it spreads it copiously); surely the government didn’t create death. Yet liberals immediately claim that it is the government’s job to right every wrong in the world, to either fix God’s mistakes or, in the case of sexual sins, to apologize for humanity’s.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Government, Fix God's mistakes
BY: Armstrong Williams
Democrats take their complaints with God to the altar of government. To say that it is not “fair” that someone live in poverty while others are wealthy, or, to use a more melodramatic example from Nancy Pelosi, that “women die on the floor,” is a complaint to God; it is to ask for a theodicy. Why is there evil in the world? Surely the government didn’t invent it; surely the government didn’t create poverty (though with policies like President Obama’s, it spreads it copiously); surely the government didn’t create death. Yet liberals immediately claim that it is the government’s job to right every wrong in the world, to either fix God’s mistakes or, in the case of sexual sins, to apologize for humanity’s.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/14/12
Free Will
BY: Armstrong Williams
Free Will
On the issue of same sex marriage reasonable people can agree that any two consenting adults can have relationships in which they can live together, sleep together, eat and do whatever they wish together: this is a free society in which free will is granted to us by our creator . However, by simply doing these things, they do not get to redefine a foundational institution like marriage. If we begin to redefine the very pillars of our society based on political expediency, there soon won’t be anything left to redefine. We must return principles and values to our society which includes being kind and respectful to everyone while not changing who we are.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Free Will
BY: Armstrong Williams
Free Will
On the issue of same sex marriage reasonable people can agree that any two consenting adults can have relationships in which they can live together, sleep together, eat and do whatever they wish together: this is a free society in which free will is granted to us by our creator . However, by simply doing these things, they do not get to redefine a foundational institution like marriage. If we begin to redefine the very pillars of our society based on political expediency, there soon won’t be anything left to redefine. We must return principles and values to our society which includes being kind and respectful to everyone while not changing who we are.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/10/12
Gay marriage: Politics or Principles
BY: Armstrong Williams
Gay marriage: Politics or Principles
The same sex marriage issue and Obama's inability to have a consistent viewpoint illustrates that he is nothing more than a politician whose views fluctuate with the wind. It is obvious that this is all about politics, Vice President Biden included. There was a vote in NC that the president was hoping to impact and failed miserably. His left wing base are clamoring for his approval on gay marriage before they will fully commit to him. Therefore principles have gone out of the window and politics have taken the drivers seat. A person of conviction who acts out of principle rather than political expediency is what our nation desperately needs now. Obama should be willing to state categorically now that he has come out in favor of gay marriage and what principles define his belief and why such a belief is unlikely to change in the future. Similarly had he been against gay marriage he should have been able to do the same. The people and the media need to begin to pressure those running for public office to put forth the basis of their beliefs. This would make it much more difficult in the future for them to arbitrarily change their views.
On the issue of same sex marriage reasonable people would agree that any two consenting adults can have relationships in which they can live together, sleep together, eat and do whatever they wish together for this is a free society. However, they do not get to redefine an institution such as marriage that is a societal foundation. If we begin to redefine the very pillars of our stable society based on political expediency our society will rapidly crumble. We must return principles and values to our society which includes being fair to everyone while not changing who we are.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Gay marriage: Politics or Principles
BY: Armstrong Williams
Gay marriage: Politics or Principles
The same sex marriage issue and Obama's inability to have a consistent viewpoint illustrates that he is nothing more than a politician whose views fluctuate with the wind. It is obvious that this is all about politics, Vice President Biden included. There was a vote in NC that the president was hoping to impact and failed miserably. His left wing base are clamoring for his approval on gay marriage before they will fully commit to him. Therefore principles have gone out of the window and politics have taken the drivers seat. A person of conviction who acts out of principle rather than political expediency is what our nation desperately needs now. Obama should be willing to state categorically now that he has come out in favor of gay marriage and what principles define his belief and why such a belief is unlikely to change in the future. Similarly had he been against gay marriage he should have been able to do the same. The people and the media need to begin to pressure those running for public office to put forth the basis of their beliefs. This would make it much more difficult in the future for them to arbitrarily change their views.
On the issue of same sex marriage reasonable people would agree that any two consenting adults can have relationships in which they can live together, sleep together, eat and do whatever they wish together for this is a free society. However, they do not get to redefine an institution such as marriage that is a societal foundation. If we begin to redefine the very pillars of our stable society based on political expediency our society will rapidly crumble. We must return principles and values to our society which includes being fair to everyone while not changing who we are.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/09/12
Fairness defined !
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fairness Defined !
President Obama has spent much time lately discussing fairness. This is a word that has a very positive connotation. However if one is going to make it the center piece of their campaign than they would be advisable to define what it actually means to them. Traditionally fairness means giving everyone equal treatment. That means that portionality should take a pinnacle position in fairness policies. A person who has very little should be required to give very little. A person who has very much should be required to give very much, but on a proportional basis. If a person has a hundred billion dollars and they're required to give 10 % of it, than they will give 10 billion dollars. If they have only a hundred dollars and are required to give 10%, than they will give ten dollars. Each would have been required to give an equal proportion of their means and each should be entitled to the same rights and privileges. This is not a difficult concept to understand but when people begin to manipulate for their own advantage, fairness goes out the window and is replaced by politics. If we truly want to be fair let's look at tax policies loop holes and other manipulations that distorts the true meaning of fairness.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Fairness defined !
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fairness Defined !
President Obama has spent much time lately discussing fairness. This is a word that has a very positive connotation. However if one is going to make it the center piece of their campaign than they would be advisable to define what it actually means to them. Traditionally fairness means giving everyone equal treatment. That means that portionality should take a pinnacle position in fairness policies. A person who has very little should be required to give very little. A person who has very much should be required to give very much, but on a proportional basis. If a person has a hundred billion dollars and they're required to give 10 % of it, than they will give 10 billion dollars. If they have only a hundred dollars and are required to give 10%, than they will give ten dollars. Each would have been required to give an equal proportion of their means and each should be entitled to the same rights and privileges. This is not a difficult concept to understand but when people begin to manipulate for their own advantage, fairness goes out the window and is replaced by politics. If we truly want to be fair let's look at tax policies loop holes and other manipulations that distorts the true meaning of fairness.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/08/12
Political correctness and the age of darkness
BY: Armstrong Williams
Political correctness and the Age of Darkness
Why does the politically correct environment do their best to stifle free speech, when it's not their own. Could it be that the ultra left have a most difficult time defending their positions with logic. Therefore before placing themselves in that awkward position of challenging well thought out points of view, they attempt to demonize or outright dismiss opposing points of view. In a recent controversy that rose over the commencement speaker ( John Hopkins hospital Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Dr. Ben Carson ) at Emory University in Atlanta, GA., Biology professors attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the choice of an individual who was a creationist and went so far as to accuse the individual of saying that evolutionist were unethical. They came to this conclusion because the speaker feels that is very easy to explain the source of morality if one believes in biblical principles. However if one believes in survival of the fittest it becomes more difficult. In the survival of the fittest model, killing someone or stealing from them to enhance your own position is natural . Therefore it is legitimate to ask the source how does one derive morality in such a model or how does one even define morality. Rather than demonizing someone who asks that question, wouldn't it be more reasonable to actually come up with a logical answer, if one actually exists. It would seemed that the purpose of an institution of higher education would to explore such questions in an open forum, rather than return to the suppression tactics that characterize the dark ages.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Political correctness and the age of darkness
BY: Armstrong Williams
Political correctness and the Age of Darkness
Why does the politically correct environment do their best to stifle free speech, when it's not their own. Could it be that the ultra left have a most difficult time defending their positions with logic. Therefore before placing themselves in that awkward position of challenging well thought out points of view, they attempt to demonize or outright dismiss opposing points of view. In a recent controversy that rose over the commencement speaker ( John Hopkins hospital Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Dr. Ben Carson ) at Emory University in Atlanta, GA., Biology professors attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the choice of an individual who was a creationist and went so far as to accuse the individual of saying that evolutionist were unethical. They came to this conclusion because the speaker feels that is very easy to explain the source of morality if one believes in biblical principles. However if one believes in survival of the fittest it becomes more difficult. In the survival of the fittest model, killing someone or stealing from them to enhance your own position is natural . Therefore it is legitimate to ask the source how does one derive morality in such a model or how does one even define morality. Rather than demonizing someone who asks that question, wouldn't it be more reasonable to actually come up with a logical answer, if one actually exists. It would seemed that the purpose of an institution of higher education would to explore such questions in an open forum, rather than return to the suppression tactics that characterize the dark ages.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/07/12
End of the Eurozone ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
End of the Eurozone ?
The voters of Europe have spoken. They are not prepared to endure the austerity measures to achieve financial responsibility and stability. This has set the stage for breakup of the Eurozone. The only way to finance the stimulus that President elect Hollande is proposing is to increase taxes or borrow. Neither option is practical. His proposal to raise taxes to 75% on the wealthy will create a mass exodus of high earning Frenchmen to lower tax jurisdictions outside of France. It is highly unlikely that the credit markets will lend the French Government enough money to stimulate it's economy at economic rates. The situation in Greece is also untenable. Voters have rejected the centralist party in favor of the extremist party. It was the Centralist party that agreed to the austerity measures . These austerity measures were sine que non of Greece's bailout. Their creditors and the EU will not be happy about this rejection .
It now appears that Chancellor Merkel of Germany is all by herself in Europe. Germany will continue to promote fiscal responsibility but it is unlikely the German voters will agree to bail out their prolifigate of European neighbors.. If this is the reality, it is hard to understand how the Eurozone can survive.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
End of the Eurozone ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
End of the Eurozone ?
The voters of Europe have spoken. They are not prepared to endure the austerity measures to achieve financial responsibility and stability. This has set the stage for breakup of the Eurozone. The only way to finance the stimulus that President elect Hollande is proposing is to increase taxes or borrow. Neither option is practical. His proposal to raise taxes to 75% on the wealthy will create a mass exodus of high earning Frenchmen to lower tax jurisdictions outside of France. It is highly unlikely that the credit markets will lend the French Government enough money to stimulate it's economy at economic rates. The situation in Greece is also untenable. Voters have rejected the centralist party in favor of the extremist party. It was the Centralist party that agreed to the austerity measures . These austerity measures were sine que non of Greece's bailout. Their creditors and the EU will not be happy about this rejection .
It now appears that Chancellor Merkel of Germany is all by herself in Europe. Germany will continue to promote fiscal responsibility but it is unlikely the German voters will agree to bail out their prolifigate of European neighbors.. If this is the reality, it is hard to understand how the Eurozone can survive.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/03/12
Romney the CEO
BY: Armstrong Williams
Romney the CEO
Romney's career at Bain Capital focus on fixing things that were not working, makes him a viable candidate to address the myriad things that are no longer working in our nation. Our economic system is on the verge of collapsing due to a fundamental lack of understanding of business principles by high government officials and especially the President of the United States. It would be difficult to identify a better time in our history to have a business man as CEO of this nation. Is he the best candidate the GOP can offer in this 2012 election, of course not . The comparison needs to be made against the current occupier of the White House, who is no more than a mere politician cloak in the disguise of our national leader. In a recent interview President Obama made it clear that there were MOMENTS during his presidency when he had to put politics aside. Obviously it should be just the opposite, that is there may be moments during a presidency when political considerations are entertained. If Mitt Romney can focus on the issues and not on the unceasing personal attacks that will be leveled against him, his opportunity to help correct the many ills that afflict our nation, will be many.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Romney the CEO
BY: Armstrong Williams
Romney the CEO
Romney's career at Bain Capital focus on fixing things that were not working, makes him a viable candidate to address the myriad things that are no longer working in our nation. Our economic system is on the verge of collapsing due to a fundamental lack of understanding of business principles by high government officials and especially the President of the United States. It would be difficult to identify a better time in our history to have a business man as CEO of this nation. Is he the best candidate the GOP can offer in this 2012 election, of course not . The comparison needs to be made against the current occupier of the White House, who is no more than a mere politician cloak in the disguise of our national leader. In a recent interview President Obama made it clear that there were MOMENTS during his presidency when he had to put politics aside. Obviously it should be just the opposite, that is there may be moments during a presidency when political considerations are entertained. If Mitt Romney can focus on the issues and not on the unceasing personal attacks that will be leveled against him, his opportunity to help correct the many ills that afflict our nation, will be many.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/02/12
What has President Obama accomplish ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What has President Obama accomplish ?
What has President Obama achieved once he was elected to any political office ? He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review, but never authored a law review article. He was elected to the Illinois state senate and voted not present more than he voted. His name was not associated with any legislation during his short tenure. He was elected to the United States senate of Illinois and served two years. During that tenure he spent more time running for the presidency than serving the people of Illinois in the US Senate. As our Commander and Chief he has one notable accomplishment, he pulled the trigger on Osama Bin Laden. He has left a questionable legacy related to the economy, resulting in an anemic growth and high unemployment. He has disrupted American health care with an unconstitutional Affordable Care enacted Law. He has over regulated the financial sector and placed America's financial sector at a global disadvantage. His financial stewardship of the governments finances will leave our descendents with an unconscionable amount of debt. He has created the most divisive political schisms in America since the Civil War, in his pursual of class warfare.
Did I overlook something ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
What has President Obama accomplish ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What has President Obama accomplish ?
What has President Obama achieved once he was elected to any political office ? He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review, but never authored a law review article. He was elected to the Illinois state senate and voted not present more than he voted. His name was not associated with any legislation during his short tenure. He was elected to the United States senate of Illinois and served two years. During that tenure he spent more time running for the presidency than serving the people of Illinois in the US Senate. As our Commander and Chief he has one notable accomplishment, he pulled the trigger on Osama Bin Laden. He has left a questionable legacy related to the economy, resulting in an anemic growth and high unemployment. He has disrupted American health care with an unconstitutional Affordable Care enacted Law. He has over regulated the financial sector and placed America's financial sector at a global disadvantage. His financial stewardship of the governments finances will leave our descendents with an unconscionable amount of debt. He has created the most divisive political schisms in America since the Civil War, in his pursual of class warfare.
Did I overlook something ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
05/01/12
He who blames, should also share the credit
BY: Armstrong Williams
He who blames, should also share the credit:
Many of the Navy Seals involved in the killing of Osama Bin Laden are speaking out against President Obama for taking so much credit for an operation which they placed their lives in danger. They felt it was a no brainer decision in moving forward to end Bin Laden's reign of terror. For the president to imply that he's endowed with some special gift for making such a decision, is remarkably arrogant and clearly out of touch with reality. Can our President humble himself and share a little credit with other's involved in the successful operation? To imply that GOP standard bearer Mitt Romney would not have taken advantage of an opportunity to remove Osama Bin Laden from the world stage is another manifestation of his extreme narcissism. It clearly shows his selfish desire to be re elected regardless of the cost and casualties to our nation. It is apparent that the intelligence gathered which allowed this successful historic military operation was compiled over many years. This process involved many techniques, including enhanced interrogations which the current administration criticized in the past. The hypocrisy of taking the spoils of something that you vociferously opposed should be apparent to all.
The one year anniversary should be a time to unite us behind a tremendous victory that increases our safety, rather than a time to gloat and further divide an already fractured society. One must begin to wonder if there is anything that this president will not use for his political gain and further separate our nation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
He who blames, should also share the credit
BY: Armstrong Williams
He who blames, should also share the credit:
Many of the Navy Seals involved in the killing of Osama Bin Laden are speaking out against President Obama for taking so much credit for an operation which they placed their lives in danger. They felt it was a no brainer decision in moving forward to end Bin Laden's reign of terror. For the president to imply that he's endowed with some special gift for making such a decision, is remarkably arrogant and clearly out of touch with reality. Can our President humble himself and share a little credit with other's involved in the successful operation? To imply that GOP standard bearer Mitt Romney would not have taken advantage of an opportunity to remove Osama Bin Laden from the world stage is another manifestation of his extreme narcissism. It clearly shows his selfish desire to be re elected regardless of the cost and casualties to our nation. It is apparent that the intelligence gathered which allowed this successful historic military operation was compiled over many years. This process involved many techniques, including enhanced interrogations which the current administration criticized in the past. The hypocrisy of taking the spoils of something that you vociferously opposed should be apparent to all.
The one year anniversary should be a time to unite us behind a tremendous victory that increases our safety, rather than a time to gloat and further divide an already fractured society. One must begin to wonder if there is anything that this president will not use for his political gain and further separate our nation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/30/12
America's profligate greed
BY: Armstrong Williams
America's profligate greed
While the world is finally witnessing the fundamental flaws with the EU---notably a unified currency system combined with a dispersed political framework (meaning financial and political decisions cannot be adequately coordinated)---the problems were greatly exacerbated by the reduction in liquidity and the risk aversion of investors that followed in the wake of the U.S. sub prime industry meltdown.
When the bubble burst in the small European nations, they, unlike America, could not just print more money. They had to go to the EU central bank, hat in hand, and seek a bailout from the stronger economies in Europe such as Germany and England. It quickly became a political fiasco. The European central bank imposed drastic austerity measures on the populations of the PIGS----measures which have proven to be politically disastrous and caused conflict and unrest even in England, one of the wealthiest countries in the EU.
Meanwhile, America has seen its global economic influence marginalized. The United States is now considered the 800-pound drunken gorilla in the room---feared because of its size, but derided because of its capricious, ape-like behavior. While the American people might have blissfully forgotten what happened--there is something in the American psyche that seems to protect it from distressing memories---the rest of the world won't soon forget that America's profligate greed caused this current global crisis.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
America's profligate greed
BY: Armstrong Williams
America's profligate greed
While the world is finally witnessing the fundamental flaws with the EU---notably a unified currency system combined with a dispersed political framework (meaning financial and political decisions cannot be adequately coordinated)---the problems were greatly exacerbated by the reduction in liquidity and the risk aversion of investors that followed in the wake of the U.S. sub prime industry meltdown.
When the bubble burst in the small European nations, they, unlike America, could not just print more money. They had to go to the EU central bank, hat in hand, and seek a bailout from the stronger economies in Europe such as Germany and England. It quickly became a political fiasco. The European central bank imposed drastic austerity measures on the populations of the PIGS----measures which have proven to be politically disastrous and caused conflict and unrest even in England, one of the wealthiest countries in the EU.
Meanwhile, America has seen its global economic influence marginalized. The United States is now considered the 800-pound drunken gorilla in the room---feared because of its size, but derided because of its capricious, ape-like behavior. While the American people might have blissfully forgotten what happened--there is something in the American psyche that seems to protect it from distressing memories---the rest of the world won't soon forget that America's profligate greed caused this current global crisis.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/26/12
Improve Productivity in America
BY: Armstrong Williams
Improve Productivity in America
Every year Companies should fire the bottom 5% of its workforce. Both the company and the employee will benefit from this policy. The company benefits because it replaces the least productive employees with more productive employees. The employee benefits because they are in a position where they are the runt of the litter and suffer psychologically from having low self esteem as a result of being the least productive. Most of these employees would benefit from being in new jobs that can take advantage of their strengths. In the new jobs they will eventually make more money and have higher self esteem, which leads to better productivity.
Unfortunately government regulations make this process difficult. Under common law employees could be hired or fired for any reason or no reason. Letting go of an employee in a protected class requires a higher standard of termination than an employee not in a protected class, such as homosexuals, minorities, the disabled and Senior Citizens. These factors among others add to the cost of increasing efficiency and income to our economy. In a Union environment employees generally must be laid off in the order of Seniority regardless of productivity. These costs make our economy much less efficient and less competitive in the global economy.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Improve Productivity in America
BY: Armstrong Williams
Improve Productivity in America
Every year Companies should fire the bottom 5% of its workforce. Both the company and the employee will benefit from this policy. The company benefits because it replaces the least productive employees with more productive employees. The employee benefits because they are in a position where they are the runt of the litter and suffer psychologically from having low self esteem as a result of being the least productive. Most of these employees would benefit from being in new jobs that can take advantage of their strengths. In the new jobs they will eventually make more money and have higher self esteem, which leads to better productivity.
Unfortunately government regulations make this process difficult. Under common law employees could be hired or fired for any reason or no reason. Letting go of an employee in a protected class requires a higher standard of termination than an employee not in a protected class, such as homosexuals, minorities, the disabled and Senior Citizens. These factors among others add to the cost of increasing efficiency and income to our economy. In a Union environment employees generally must be laid off in the order of Seniority regardless of productivity. These costs make our economy much less efficient and less competitive in the global economy.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/25/12
Government and Capitalism
BY: Armstrong Williams
Government and Capitalism
Are we not judged by God relative to our kindness to the downtrodden and the disadvantaged ? Maybe. But since God created this planet and everything on it, including the laws of nature which dictate that the strong survive and the weak perish, why are models based on those laws so frequently disregarded? Can anything survive for long if it continues to lower its standards to the weakest 15% of itself ? All living things, from animals to humans, by following such an approach would become extinct in time. All companies and governments will eventually bankrupt themselves by governing their assets in this manner. Communism lived and died quickly because it strangled itself with an idealistic theory that sounded generous, but was seriously flawed. Socialism is like a deadly lung disease, wherein you eventually die by slow suffocation. Capitalism, alone, takes into account the true nature of our species and will always survive through self adjustment.
When the government underwrites whole markets, capitalism cannot work, and begin to lose track of the "real" values of the products within that market. In a capitalistic system, "stimulation" of the markets is the same as recreational drugs to a human being----it creates an unrealistic euphoria, which is short-lived and painful when the effects fade. False stimulation masks reality, rather than encouraging us to deal with it. But the pain of the way things really are eventually returns---no matter if the stimulant is repeated, because in the end, the government will collapse under the burden of propping up every failed or failing business. We continue to see this in our continued economic crisis.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Government and Capitalism
BY: Armstrong Williams
Government and Capitalism
Are we not judged by God relative to our kindness to the downtrodden and the disadvantaged ? Maybe. But since God created this planet and everything on it, including the laws of nature which dictate that the strong survive and the weak perish, why are models based on those laws so frequently disregarded? Can anything survive for long if it continues to lower its standards to the weakest 15% of itself ? All living things, from animals to humans, by following such an approach would become extinct in time. All companies and governments will eventually bankrupt themselves by governing their assets in this manner. Communism lived and died quickly because it strangled itself with an idealistic theory that sounded generous, but was seriously flawed. Socialism is like a deadly lung disease, wherein you eventually die by slow suffocation. Capitalism, alone, takes into account the true nature of our species and will always survive through self adjustment.
When the government underwrites whole markets, capitalism cannot work, and begin to lose track of the "real" values of the products within that market. In a capitalistic system, "stimulation" of the markets is the same as recreational drugs to a human being----it creates an unrealistic euphoria, which is short-lived and painful when the effects fade. False stimulation masks reality, rather than encouraging us to deal with it. But the pain of the way things really are eventually returns---no matter if the stimulant is repeated, because in the end, the government will collapse under the burden of propping up every failed or failing business. We continue to see this in our continued economic crisis.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/24/12
A Review of History
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Review of History
Most Americans are pleased that they can refinance their homes at incredibly and historically low interest rates. We are certainly thankful for the high value of the US dollar when we travel abroad. Wall street, US Banks, Auto industry, Unions, money market account holders were all too happy for their bailout gift from the U.S Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Our economic system is based upon free markets, yet in the last four years we have had anything but a free market economy. Once upon a time there was a television commercial that reminded us "You cannot fool mother nature". The same holds true for markets. Distortions, anomalies, bailouts, TARPS, etc. are only delaying the inevitable. The U.S. advantage is that in Washington, DC at the Federal Bureau of Printing and Engraving, the presses are working 24X7X365 printing crazy money. That cannot be done in Europe because of the Eurozone constraints. If the PIIGS were able to print their currencies individually, we would be experiencing hyper- inflation NOW! Thank goodness for the Eurozone in this matter.
Political Science and Economics are independent disciplines, and we know all too well this is not reality. In the next several weeks France will elect a new President. President Sarkozy has been Chancellor Merkel's puppet, which has allowed Germany to virtually dictate economic policies in Europe.
Please take a moment and revisit your history books to research who actually won World War's I & II. In reality Germany may have lost the military battles in Wars I & II, but today we live with a Europe that is economically dominated by Germany.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
A Review of History
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Review of History
Most Americans are pleased that they can refinance their homes at incredibly and historically low interest rates. We are certainly thankful for the high value of the US dollar when we travel abroad. Wall street, US Banks, Auto industry, Unions, money market account holders were all too happy for their bailout gift from the U.S Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Our economic system is based upon free markets, yet in the last four years we have had anything but a free market economy. Once upon a time there was a television commercial that reminded us "You cannot fool mother nature". The same holds true for markets. Distortions, anomalies, bailouts, TARPS, etc. are only delaying the inevitable. The U.S. advantage is that in Washington, DC at the Federal Bureau of Printing and Engraving, the presses are working 24X7X365 printing crazy money. That cannot be done in Europe because of the Eurozone constraints. If the PIIGS were able to print their currencies individually, we would be experiencing hyper- inflation NOW! Thank goodness for the Eurozone in this matter.
Political Science and Economics are independent disciplines, and we know all too well this is not reality. In the next several weeks France will elect a new President. President Sarkozy has been Chancellor Merkel's puppet, which has allowed Germany to virtually dictate economic policies in Europe.
Please take a moment and revisit your history books to research who actually won World War's I & II. In reality Germany may have lost the military battles in Wars I & II, but today we live with a Europe that is economically dominated by Germany.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/12/12
What are the similarities between George Zimmerman and O J Simpson ?
BY : Armstrong Williams
What are the similarities between George Zimmerman and O J Simpson ?
The second degree murder charges against George Zimmerman marks a major turning point in a case that triggered a nationwide debate about racial profiling in America and about Florida's "stand your ground" law -- which allows people to use deadly force anywhere they feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury. The case also highlights glaring and sadden contradictions on how American Blacks and the media reacted to OJ Simpson's alleged killing of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman two decades ago.
Many American Blacks feel the long history of racial injustice in this nation entitles many of them to the benefit of the doubt in any racially charged case. This is unfortunately the same mentality that causes them to excuse all of president Obama's failings, simply because he is black. It is not difficult to understand this mentality and it probably will be manifested in any group regardless of their ethnic background, if in fact there ancestors had been the victims, and in some cases, continue to be victims of societal injustice. This makes it fairly easy for the average person to understand why there was a rush to judgement amongst many American Blacks in favor of O J Simpson and against George Zimmerman. Remember OJ Simpson was accused of killing Nicole and Ron. Despite all the evidence that supported the fact that Simpson committed the crimes, many blacks dismissed the evidence and desperately wanted him to be found not guilty. There overwhelming emotional reaction from the onset was pro OJ and just forget the evidence that was reported daily. They showed little, if any sympathy for the tragic circumstances that took the lives of Ron and Nicole. Let us fast forward a couple of decades to our present time where we have another racially charged case in which a white man is accused of murdering a black teenager. Again, regardless of the evidence that is presented that might lead to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, many blacks are unwilling to even entertain the thought of him being found not guilty, as in the case of OJ. Can you not see first hand the incredible double standard and hypocrisy ? What will happen (as in the case of OJ) if George Zimmerman is ultimately found not guilty ? Will we return to the days of rioting and burning down cities across America ? Or will American Blacks celebrate a not guilty verdict in the case of Zimmerman in the same manner they celebrated OJ Simpson's two decades ago.
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM 128, 7pm-8pm est. Contact Armstrong: info@rightsidewire.com. Watch Armstrong's weekend syndicated network TV show by visiting www.rightsidewire.com for local listings in your area. Read Armstrong's new book "Reawakening Virtues" at amazon.com.
What are the similarities between George Zimmerman and O J Simpson ?
BY : Armstrong Williams
What are the similarities between George Zimmerman and O J Simpson ?
The second degree murder charges against George Zimmerman marks a major turning point in a case that triggered a nationwide debate about racial profiling in America and about Florida's "stand your ground" law -- which allows people to use deadly force anywhere they feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury. The case also highlights glaring and sadden contradictions on how American Blacks and the media reacted to OJ Simpson's alleged killing of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman two decades ago.
Many American Blacks feel the long history of racial injustice in this nation entitles many of them to the benefit of the doubt in any racially charged case. This is unfortunately the same mentality that causes them to excuse all of president Obama's failings, simply because he is black. It is not difficult to understand this mentality and it probably will be manifested in any group regardless of their ethnic background, if in fact there ancestors had been the victims, and in some cases, continue to be victims of societal injustice. This makes it fairly easy for the average person to understand why there was a rush to judgement amongst many American Blacks in favor of O J Simpson and against George Zimmerman. Remember OJ Simpson was accused of killing Nicole and Ron. Despite all the evidence that supported the fact that Simpson committed the crimes, many blacks dismissed the evidence and desperately wanted him to be found not guilty. There overwhelming emotional reaction from the onset was pro OJ and just forget the evidence that was reported daily. They showed little, if any sympathy for the tragic circumstances that took the lives of Ron and Nicole. Let us fast forward a couple of decades to our present time where we have another racially charged case in which a white man is accused of murdering a black teenager. Again, regardless of the evidence that is presented that might lead to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, many blacks are unwilling to even entertain the thought of him being found not guilty, as in the case of OJ. Can you not see first hand the incredible double standard and hypocrisy ? What will happen (as in the case of OJ) if George Zimmerman is ultimately found not guilty ? Will we return to the days of rioting and burning down cities across America ? Or will American Blacks celebrate a not guilty verdict in the case of Zimmerman in the same manner they celebrated OJ Simpson's two decades ago.
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM 128, 7pm-8pm est. Contact Armstrong: info@rightsidewire.com. Watch Armstrong's weekend syndicated network TV show by visiting www.rightsidewire.com for local listings in your area. Read Armstrong's new book "Reawakening Virtues" at amazon.com.
04/11/12
Minimum Wage
BY: Armstrong Williams
Minimum Wage.
The New York Times reported this morning that a number of liberal Democratic politicians want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to as much as $10. This proposed increase is in the midst of the weakest economic recovery since the great depression and stubbornly high unemployment. Under classical economic theory, an increase in wages leads to decrease in employment. So an increase in the minimum wage would cause the unemployment rate to increase and national income to decline. However the Liberals have perverted classical economic theory. They maintain that an increase in wages will not reduce employment but will increase employment because low income workers will have more money to spend and that will increase jobs. They fail to recognize that increased wages must come from somewhere. It will either come from the employer or consumer. If it comes from the employer, their retained profits to finance growth will be reduced. Hence their investments will decline, and their ability to hire new employees reduced. If it comes from the consumer in the form of higher prices to finance the higher wages, they will buy less with their money. There is no free lunch. If the Liberals’ theory of increasing the minimum wage would increase employment and national income, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour? Clearly it would bankrupt most businesses and price most consumer products and services out of the reach of consumers.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Minimum Wage
BY: Armstrong Williams
Minimum Wage.
The New York Times reported this morning that a number of liberal Democratic politicians want to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to as much as $10. This proposed increase is in the midst of the weakest economic recovery since the great depression and stubbornly high unemployment. Under classical economic theory, an increase in wages leads to decrease in employment. So an increase in the minimum wage would cause the unemployment rate to increase and national income to decline. However the Liberals have perverted classical economic theory. They maintain that an increase in wages will not reduce employment but will increase employment because low income workers will have more money to spend and that will increase jobs. They fail to recognize that increased wages must come from somewhere. It will either come from the employer or consumer. If it comes from the employer, their retained profits to finance growth will be reduced. Hence their investments will decline, and their ability to hire new employees reduced. If it comes from the consumer in the form of higher prices to finance the higher wages, they will buy less with their money. There is no free lunch. If the Liberals’ theory of increasing the minimum wage would increase employment and national income, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour? Clearly it would bankrupt most businesses and price most consumer products and services out of the reach of consumers.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/10/12
Oh those Democrats and their hate mongering
BY: Armstrong Williams
Oh those Democrats and their hate mongering
The Democrats are using fear more than hatred since the House passed the Ryan budget along party lines. Many people do not need to be persuaded of the details—fear is enough for them to take the Democrat side. Ryan is “changing Medicare as we know it,” they say, and “change” of any kind is suddenly an automatic disqualifier.
Why are these rank and file Democrats afraid of the Ryan budget, and not afraid of the President’s budget, which, by the way, was shot down without receiving a single vote even from Democrats? President Obama has yet to offer a budget that ever balances—if we take any of his budgets, they promise permanent deficit spending. The Republican messaging problem is that no one is afraid of that.
We’ve been spending so wildly for so long that we do not even notice the deleterious effects of it. People often ask me, “what’s the big deal” about the deficit? What’s going to happen, they ask, about the national debt? Many people do not think that we will ever pay back the debt: under President Obama’s budget, they would be right. We wouldn’t pay back a dime—it’s just free money.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Oh those Democrats and their hate mongering
BY: Armstrong Williams
Oh those Democrats and their hate mongering
The Democrats are using fear more than hatred since the House passed the Ryan budget along party lines. Many people do not need to be persuaded of the details—fear is enough for them to take the Democrat side. Ryan is “changing Medicare as we know it,” they say, and “change” of any kind is suddenly an automatic disqualifier.
Why are these rank and file Democrats afraid of the Ryan budget, and not afraid of the President’s budget, which, by the way, was shot down without receiving a single vote even from Democrats? President Obama has yet to offer a budget that ever balances—if we take any of his budgets, they promise permanent deficit spending. The Republican messaging problem is that no one is afraid of that.
We’ve been spending so wildly for so long that we do not even notice the deleterious effects of it. People often ask me, “what’s the big deal” about the deficit? What’s going to happen, they ask, about the national debt? Many people do not think that we will ever pay back the debt: under President Obama’s budget, they would be right. We wouldn’t pay back a dime—it’s just free money.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/04/12
Order in the Court. Here comes the Judge.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Order in the Court. Here comes the Judge.
It is strategically unprecedented
After an unprecedented attack by President Obama on the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal Judge asked the Justice Department to give a written explanation of their opinion of what the president was conveying to the Justices as they decide the fate of Obamacare. It appears that the judicial system is defending itself as a co-equal branch of the United States Government.
This is absolutely appropriate since the president seems to feel that unelected judges have no right to interfere with the legislative and executive process. At least when they are his executive and legislative processes. This is but one of the many
radical changes that the president wants to bring about to our nation. He basically wants the judicial system to be a rubber stamp for his ideological agenda. It will certainly be educational as well as fascinating to see who wins this mammoth struggle and the implication will be
significant for the future identity of our nation.
It seems that President Obama has forgotten that our system of government, consists of three co-equal branches.. The Executive and Legislative branch must be checked by the Judicial branch in order to prevent the establishment of tyranny. He should return to his Constitutional law duties since he has apparently forgotten how our system works. The founders of our nation were very cognizant of the fact that there is a natural tendency to consolidate power and take control. Hence they established a system of checks and balances. We should all be very thankful that such a system exist today. The Supreme Court Justices hopefully will not be intimidated for fulfilling their constitutional duties.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Order in the Court. Here comes the Judge.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Order in the Court. Here comes the Judge.
It is strategically unprecedented
After an unprecedented attack by President Obama on the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal Judge asked the Justice Department to give a written explanation of their opinion of what the president was conveying to the Justices as they decide the fate of Obamacare. It appears that the judicial system is defending itself as a co-equal branch of the United States Government.
This is absolutely appropriate since the president seems to feel that unelected judges have no right to interfere with the legislative and executive process. At least when they are his executive and legislative processes. This is but one of the many
radical changes that the president wants to bring about to our nation. He basically wants the judicial system to be a rubber stamp for his ideological agenda. It will certainly be educational as well as fascinating to see who wins this mammoth struggle and the implication will be
significant for the future identity of our nation.
It seems that President Obama has forgotten that our system of government, consists of three co-equal branches.. The Executive and Legislative branch must be checked by the Judicial branch in order to prevent the establishment of tyranny. He should return to his Constitutional law duties since he has apparently forgotten how our system works. The founders of our nation were very cognizant of the fact that there is a natural tendency to consolidate power and take control. Hence they established a system of checks and balances. We should all be very thankful that such a system exist today. The Supreme Court Justices hopefully will not be intimidated for fulfilling their constitutional duties.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/03/12
They're coming for your gold assets
BY: Armstrong Williams
They're coming for your gold assets
In 1933 private ownership of gold was out lawed by the US government. As yogi Berra would say "Dejavu all over again" Americans who are privately acquiring gold, mostly in coins may have a surprise coming.
Based upon history I will encourage to digest this scenario: The federal government will purchase your coins, bullions etc. possibly excluding jewelry under a certain dollar amount at the prevailing market price of gold. It will
become a crime to own gold. You will sell your gold to the government in exchange for paper or electronic dollars. What then will happen to the price of gold after the deadline for private ownership has expired.
The US government will then peg the price at a multiple of what they paid individual citizens for their gold portfolio. Dejavu all over again. Some Americans will move their gold assets offshore. These citizens will
reap a tremendous profit by doing so. If you're old enough to remember when the US treasury ask that you use your silver dimes, quarters, 50cents and dollar pieces and turn them into the government and get paper for
your silver coins. What followed was the price of silver skyrocketing, which was in the mid 60's. We're not trying to alarm those that have gold as an asset but it is necessary to inform you what's being discussed
inside the Fed / White house locker room. By the way this is a plan being led and will be implemented by the Treasury and Secretary Geitner.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
They're coming for your gold assets
BY: Armstrong Williams
They're coming for your gold assets
In 1933 private ownership of gold was out lawed by the US government. As yogi Berra would say "Dejavu all over again" Americans who are privately acquiring gold, mostly in coins may have a surprise coming.
Based upon history I will encourage to digest this scenario: The federal government will purchase your coins, bullions etc. possibly excluding jewelry under a certain dollar amount at the prevailing market price of gold. It will
become a crime to own gold. You will sell your gold to the government in exchange for paper or electronic dollars. What then will happen to the price of gold after the deadline for private ownership has expired.
The US government will then peg the price at a multiple of what they paid individual citizens for their gold portfolio. Dejavu all over again. Some Americans will move their gold assets offshore. These citizens will
reap a tremendous profit by doing so. If you're old enough to remember when the US treasury ask that you use your silver dimes, quarters, 50cents and dollar pieces and turn them into the government and get paper for
your silver coins. What followed was the price of silver skyrocketing, which was in the mid 60's. We're not trying to alarm those that have gold as an asset but it is necessary to inform you what's being discussed
inside the Fed / White house locker room. By the way this is a plan being led and will be implemented by the Treasury and Secretary Geitner.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
04/02/12
Insurance winning hand
BY: Armstrong Williams
Insurance winning hand
Insurance companies will not be driven out of business. They will simply not insure.
Their model has always been passing the costs through and calculating the cost based on the risk.
Mandates on insurance companies can work if we have the stomach for the cost of the mandates, but the higher cost will discourage even more from paying in which will make the pool even more expensive to stay in.
Insurance companies will insure other things and do very well...they are cherry pickers. They will make money..always. Like the casino that has something for everyone and takes a cut, but dumps the things that don't make money.
Politically there are so many Seniors and illegal's with pre existing conditions that hospitals are required to serve. How will there issues and concerns be addressed ?
Congress does not have the courage to cut these people off, but also does not have the money to keep paying for them.
Pushing them onto the insurance companies will work if all the young people are forced to pay much higher rates.
My belief is that this is a strategy to force the political discussion into the Government again reclaiming healthcare and taxing us all, as they currently do in Canada...and get ready for waiting lines, certain end of life things not being covered and a death panel..and 66% income tax like Canada.
It smells like a trap to get the public stirred about government healthcare driven by those who are about to be cut off the entitlement bandwagon.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Insurance winning hand
BY: Armstrong Williams
Insurance winning hand
Insurance companies will not be driven out of business. They will simply not insure.
Their model has always been passing the costs through and calculating the cost based on the risk.
Mandates on insurance companies can work if we have the stomach for the cost of the mandates, but the higher cost will discourage even more from paying in which will make the pool even more expensive to stay in.
Insurance companies will insure other things and do very well...they are cherry pickers. They will make money..always. Like the casino that has something for everyone and takes a cut, but dumps the things that don't make money.
Politically there are so many Seniors and illegal's with pre existing conditions that hospitals are required to serve. How will there issues and concerns be addressed ?
Congress does not have the courage to cut these people off, but also does not have the money to keep paying for them.
Pushing them onto the insurance companies will work if all the young people are forced to pay much higher rates.
My belief is that this is a strategy to force the political discussion into the Government again reclaiming healthcare and taxing us all, as they currently do in Canada...and get ready for waiting lines, certain end of life things not being covered and a death panel..and 66% income tax like Canada.
It smells like a trap to get the public stirred about government healthcare driven by those who are about to be cut off the entitlement bandwagon.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/30/12
Healthcare nightmare awaits ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Healthcare nightmare awaits?
If the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate in Obamacare Unconstitutional, can it sever the mandate from the remainder of the bill? If it can’t the entire legislation is declared null and Void. If this is the eventual outcome, Congress must commence from ground zero again. If the mandate isn’t severed, the United States has an incredible healthcare nightmare that awaits. For example the provision requiring Insurance company’s to sell health insurance to those with preexisting Conditions will significantly increase the cost of their policies. This cost Increase will drive healthy individuals out of the insurance market. This In turn will drive prices much more and cause a death spiral for Insurance Company’s.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Healthcare nightmare awaits ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Healthcare nightmare awaits?
If the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate in Obamacare Unconstitutional, can it sever the mandate from the remainder of the bill? If it can’t the entire legislation is declared null and Void. If this is the eventual outcome, Congress must commence from ground zero again. If the mandate isn’t severed, the United States has an incredible healthcare nightmare that awaits. For example the provision requiring Insurance company’s to sell health insurance to those with preexisting Conditions will significantly increase the cost of their policies. This cost Increase will drive healthy individuals out of the insurance market. This In turn will drive prices much more and cause a death spiral for Insurance Company’s.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/27/12
Have we lost our minds in this country?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Have we lost our minds in this country ?
After reading the headlines about the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn’t help noticing an irony. There is all this clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury while in the service of his country.
Yet this Major Hasan, who shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah akbar, still hasn’t stood trial, and they are still debating whether he was insane, even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: slay as many infidels as possible.
So we have a guy in a war zone surrounded by people who hate and want to kill him, who cracks under the pressure. We offer him no consideration, no psych assistance or midigation, instead we seek to prosecute him to show our enemy our sense of fair play……. he must be executed immediately? But this radical traitor Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside on a US military base in a nice safe office all day murders 13, wounds 29 of our own guys, and they try to argue the poor lad suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome, from listening to real soldiers who had actual battle experience.
Two and a half years later, they still haven’t tried the murderous traitor. Have we totally lost our minds in this country?
PC has gone way to far…..
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Have we lost our minds in this country?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Have we lost our minds in this country ?
After reading the headlines about the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn’t help noticing an irony. There is all this clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury while in the service of his country.
Yet this Major Hasan, who shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah akbar, still hasn’t stood trial, and they are still debating whether he was insane, even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: slay as many infidels as possible.
So we have a guy in a war zone surrounded by people who hate and want to kill him, who cracks under the pressure. We offer him no consideration, no psych assistance or midigation, instead we seek to prosecute him to show our enemy our sense of fair play……. he must be executed immediately? But this radical traitor Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside on a US military base in a nice safe office all day murders 13, wounds 29 of our own guys, and they try to argue the poor lad suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome, from listening to real soldiers who had actual battle experience.
Two and a half years later, they still haven’t tried the murderous traitor. Have we totally lost our minds in this country?
PC has gone way to far…..
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/26/12
Disgraced in the Hood
BY: Armstrong Williams
Disgraced in the Hood
As a show of solidarity with Trayvon Martin many people wore hoodies to church yesterday. Church is suppose to be a place of reverence . A place where God is worshipped and not a place where we honor the concerns of
men above those of God. There is no question that there was an injustice in the case of Mr. Martin and there are appropriate forums for true justice. To denigrate the house of God for any reason is unjustified and continues
to down play the importance of true faith in our society. I was horrified watching tv reports and witnessing ministers delivering the sermon with a hoody and the choir singing in their hoody robes. Many of the people have
obviously not thought through the implications of their actions which unfortunately seems to be what most people do these days. We need to begin to engage our brain and not simply follow the crowd with knee jerk reactions.
We need to explain why we're doing what we're doing. Let us take this unfortunate demonstration and learn from it and not make a mockery of God and the church.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Disgraced in the Hood
BY: Armstrong Williams
Disgraced in the Hood
As a show of solidarity with Trayvon Martin many people wore hoodies to church yesterday. Church is suppose to be a place of reverence . A place where God is worshipped and not a place where we honor the concerns of
men above those of God. There is no question that there was an injustice in the case of Mr. Martin and there are appropriate forums for true justice. To denigrate the house of God for any reason is unjustified and continues
to down play the importance of true faith in our society. I was horrified watching tv reports and witnessing ministers delivering the sermon with a hoody and the choir singing in their hoody robes. Many of the people have
obviously not thought through the implications of their actions which unfortunately seems to be what most people do these days. We need to begin to engage our brain and not simply follow the crowd with knee jerk reactions.
We need to explain why we're doing what we're doing. Let us take this unfortunate demonstration and learn from it and not make a mockery of God and the church.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/22/12
The Black community accountability
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Black community accountability
It is the family and its values that makes the difference in educational attainment. With 70 %+ of American Black children born out of wedlock today compared to less than 10 % in the 1940's and 1950's, getting more black students into elite private schools in the near future is wishful
thinking. Without a doubt society must works towards repairing the almost irreparable damage to the traditional black family. That must be initially undertaken within the black community and cannot be imposed from the outside.
I have an amicable solution to many of the problems previously stated. The silver bullet to every problem within the black community today lies in the empowerment of the private institutions of God, the family, and community along with creative education. By creative education I don’t mean some state-based publicly funded non-sense, I mean education that balances creativity with discipline. The answers to poverty lie in the ability to decipher and use information to ones benefit. There are several outlines and resources one could use to change the given circumstance of individuals affected by prison and poverty within our society. I finish with a quote from Reagan's A Time for Choosing speech “Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it (now its about 70 years)—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?”
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
The Black community accountability
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Black community accountability
It is the family and its values that makes the difference in educational attainment. With 70 %+ of American Black children born out of wedlock today compared to less than 10 % in the 1940's and 1950's, getting more black students into elite private schools in the near future is wishful
thinking. Without a doubt society must works towards repairing the almost irreparable damage to the traditional black family. That must be initially undertaken within the black community and cannot be imposed from the outside.
I have an amicable solution to many of the problems previously stated. The silver bullet to every problem within the black community today lies in the empowerment of the private institutions of God, the family, and community along with creative education. By creative education I don’t mean some state-based publicly funded non-sense, I mean education that balances creativity with discipline. The answers to poverty lie in the ability to decipher and use information to ones benefit. There are several outlines and resources one could use to change the given circumstance of individuals affected by prison and poverty within our society. I finish with a quote from Reagan's A Time for Choosing speech “Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it (now its about 70 years)—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?”
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/20/12
Government: A Charitable Organization
BY: Armstrong Williams
Government: A Charitable Organization
I have often asked myself, and heard it asked by others, why so many wealthy people support liberal causes (this is the flip-side of the usual election-year frustration of the liberals with the working classes’ clinging to their guns and religion). In this presidential election, as in 2008, the Democratic Party, who claim with less and less credibility to be the champions of the poor, have farmore money to spend than the Republican Party, who are said to be the party of the greedy upper classes; how could this be?
The simple answer is this: wealthy liberals blatantly use social liberalism and big government regulation to protect their relative position in society. Big government regulation and taxation thwarts the economic mobility of those trying to move up, allowing the elites to remain elite, while still seeming pious for all their apparent efforts to help the little people.
Note that their idea of political action deals always with outcomes, never with principles: they see the federal government as a charitable organization, or a tool which they can use to reshape society—I’m not impugning motives; this is what they openly profess. Conservatives have an ideal government in mind, one that sticks to the principles of the Founders; liberals have an ideal society in mind, and they will tinker with the government until it creates one.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Government: A Charitable Organization
BY: Armstrong Williams
Government: A Charitable Organization
I have often asked myself, and heard it asked by others, why so many wealthy people support liberal causes (this is the flip-side of the usual election-year frustration of the liberals with the working classes’ clinging to their guns and religion). In this presidential election, as in 2008, the Democratic Party, who claim with less and less credibility to be the champions of the poor, have farmore money to spend than the Republican Party, who are said to be the party of the greedy upper classes; how could this be?
The simple answer is this: wealthy liberals blatantly use social liberalism and big government regulation to protect their relative position in society. Big government regulation and taxation thwarts the economic mobility of those trying to move up, allowing the elites to remain elite, while still seeming pious for all their apparent efforts to help the little people.
Note that their idea of political action deals always with outcomes, never with principles: they see the federal government as a charitable organization, or a tool which they can use to reshape society—I’m not impugning motives; this is what they openly profess. Conservatives have an ideal government in mind, one that sticks to the principles of the Founders; liberals have an ideal society in mind, and they will tinker with the government until it creates one.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/16/12
Republicans, hypocritical Dems, and Evolution
BY: Armstrong Williams
Republicans, hypocritical Dems, and Evolution
Many Liberals and their pundits mischaracterized the approach of the Republican party. It doesn’t encourage fundamentalism, but it’s political philosophy is not hostile to it. They don’t impose absolutes: you can find Republicans who are fundamentalist and atheist; traditional and libertarian; pro-life and pro-choice (Collins, Snowe, Hutchison…where, oh where are the pro-life Dems?); straight and gay (Log Cabin Republicans). Democrats rail against ‘intolerance’ but on the evidence, it is the Democrats who are the party of ‘group-think’ and intellectual rigidity. You don’t have to believe Genesis to be a Republican, but you shouldn’t ridicule those that do…like me. The Bible isn’t a book of science, and it will frustrate those that try to make it one. I do believe that God created Adam and Eve (on this vein, I’ve never understood the phrase, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” – simple: chicken was created, laid the egg).
It's encouraging hearing people use the term "believe in" evolution. As evolution is a theory - not a scientific LAW like gravity or entropy - to say it is a fact is to express belief since the evidence is not conclusive. That's what is meant by terming it a "theory.' So, if asked the question if I "believe in" evolution, I would say "NO" as well.
Republicans, hypocritical Dems, and Evolution
BY: Armstrong Williams
Republicans, hypocritical Dems, and Evolution
Many Liberals and their pundits mischaracterized the approach of the Republican party. It doesn’t encourage fundamentalism, but it’s political philosophy is not hostile to it. They don’t impose absolutes: you can find Republicans who are fundamentalist and atheist; traditional and libertarian; pro-life and pro-choice (Collins, Snowe, Hutchison…where, oh where are the pro-life Dems?); straight and gay (Log Cabin Republicans). Democrats rail against ‘intolerance’ but on the evidence, it is the Democrats who are the party of ‘group-think’ and intellectual rigidity. You don’t have to believe Genesis to be a Republican, but you shouldn’t ridicule those that do…like me. The Bible isn’t a book of science, and it will frustrate those that try to make it one. I do believe that God created Adam and Eve (on this vein, I’ve never understood the phrase, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” – simple: chicken was created, laid the egg).
It's encouraging hearing people use the term "believe in" evolution. As evolution is a theory - not a scientific LAW like gravity or entropy - to say it is a fact is to express belief since the evidence is not conclusive. That's what is meant by terming it a "theory.' So, if asked the question if I "believe in" evolution, I would say "NO" as well.
03/15/12
Will the wool continue to be pulled over our eyes ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will the wool continue to be pulled over our eyes ?
No one should really be surprise that the "Affordable" care act is going to have a tab of almost twice as much as the original projection. It is highly probable the purveyors of this massive governmental plan understood that through some
clever manipulations and presentations that they along with their media crony's would easily be able to deceive the massess into believing they were actually doing something which would save money. They knew all along what the true cost were.
This is again a vivid illustration of how deceitful politicians can take advantage of un weary citizens. They realize that most people will not investigate or avail themselves of the facts and will simply accept whatever their "Leaders" and television
commentators put forth.
It would be wonderful if this example could serve as a lesson for people to spend quality time educating themselves about basic economics, mathematics and political history. Unfortunately, most of our citizens will continue to focus on their local sports
team and the Kardashians.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Will the wool continue to be pulled over our eyes ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will the wool continue to be pulled over our eyes ?
No one should really be surprise that the "Affordable" care act is going to have a tab of almost twice as much as the original projection. It is highly probable the purveyors of this massive governmental plan understood that through some
clever manipulations and presentations that they along with their media crony's would easily be able to deceive the massess into believing they were actually doing something which would save money. They knew all along what the true cost were.
This is again a vivid illustration of how deceitful politicians can take advantage of un weary citizens. They realize that most people will not investigate or avail themselves of the facts and will simply accept whatever their "Leaders" and television
commentators put forth.
It would be wonderful if this example could serve as a lesson for people to spend quality time educating themselves about basic economics, mathematics and political history. Unfortunately, most of our citizens will continue to focus on their local sports
team and the Kardashians.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/13/12
Romney Care decision time
BY: Armstrong Williams
Romney Care decision time
It is legitimate to entertain some serious doubt about the inevitability of Romney's nomination as the GOP candidate, especially after Santorum's stunning victories last night. Not only did Romney lose in both Southern primaries, he actually placed third.
This is a strong indication of dissatisfaction on behalf of the Republican base when 70% of the voters in Mississippi and Alabama voted for someone other than the "Front Runner". Perhaps the only way Romney can salvage his candidacy is to repudiate
Romney care and finally admit it was a colossal mistake and that he in fact does not advocate large controlling governmental programs. Until he can shed that burdensome image he is unlikely to be the eventual nominee and he is likely to produce significant
damage to the party in the process.
Hopefully his campaign will reach a decision regarding which direction he will take, big government or true conservatism. The GOP hard core, bed rock uncompromising base of the party awaits his decision.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Romney Care decision time
BY: Armstrong Williams
Romney Care decision time
It is legitimate to entertain some serious doubt about the inevitability of Romney's nomination as the GOP candidate, especially after Santorum's stunning victories last night. Not only did Romney lose in both Southern primaries, he actually placed third.
This is a strong indication of dissatisfaction on behalf of the Republican base when 70% of the voters in Mississippi and Alabama voted for someone other than the "Front Runner". Perhaps the only way Romney can salvage his candidacy is to repudiate
Romney care and finally admit it was a colossal mistake and that he in fact does not advocate large controlling governmental programs. Until he can shed that burdensome image he is unlikely to be the eventual nominee and he is likely to produce significant
damage to the party in the process.
Hopefully his campaign will reach a decision regarding which direction he will take, big government or true conservatism. The GOP hard core, bed rock uncompromising base of the party awaits his decision.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/13/12
The complexity of Energy
BY: Armstrong Williams
The complexity of Energy
We need an intelligent energy policy which should include not only development of our own petroleum products but incentives for new energy development. The current Administration seems bent on a policy of raising gasoline prices in order to make alternative energy more
palatable. There thinking is that in the long run, eventually we will be much better off with an alternative energy source. However, they fail to realize that if we continue on this course of dependency on Middle Eastern oil and diminishing our own capacity, there may very well
be no long run. The reason being is we are empowering the terrorist financially with our dependency and providing Iran with the time and resources it needs to develop nuclear weaponry.
This cleary emphasizes the need for a two prong approach that incentivizes innovation while rapidly cultivating our own energy independence.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
The complexity of Energy
BY: Armstrong Williams
The complexity of Energy
We need an intelligent energy policy which should include not only development of our own petroleum products but incentives for new energy development. The current Administration seems bent on a policy of raising gasoline prices in order to make alternative energy more
palatable. There thinking is that in the long run, eventually we will be much better off with an alternative energy source. However, they fail to realize that if we continue on this course of dependency on Middle Eastern oil and diminishing our own capacity, there may very well
be no long run. The reason being is we are empowering the terrorist financially with our dependency and providing Iran with the time and resources it needs to develop nuclear weaponry.
This cleary emphasizes the need for a two prong approach that incentivizes innovation while rapidly cultivating our own energy independence.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/12/12
Economic News
BY: Armstrong Williams
Economic news
Yes, employment numbers are moving up, but there is some other sobering news: Unemployment is still 8.3% and will remain above 8% until election day; at the pace we’re on we won’t get back the jobs lost in the recession till 2020 or so, and we still have a vast number of long-term unemployed and the absolute number of employed people is still below pre-recession levels. This is not the gaining strength recovery of 1984 that propelled Reagan to re-election. Is it good enough? Who knows. I think it depends many unforeseen factors : what become the issues the candidates espouse and real-world events between now and November.
The most worrying factor for die hard Obama fans has got to be energy prices and the position he’s staked out to date. Essentially, the president is saying US supply doesn't matter as there is a world market for oil. True enough, but as the Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz illustrates, the real factor is not ‘global supply’ but ‘secure global supply.’ Oil that is developed in the US and its offshore regions is not subject to the geopolitical uncertainty of Gulf oil. I don’t think our president wants to make the case that in a scenario where Gulf supplies are interdicted, that the oil and natural gas that could be developed here would be inconsequential. Not to mention the salutary effect on futures prices of US drilling or the fact that the thousands of jobs created would be here in the U.S. Supply always matters to the determination of price and President Obama has staked out a loser position….especially as gas prices peak in the summer driving season. My guess: expect our President to find a symbolic (and easily reversible) means of caving in on the US supply issue for electoral purposes. The R candidates, and eventually the nominee should hammer him unmercifully on this issue. It’s a winner.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Economic News
BY: Armstrong Williams
Economic news
Yes, employment numbers are moving up, but there is some other sobering news: Unemployment is still 8.3% and will remain above 8% until election day; at the pace we’re on we won’t get back the jobs lost in the recession till 2020 or so, and we still have a vast number of long-term unemployed and the absolute number of employed people is still below pre-recession levels. This is not the gaining strength recovery of 1984 that propelled Reagan to re-election. Is it good enough? Who knows. I think it depends many unforeseen factors : what become the issues the candidates espouse and real-world events between now and November.
The most worrying factor for die hard Obama fans has got to be energy prices and the position he’s staked out to date. Essentially, the president is saying US supply doesn't matter as there is a world market for oil. True enough, but as the Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz illustrates, the real factor is not ‘global supply’ but ‘secure global supply.’ Oil that is developed in the US and its offshore regions is not subject to the geopolitical uncertainty of Gulf oil. I don’t think our president wants to make the case that in a scenario where Gulf supplies are interdicted, that the oil and natural gas that could be developed here would be inconsequential. Not to mention the salutary effect on futures prices of US drilling or the fact that the thousands of jobs created would be here in the U.S. Supply always matters to the determination of price and President Obama has staked out a loser position….especially as gas prices peak in the summer driving season. My guess: expect our President to find a symbolic (and easily reversible) means of caving in on the US supply issue for electoral purposes. The R candidates, and eventually the nominee should hammer him unmercifully on this issue. It’s a winner.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/09/12
Actually Low interest rates
BY: Armstrong Williams
Artificially Low interest rates
Many of my anti-capitalist colleagues say that
government spending is not crowding out private investment because
interest rates are low. Therefore there is plenty of money to finance
private investment. Unfortunately, in an attempt to protect depositors,
and the government guarantee of such deposits, the bank regulators have
increased the credit underwriting requirements on banks. Consequently,
they are not lending to small and medium sized businesses.
Interest rates are low because the Fed is printing money and as a result
significantly increasing the money supply thereby making money less
expensive. The irony of artificially low interest rates is that it
reduces the income of pensioners and savers. This in effect shifts
money and consumption from savers and transfers it to the government who
is borrowing at artificially low rates.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Actually Low interest rates
BY: Armstrong Williams
Artificially Low interest rates
Many of my anti-capitalist colleagues say that
government spending is not crowding out private investment because
interest rates are low. Therefore there is plenty of money to finance
private investment. Unfortunately, in an attempt to protect depositors,
and the government guarantee of such deposits, the bank regulators have
increased the credit underwriting requirements on banks. Consequently,
they are not lending to small and medium sized businesses.
Interest rates are low because the Fed is printing money and as a result
significantly increasing the money supply thereby making money less
expensive. The irony of artificially low interest rates is that it
reduces the income of pensioners and savers. This in effect shifts
money and consumption from savers and transfers it to the government who
is borrowing at artificially low rates.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/08/12
Allen West Betrayed
BY: Armstrong Williams
Allen West Betrayed
Has anyone with a modicum of common sense understands why the Republican party of Florida allowed Congressman Allen West to be gerrymandered out of his congressional district?
It would make sense if this were Massachusetts or California: if a Democrat-majority state had tried to force out Congressman West, we could easily see why. But this is a battleground state, and one whose legislature is run by his fellow Republicans. While some might think that it might be better to have someone safe, someone timid, in such an environment, I disagree wholeheartedly: it is precisely in such tight races that we need someone who can motivate the base to show up on election day, and someone who can get people excited. If GOP candidates don’t look any different from the Democrats, what would be the point of voting for them?
Florida is going to be perhaps the most important state in this year’s elections. It is the fourth-largest in the union, and a toss-up swing state where Republicans have a huge majority of the Congressional delegation. Its only rival in electoral significance is Ohio. Do Republicans want powerful voices representing the party in these states, or weak ones?
His only fault is that he didn't embrace the Republican establishment when their views were contrary to those of the Tea Party.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Allen West Betrayed
BY: Armstrong Williams
Allen West Betrayed
Has anyone with a modicum of common sense understands why the Republican party of Florida allowed Congressman Allen West to be gerrymandered out of his congressional district?
It would make sense if this were Massachusetts or California: if a Democrat-majority state had tried to force out Congressman West, we could easily see why. But this is a battleground state, and one whose legislature is run by his fellow Republicans. While some might think that it might be better to have someone safe, someone timid, in such an environment, I disagree wholeheartedly: it is precisely in such tight races that we need someone who can motivate the base to show up on election day, and someone who can get people excited. If GOP candidates don’t look any different from the Democrats, what would be the point of voting for them?
Florida is going to be perhaps the most important state in this year’s elections. It is the fourth-largest in the union, and a toss-up swing state where Republicans have a huge majority of the Congressional delegation. Its only rival in electoral significance is Ohio. Do Republicans want powerful voices representing the party in these states, or weak ones?
His only fault is that he didn't embrace the Republican establishment when their views were contrary to those of the Tea Party.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/07/12
Black Bourgeois Shame
BY: Armstrong Williams
Black Bourgeois Shame
Why are black middle class conservatives ashamed of the traditional conservative values that account for their success? Most successful middle class American Blacks are from families that value education, hard work, religion, and a traditional family. Yet, many middle class Blacks seek to justify the culture of the dysfunctional segments of the black community that are failing academically and economically in America. Is it guilt for their own success or do they really believe that there is a virtue in the failing subculture of a predominant number of Black Americans. Most successful people believe in and proselytize the values that have made them successful. Why are successful middle class blacks the exception? Does the Civil rights leadership want to keep their less successful brothers and sisters mired in the bottom of the swamp so they can feel superior as members of the “talented tenth” and derive their wealth from the continued suffering ? It is a known fact that peddling racism, poverty, and victimization is a huge financial industry in the United States.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Black Bourgeois Shame
BY: Armstrong Williams
Black Bourgeois Shame
Why are black middle class conservatives ashamed of the traditional conservative values that account for their success? Most successful middle class American Blacks are from families that value education, hard work, religion, and a traditional family. Yet, many middle class Blacks seek to justify the culture of the dysfunctional segments of the black community that are failing academically and economically in America. Is it guilt for their own success or do they really believe that there is a virtue in the failing subculture of a predominant number of Black Americans. Most successful people believe in and proselytize the values that have made them successful. Why are successful middle class blacks the exception? Does the Civil rights leadership want to keep their less successful brothers and sisters mired in the bottom of the swamp so they can feel superior as members of the “talented tenth” and derive their wealth from the continued suffering ? It is a known fact that peddling racism, poverty, and victimization is a huge financial industry in the United States.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/06/12
Reducing the power of the Federal Reserve
BY: Armstrong Williams
Reducing the Federal Reserve power
Ron Paul deserves credit (if you pardon the pun) for raising the question of monetary policy among the general electorate. We must examine the wisdom of its independence from Congressional oversight. A more moderate view, one we should all be able to agree on, is that the Federal Reserve must be subject to a public audit of its activities. Surely no one on either side of the aisle thinks it wise to put so much power in the hands of so few without any check or balance.
Steve Forbes, investing and business genius, says that it is almost inevitable that the United States return to the gold standard, which would completely take away the power of the Fed to manipulate the market and, thus, manipulate our lives. Another irony is that it is our friends on the Left who fear this change and wish to preserve the status quo, afraid of the consequences of restoring convertibility to gold simply because we haven't done it before.
By taking away the power of the Fed and giving it to the free market, we will all benefit. The market knows best how to allocate resources, and not even the brightest and best-connected of our technocrats.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Reducing the power of the Federal Reserve
BY: Armstrong Williams
Reducing the Federal Reserve power
Ron Paul deserves credit (if you pardon the pun) for raising the question of monetary policy among the general electorate. We must examine the wisdom of its independence from Congressional oversight. A more moderate view, one we should all be able to agree on, is that the Federal Reserve must be subject to a public audit of its activities. Surely no one on either side of the aisle thinks it wise to put so much power in the hands of so few without any check or balance.
Steve Forbes, investing and business genius, says that it is almost inevitable that the United States return to the gold standard, which would completely take away the power of the Fed to manipulate the market and, thus, manipulate our lives. Another irony is that it is our friends on the Left who fear this change and wish to preserve the status quo, afraid of the consequences of restoring convertibility to gold simply because we haven't done it before.
By taking away the power of the Fed and giving it to the free market, we will all benefit. The market knows best how to allocate resources, and not even the brightest and best-connected of our technocrats.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/05/12
New York dependency on Wall Street
BY: Armstrong Williams
New York dependency on Wall Street
In case you haven't noticed of late, but NY State is in serious financial trouble. Not unexpectedly NY State and NY City depend on the success of Wall Street for their budgets. Wall Street activities account for 20% of State Tax revenues, 13% of NY City revenues before the recession .
These revenues have significantly dropped 14% and 7% with the state and city respectively. The state also lost 28,000 high paying employees in the Securities industry. In 2011 the bonus pool dropped 14%. No matter your thoughts about Wall Street ,there golden goose is being severely wounded, if not completely destroyed.
To compound and further complicate matters, rather than embracing budget cuts the state is borrowing significant amounts from its pension plan. For the past several years they have borrowed an estimated a quarter of a billion dollars. This borrowing maybe a way of subverting the States balance budget amendment , but it certainly does not protect the NY State taxpayer who will eventually pay this piper.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
New York dependency on Wall Street
BY: Armstrong Williams
New York dependency on Wall Street
In case you haven't noticed of late, but NY State is in serious financial trouble. Not unexpectedly NY State and NY City depend on the success of Wall Street for their budgets. Wall Street activities account for 20% of State Tax revenues, 13% of NY City revenues before the recession .
These revenues have significantly dropped 14% and 7% with the state and city respectively. The state also lost 28,000 high paying employees in the Securities industry. In 2011 the bonus pool dropped 14%. No matter your thoughts about Wall Street ,there golden goose is being severely wounded, if not completely destroyed.
To compound and further complicate matters, rather than embracing budget cuts the state is borrowing significant amounts from its pension plan. For the past several years they have borrowed an estimated a quarter of a billion dollars. This borrowing maybe a way of subverting the States balance budget amendment , but it certainly does not protect the NY State taxpayer who will eventually pay this piper.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/02/12
Wall Street, Taxes, and the Economy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Wall Street, Taxes, and the Economy
The Main Stream media is reporting that the Stock market is rallying, because Wall Street insiders are encouraged and energized that President Obama will be reelected.
Come on readers and tell us if you know anybody on Wall street that would buy stock because of Obama's reelection. The tax dividends on stocks will increase 300% if President Obama is reelected in November 2012. Why would an investor buy stock when his after tax return is being cut from 85% to 55%% ? Someone with a modicum of common sense would say the stock market is surging because they see the president losing the 2012 election.
Notice to Liberals who think high state income tax rates don't matter. Tiger Woods announced yesterday that California doesn't have as many successful professional golfers as it was once known for. They have all moved to low tax states like Florida, Texas, and Nevada.
I implore someone, just anyone to tell us whom this economy is improving for ? It is rare when speaking to any one, regardless of their socio economic standing, do they feel the economy is improving anywhere. All of us have been significantly diminish in the era of Obamalism.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Wall Street, Taxes, and the Economy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Wall Street, Taxes, and the Economy
The Main Stream media is reporting that the Stock market is rallying, because Wall Street insiders are encouraged and energized that President Obama will be reelected.
Come on readers and tell us if you know anybody on Wall street that would buy stock because of Obama's reelection. The tax dividends on stocks will increase 300% if President Obama is reelected in November 2012. Why would an investor buy stock when his after tax return is being cut from 85% to 55%% ? Someone with a modicum of common sense would say the stock market is surging because they see the president losing the 2012 election.
Notice to Liberals who think high state income tax rates don't matter. Tiger Woods announced yesterday that California doesn't have as many successful professional golfers as it was once known for. They have all moved to low tax states like Florida, Texas, and Nevada.
I implore someone, just anyone to tell us whom this economy is improving for ? It is rare when speaking to any one, regardless of their socio economic standing, do they feel the economy is improving anywhere. All of us have been significantly diminish in the era of Obamalism.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
03/01/12
Middle East Observations
BY: Armstrong Williams
Middle East Observations
The conversation between President Obama and Israel's President Netanyahu next week in Washington could have huge implication for both deciding on a course of action. What they say to one another and how they interpret each other’s posture will be critical.
· Global pressure continues to mount on Iran, making it more difficult for them to go to their people to justify the nuclear program. The economy is starting to come apart at the seams and the sanctions are increasingly biting.
· The ayatollahs will have to make the calculation that a nuclear program is not worth the costs, or that they won’t be able to placate the people. They look at North Korea a model—once it got nukes then the world had to take it seriously in a whole new way. The ayatollah currently look at the nuclear capability as an insurance card.
· Russia and China are finding it harder to continue providing cover for Iran. At the same time, they are continuing to prop up Assad because of business interests and out of a desire of blocking the United States and putting themselves forward as a counterweight to the world’s lone superpower.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Middle East Observations
BY: Armstrong Williams
Middle East Observations
The conversation between President Obama and Israel's President Netanyahu next week in Washington could have huge implication for both deciding on a course of action. What they say to one another and how they interpret each other’s posture will be critical.
· Global pressure continues to mount on Iran, making it more difficult for them to go to their people to justify the nuclear program. The economy is starting to come apart at the seams and the sanctions are increasingly biting.
· The ayatollahs will have to make the calculation that a nuclear program is not worth the costs, or that they won’t be able to placate the people. They look at North Korea a model—once it got nukes then the world had to take it seriously in a whole new way. The ayatollah currently look at the nuclear capability as an insurance card.
· Russia and China are finding it harder to continue providing cover for Iran. At the same time, they are continuing to prop up Assad because of business interests and out of a desire of blocking the United States and putting themselves forward as a counterweight to the world’s lone superpower.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/29/12
Obama "Cling to my Religion and Guns"
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama "Cling to my Religion and Guns"
President Obama is urging black voters to encourage their church congregation to support his reelection (not surprising). Why would a Christian church implore it's members to support a politician whose views are antithetical to the church ? Let's call the roll.
Same Sex marriages.
Abortion
Forcing Churches to comply with contraceptives
Removal of "In God we Trust" from our currency
Not giving Christianity the same protections as
Islam in government policy and free speech.
Is the black church so self destructive that they are willing to sacrifice their Theology to elect a politician who disparages and make a mockery of the Church ?
Frankly I would rather "Cling to my Religion and Guns" than to "Hope" for "Change" that would emasculate my religious and spiritual beliefs.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Obama "Cling to my Religion and Guns"
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama "Cling to my Religion and Guns"
President Obama is urging black voters to encourage their church congregation to support his reelection (not surprising). Why would a Christian church implore it's members to support a politician whose views are antithetical to the church ? Let's call the roll.
Same Sex marriages.
Abortion
Forcing Churches to comply with contraceptives
Removal of "In God we Trust" from our currency
Not giving Christianity the same protections as
Islam in government policy and free speech.
Is the black church so self destructive that they are willing to sacrifice their Theology to elect a politician who disparages and make a mockery of the Church ?
Frankly I would rather "Cling to my Religion and Guns" than to "Hope" for "Change" that would emasculate my religious and spiritual beliefs.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/29/12
Liberalism decreases economic mobility
BY: Armstrong Williams
Liberalism decreases economic mobility.
Liberalism decreases economic mobility. The minimum wage prevents unskilled young workers from obtaining necessary jobs and thereby skills that allows upward mobility in the world. The public education system perpetuates poor academic performance among disadvantage Americans. Without a good education these disadvantage students are crippled for a lifetime in their pursuit of the American dream.
Expensive FDA approvals not only prevent startup company's from investing in potentially life saving drugs, but they also hamper young medical entrepreneurs from bringing new innovative products to the market and thereby precluding these innovators from increasing their potential wealth. Financial regulations entrenches the Blue Chip Wall St. giants who can afford the expensive legal talent required to negotiate these rules to continue controlling the wealth. The expense of complying with these regulations prevents young financial entrepreneurs from developing competing financial service companies.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Liberalism decreases economic mobility
BY: Armstrong Williams
Liberalism decreases economic mobility.
Liberalism decreases economic mobility. The minimum wage prevents unskilled young workers from obtaining necessary jobs and thereby skills that allows upward mobility in the world. The public education system perpetuates poor academic performance among disadvantage Americans. Without a good education these disadvantage students are crippled for a lifetime in their pursuit of the American dream.
Expensive FDA approvals not only prevent startup company's from investing in potentially life saving drugs, but they also hamper young medical entrepreneurs from bringing new innovative products to the market and thereby precluding these innovators from increasing their potential wealth. Financial regulations entrenches the Blue Chip Wall St. giants who can afford the expensive legal talent required to negotiate these rules to continue controlling the wealth. The expense of complying with these regulations prevents young financial entrepreneurs from developing competing financial service companies.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/27/12
Stop apologizing Mr. President
BY: Armstrong Williams
Stop apologizing Mr. President
President Obama should stop apologizing to the Afghan people about American troops burning the Koran.
The Afghan prisoners converted a holy book into an implement of war by using it to distribute subversive literature.
In doing so they desecrated their holy book and took it out of the realm of being a sacred object. The object the US troops burned was an implement of war and not a holy relic.
Mr. Obama, please don't apologize for our troops destroying an object our enemies often use in the war of terror against us.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Stop apologizing Mr. President
BY: Armstrong Williams
Stop apologizing Mr. President
President Obama should stop apologizing to the Afghan people about American troops burning the Koran.
The Afghan prisoners converted a holy book into an implement of war by using it to distribute subversive literature.
In doing so they desecrated their holy book and took it out of the realm of being a sacred object. The object the US troops burned was an implement of war and not a holy relic.
Mr. Obama, please don't apologize for our troops destroying an object our enemies often use in the war of terror against us.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/24/12
Morality and Education
BY: Armstrong Williams
Morality and Education
President Madison once opined that if you educate a man without teaching him morals you create a menace to society. With education you give people the tools to have tremendous effects on their environment. If that power is not tempered by morality, the changes that are wrought are not likely to be beneficial. For this reason we should reexamine the deletion of the teaching of values in our public schools. If our young people don't understand and appreciate the difference between right and wrong, we will continue to experience the further deterioration of the high standards of morality that once characterized our society.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Morality and Education
BY: Armstrong Williams
Morality and Education
President Madison once opined that if you educate a man without teaching him morals you create a menace to society. With education you give people the tools to have tremendous effects on their environment. If that power is not tempered by morality, the changes that are wrought are not likely to be beneficial. For this reason we should reexamine the deletion of the teaching of values in our public schools. If our young people don't understand and appreciate the difference between right and wrong, we will continue to experience the further deterioration of the high standards of morality that once characterized our society.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/23/12
The New Obama tax system
BY: Armstrong Williams
The new Obama tax system
President Obama has called for a major reform of our corporate tax system. The good news is that this will reduce the marginal corporate tax to 28%.
This would put the United States corporate income tax inline with most of our global competitors.
The serious bad news is that our president will penalize individual tax payers who receive
dividends. By effectively increasing the tax on dividends to nearly 45%, Obama will distort the allocation of capital in our country.
He will also discourage Americans from purchasing dividend yielding stocks. This will have a long term negative impact on the
stock market and for corporations desperate to raise equity capital.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
The New Obama tax system
BY: Armstrong Williams
The new Obama tax system
President Obama has called for a major reform of our corporate tax system. The good news is that this will reduce the marginal corporate tax to 28%.
This would put the United States corporate income tax inline with most of our global competitors.
The serious bad news is that our president will penalize individual tax payers who receive
dividends. By effectively increasing the tax on dividends to nearly 45%, Obama will distort the allocation of capital in our country.
He will also discourage Americans from purchasing dividend yielding stocks. This will have a long term negative impact on the
stock market and for corporations desperate to raise equity capital.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/22/12
The Fed Finances the deficit
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Fed finances the deficit
If the Fed reserve didn't keep interest rates abnormally low, the federal deficit would soar by nearly $500 billion dollars in the first year. The arithmetic is simple, rates are 2 to 3 % lower than they should be: The outstanding Federal debt is $15 Trillion Dollars. 3% additional on $15 Trillion is $450 billion dollars additional deficit. By having these abnormal low interest rates, the fed is also discouraging Americans from saving money and encouraging them to borrow additional money to their already over leveraged balance sheets. The only option for our government repaying the federal debt is for the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt. What this means is the Fed will continue to increase the money supply, causing inflation and enabling the Federal Government to pay back debt obligations with debased cheap dollars.
The Federal Reserve is an unelected body without oversight from Congress or auditors. Who is the Fed responsible to other than itself ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
The Fed Finances the deficit
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Fed finances the deficit
If the Fed reserve didn't keep interest rates abnormally low, the federal deficit would soar by nearly $500 billion dollars in the first year. The arithmetic is simple, rates are 2 to 3 % lower than they should be: The outstanding Federal debt is $15 Trillion Dollars. 3% additional on $15 Trillion is $450 billion dollars additional deficit. By having these abnormal low interest rates, the fed is also discouraging Americans from saving money and encouraging them to borrow additional money to their already over leveraged balance sheets. The only option for our government repaying the federal debt is for the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt. What this means is the Fed will continue to increase the money supply, causing inflation and enabling the Federal Government to pay back debt obligations with debased cheap dollars.
The Federal Reserve is an unelected body without oversight from Congress or auditors. Who is the Fed responsible to other than itself ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/21/12
Europe is our economic example
BY: Armstrong Williams
Europe is our economic example.
As America follows Europe down the path of the social welfare state, we will see our wealthy dynamic capitalist economy slide into the economic lethargy of a state run economy. Our turn around will come, if at all, only when we, like Greece, hit economic bottom. At that point, we will realize the truth of Margret Thatcher’s words: “the problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.” Will it be too late at that point to turn around?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Europe is our economic example
BY: Armstrong Williams
Europe is our economic example.
As America follows Europe down the path of the social welfare state, we will see our wealthy dynamic capitalist economy slide into the economic lethargy of a state run economy. Our turn around will come, if at all, only when we, like Greece, hit economic bottom. At that point, we will realize the truth of Margret Thatcher’s words: “the problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.” Will it be too late at that point to turn around?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/20/12
Rising Socialism
BY: Armstrong Williams
Rising Socialism
Unless the American people regain a strong commitment to the traditional American values of self reliance, individual liberty, and equality of opportunity, our democracy will inevitably lead to socialism. We are seeing an erosion of respect for other people’s property rights and a decline in individual responsibility. We are seeing an increase in entitlement mentality and class envy in our society. Instead of looking in the mirror, we look for scapegoats to explain our misfortune. Unfortunately, this decline in our traditional values is being championed by the political establishment, including the President of the United States, the intellectual elite and the main stream media.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Rising Socialism
BY: Armstrong Williams
Rising Socialism
Unless the American people regain a strong commitment to the traditional American values of self reliance, individual liberty, and equality of opportunity, our democracy will inevitably lead to socialism. We are seeing an erosion of respect for other people’s property rights and a decline in individual responsibility. We are seeing an increase in entitlement mentality and class envy in our society. Instead of looking in the mirror, we look for scapegoats to explain our misfortune. Unfortunately, this decline in our traditional values is being championed by the political establishment, including the President of the United States, the intellectual elite and the main stream media.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/16/12
What will be Obama's lasting legacy ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What will be Obama's lasting legacy ?
Would America have social security without Roosevelt? How would the world have been different if Roosevelt had not supported the allies before America’s entrance into World War II?
If Eisenhower had not begun the building of the interstate highway system in the 1950’s, would the American landscape have been very different?
What if Kennedy had not called Nikita Khrushchev’s bluff over the Cuban missile crisis? Could America have tolerated Russian missiles 90 miles off shore?
What would be the state of civil rights in America if Kennedy and Johnson had not been Presidents? It took former Speaker of the House LBJ to push through the Civil rights Act.
If Regan had not implemented his tax cuts and small government campaign, would America have been as prosperous in the late 20th and early 21st century? Would the “Iron Curtain” have fallen had Regan not challenged the “Evil Empire”?
Will Americans look back on the administration of Bill Clinton as the last time a federal budget was balanced?
And what will eventually be the historical significance of the Obama era ? Will he through his socialist agenda, precipitate the undoing of the American way of life ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
What will be Obama's lasting legacy ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What will be Obama's lasting legacy ?
Would America have social security without Roosevelt? How would the world have been different if Roosevelt had not supported the allies before America’s entrance into World War II?
If Eisenhower had not begun the building of the interstate highway system in the 1950’s, would the American landscape have been very different?
What if Kennedy had not called Nikita Khrushchev’s bluff over the Cuban missile crisis? Could America have tolerated Russian missiles 90 miles off shore?
What would be the state of civil rights in America if Kennedy and Johnson had not been Presidents? It took former Speaker of the House LBJ to push through the Civil rights Act.
If Regan had not implemented his tax cuts and small government campaign, would America have been as prosperous in the late 20th and early 21st century? Would the “Iron Curtain” have fallen had Regan not challenged the “Evil Empire”?
Will Americans look back on the administration of Bill Clinton as the last time a federal budget was balanced?
And what will eventually be the historical significance of the Obama era ? Will he through his socialist agenda, precipitate the undoing of the American way of life ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/15/12
An era of no more Religion
BY: Armstrong Williams
An era of no more Religion
Does the Obama administration want to force the Catholic Church to abandon its missions in health, education and welfare in order to be true to its beliefs?
It could happen; it’s already beginning to happen. Due to the radical liberal homosexual agenda, Catholic Charities have already had to close down adoption agencies in states where it is considered unfair discrimination to refuse to give children to homosexual couples. By forcing the Catholic Church, history’s largest social service organization, out of business, aren’t we throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water?
Not only does the government want you to pay more in taxes to fund government welfare programs, but it wants to put out of business its chief competition—religion. Is this issue just another way for the government to increase its power in society by taking over these services? Is it better that those in need look to the Church or the government for help? Personally, I’d rather look to the Church.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
An era of no more Religion
BY: Armstrong Williams
An era of no more Religion
Does the Obama administration want to force the Catholic Church to abandon its missions in health, education and welfare in order to be true to its beliefs?
It could happen; it’s already beginning to happen. Due to the radical liberal homosexual agenda, Catholic Charities have already had to close down adoption agencies in states where it is considered unfair discrimination to refuse to give children to homosexual couples. By forcing the Catholic Church, history’s largest social service organization, out of business, aren’t we throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water?
Not only does the government want you to pay more in taxes to fund government welfare programs, but it wants to put out of business its chief competition—religion. Is this issue just another way for the government to increase its power in society by taking over these services? Is it better that those in need look to the Church or the government for help? Personally, I’d rather look to the Church.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/14/12
Misplaced attention: What is important?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Misplaced attention: What is important ?
This past weekend the entertainment world lost one of its biggest stars with the death of Whitney Houston. Based on the news coverage of this event you would think that much more
was loss than an individual life. Although any loss of life is tragic, the obsession of our culture with celebrity is reminiscent of the adulation bestowed upon royalty and sports figures
in many other cultures. This also reminds us of the undue attention paid to athletes and famous people in the Roman and Greek empires prior to their fall. At a time when our nation
faces enormous problems we do have time to be sympathetic to the loss of any life. We must learn to focus our attention and efforts on those problems that threaten our very existence.
We should cease living in a fantasy world created by the sports and entertainment industry which act like a narcotic but have no long term benefit.
This blog is in no way a judgement on the life of Ms. Houston, it's written to remind our larger society on the importance of focusing our attention on things that truly matter in our nation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Misplaced attention: What is important?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Misplaced attention: What is important ?
This past weekend the entertainment world lost one of its biggest stars with the death of Whitney Houston. Based on the news coverage of this event you would think that much more
was loss than an individual life. Although any loss of life is tragic, the obsession of our culture with celebrity is reminiscent of the adulation bestowed upon royalty and sports figures
in many other cultures. This also reminds us of the undue attention paid to athletes and famous people in the Roman and Greek empires prior to their fall. At a time when our nation
faces enormous problems we do have time to be sympathetic to the loss of any life. We must learn to focus our attention and efforts on those problems that threaten our very existence.
We should cease living in a fantasy world created by the sports and entertainment industry which act like a narcotic but have no long term benefit.
This blog is in no way a judgement on the life of Ms. Houston, it's written to remind our larger society on the importance of focusing our attention on things that truly matter in our nation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/13/12
The Emperor's new clothes
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama pulled a slight of hand with Obamacare Catholic church compromise.
The Emperor’s new clothes
The President’s Obama Care compromise is that Catholic charities don't have to offer contraceptives to its employees through their mandatory healthcare insurance policies. Instead their insurance companies must provide employees the contraceptives for free. This is not a compromise but a slight of hand.
Who does the administration think is going to pay for these contraceptives? If they think the insurance company out of the goodness of its heart will pay for these contraceptives out of profits, they are gravely mistaken. Instead, when the insurance company quotes a Catholic charity a health Insurance policy that excludes free contraceptives, they will knowingly price it at the same rate as that of an institution that must provide contraceptives to its employees. If they are prohibited from charging the Catholic charities the same rate as other institutions and must charge a lower rate, then the insurance companies will pass the costs on to all the non Catholic charities policy holders. That means the rest of America must subsidize contraceptives for the workers of Catholic charities.
My friends let me be the first to say that this is clearly not fair. Most of us have enough problems paying for our own contraceptives. The last thing we need is for Obama Care to make us pay for the contraceptives of employees of the Catholic Charities.
One would have to be blind and completely incoherent, not to recognize that somebody has to bear the cost of these contraceptives. If it’s not the Catholic charities it will be the other policy holders, meaning you and I bearing these costs. So, Mr. President, are you asking the rest of America to pay for your compromise with the Catholic Church? That is not fair. Or are you going to let the insurance companies pass on the cost of the free contraceptives to the Catholic charities through higher premiums for the contraceptive exclusion health care policies? That is not a compromise.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
The Emperor's new clothes
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama pulled a slight of hand with Obamacare Catholic church compromise.
The Emperor’s new clothes
The President’s Obama Care compromise is that Catholic charities don't have to offer contraceptives to its employees through their mandatory healthcare insurance policies. Instead their insurance companies must provide employees the contraceptives for free. This is not a compromise but a slight of hand.
Who does the administration think is going to pay for these contraceptives? If they think the insurance company out of the goodness of its heart will pay for these contraceptives out of profits, they are gravely mistaken. Instead, when the insurance company quotes a Catholic charity a health Insurance policy that excludes free contraceptives, they will knowingly price it at the same rate as that of an institution that must provide contraceptives to its employees. If they are prohibited from charging the Catholic charities the same rate as other institutions and must charge a lower rate, then the insurance companies will pass the costs on to all the non Catholic charities policy holders. That means the rest of America must subsidize contraceptives for the workers of Catholic charities.
My friends let me be the first to say that this is clearly not fair. Most of us have enough problems paying for our own contraceptives. The last thing we need is for Obama Care to make us pay for the contraceptives of employees of the Catholic Charities.
One would have to be blind and completely incoherent, not to recognize that somebody has to bear the cost of these contraceptives. If it’s not the Catholic charities it will be the other policy holders, meaning you and I bearing these costs. So, Mr. President, are you asking the rest of America to pay for your compromise with the Catholic Church? That is not fair. Or are you going to let the insurance companies pass on the cost of the free contraceptives to the Catholic charities through higher premiums for the contraceptive exclusion health care policies? That is not a compromise.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/10/12
America the coming secular nation
BY: Armstrong Williams
America, the coming secular nation
Isn't it convenient how this administration continue to manipulate our separation of church and state. In fact what they're doing is trampling on the first amendment without any conscious. Our government was never designed to control the church and the church should never have control over the government. This administration is constantly testing the waters to see how much they can further erode the rights of the people. There is no justification for forcing people to disregard their deeply held religious convictions in a "free" country. This coupled with the president's pronouncement a couple of years ago that we were not a Judeo-christian nation and his tolerance of restrictions on Catholic Priest who serve the military, calls into question his allegiance to our constitution. It is a small wonder that some of his associates have recently called for a review of the relevance of our constitution. If anyone doubted that our country is on the brink of major changes those doubts should now be removed. Are we willing to undergo such a radical change from our noble past ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
America the coming secular nation
BY: Armstrong Williams
America, the coming secular nation
Isn't it convenient how this administration continue to manipulate our separation of church and state. In fact what they're doing is trampling on the first amendment without any conscious. Our government was never designed to control the church and the church should never have control over the government. This administration is constantly testing the waters to see how much they can further erode the rights of the people. There is no justification for forcing people to disregard their deeply held religious convictions in a "free" country. This coupled with the president's pronouncement a couple of years ago that we were not a Judeo-christian nation and his tolerance of restrictions on Catholic Priest who serve the military, calls into question his allegiance to our constitution. It is a small wonder that some of his associates have recently called for a review of the relevance of our constitution. If anyone doubted that our country is on the brink of major changes those doubts should now be removed. Are we willing to undergo such a radical change from our noble past ?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/09/12
Obama's Catholic church indignation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Catholic church indignation
With unbelievable hubris, the Obamacarebureaucrats in Washington exclude the Church’s non-liturgical mission from the religious exemption ofObamacare. (Not the elected Congress, but self righteous bureaucrats made this decision!) These bureaucrats claim the Church serves non-Catholicsin its non-liturgical mission, and therefore this is not its core religious mission. Imagine, the bureaucrats understand the church’s mission better than theclergy! Even many liberal Catholics understand that the mission of the Catholic Church extends beyond the sanctuary.
It is well known that use of contraceptives and abortions are a violation of Catholic Church doctrine. Forcing Catholic institutions to fund contraception and abortions for its employees under Obamacare is clearly a violation of its doctrine and religious freedom.
Does the administration want to force the Catholic Church to abandon its missions in health, education and welfare in order to be true to its beliefs? Instead of Catholic Charities relying on charitable dollars to fund these missions, perhaps the government prefers to use taxpayer dollars to fund them! Is this issue just another way for the government to increase its power in society by taking over these services? Is it better that those in need look to the Church or the government for help? Personally, I’d rather look to the Church.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Obama's Catholic church indignation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Catholic church indignation
With unbelievable hubris, the Obamacarebureaucrats in Washington exclude the Church’s non-liturgical mission from the religious exemption ofObamacare. (Not the elected Congress, but self righteous bureaucrats made this decision!) These bureaucrats claim the Church serves non-Catholicsin its non-liturgical mission, and therefore this is not its core religious mission. Imagine, the bureaucrats understand the church’s mission better than theclergy! Even many liberal Catholics understand that the mission of the Catholic Church extends beyond the sanctuary.
It is well known that use of contraceptives and abortions are a violation of Catholic Church doctrine. Forcing Catholic institutions to fund contraception and abortions for its employees under Obamacare is clearly a violation of its doctrine and religious freedom.
Does the administration want to force the Catholic Church to abandon its missions in health, education and welfare in order to be true to its beliefs? Instead of Catholic Charities relying on charitable dollars to fund these missions, perhaps the government prefers to use taxpayer dollars to fund them! Is this issue just another way for the government to increase its power in society by taking over these services? Is it better that those in need look to the Church or the government for help? Personally, I’d rather look to the Church.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/08/12
Conservatism ultimately win elections
BY: Armstrong Williams
Conservatism ultimately win elections
In 2012 we have yet another election year that is primarily a reaction against the establishment, and the country has swung back and forth yet again, unhappy with both parties. But why?
The problem with George W. Bush was not that he was conservative, but that he was not conservative enough-he hurt the credibility of the GOP by bloating the government further, and not just the military and the Department of Homeland Security, but, in his "compassionate" conservatism, blowing money on domestic spending as well.
If the Republicans stick to constitutional and classical liberal principles, they win elections. They got drunk with power after Gingrich took over in 1994, and didn't deliver on their promises. Since then, they have collectively failed to practice what they preach. The worst of their transgressions was the Medicare Part D entitlement that now-Speaker Boehner and President Bush added, worth around 13 trillion in unfunded dollars, hoping to bribe their way to a permanent majority.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Conservatism ultimately win elections
BY: Armstrong Williams
Conservatism ultimately win elections
In 2012 we have yet another election year that is primarily a reaction against the establishment, and the country has swung back and forth yet again, unhappy with both parties. But why?
The problem with George W. Bush was not that he was conservative, but that he was not conservative enough-he hurt the credibility of the GOP by bloating the government further, and not just the military and the Department of Homeland Security, but, in his "compassionate" conservatism, blowing money on domestic spending as well.
If the Republicans stick to constitutional and classical liberal principles, they win elections. They got drunk with power after Gingrich took over in 1994, and didn't deliver on their promises. Since then, they have collectively failed to practice what they preach. The worst of their transgressions was the Medicare Part D entitlement that now-Speaker Boehner and President Bush added, worth around 13 trillion in unfunded dollars, hoping to bribe their way to a permanent majority.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/07/12
Santorum Rising
BY: Armstrong Williams
Santorum Rising
Recent polling data indicates that Rick Santorum is rapidly moving up in the polls as the anti Romney candidate. Gingrich seems to be losing his edge in that category simply because of his continued mean spirited attacks, rather than focusing on issues that truly matter . Romney has permanently damaged himself among independents by destroying his nice guy image with negativism while not emphasizing his 59 point economic plan. It is rather pathetic that with so many glaring issues facing our diminishing nation, the Republican candidates can find nothing better to do than tear each other down. Rick Santorum has tried to focus on the issues and it's now paying dividends for him. If he can resist the urge to engage in the mud slinging he may in fact emerge as a serious challenge to Romney.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Santorum Rising
BY: Armstrong Williams
Santorum Rising
Recent polling data indicates that Rick Santorum is rapidly moving up in the polls as the anti Romney candidate. Gingrich seems to be losing his edge in that category simply because of his continued mean spirited attacks, rather than focusing on issues that truly matter . Romney has permanently damaged himself among independents by destroying his nice guy image with negativism while not emphasizing his 59 point economic plan. It is rather pathetic that with so many glaring issues facing our diminishing nation, the Republican candidates can find nothing better to do than tear each other down. Rick Santorum has tried to focus on the issues and it's now paying dividends for him. If he can resist the urge to engage in the mud slinging he may in fact emerge as a serious challenge to Romney.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/06/12
Why Obama needs Jon Huntsman (and others like him )
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Obama needs Jon Huntsman (and others like him)
Friday’s impressive jobs report is a positive shot in the arm for what the economy needs about now. Politically speaking, adding 243,000 new jobs – the most since last April – is good news indeed for the President’s approval ratings.
What caused many economists to breathe a sigh of relief is that many in the private sector appear to be hiring again, including specialty trades such as manufacturing. While this is no time to be popping champagne and celebrating the demise of the Great Recession, last month’s jobs report tells us many things of the economy moving forward.
One of those indicators is foreign trade. This country is still the world’s #1 exporter, and it will not soon surrender that title. Over 96% of the world’s markets rest beyond our borders. We can only sell so many iPads and caramel mochas here stateside before we are stalled again in shallow economic waters.
Yes, American workers need foreign trade to boost employment here at home. That’s why the President should thank his former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, and many more like him. Huntsman understands what a free market looks like, and he did as good a job as he could pushing Beijing to adopt similar open policies.
If the President has any hopes of turning this ship of state around and further lowering the unemployment rate, enhanced international commerce will be one pillar in that foundation. I don’t know how he should do it, but if Obama were smart (and I know he is), he should look for more individuals such as Huntsman in and around his cabinet.
I’m talking less about esoteric, policy-driven diplomats, and more business-savvy, commercially-minded folks who see dollar signs on behalf of the American economy. It’s time to get a sales force on the international trade stage – a U.S. “dream team” if you will, constantly pushing for American goods and know-how. The days of outsourcing are over, hopefully. The President said as much during his State of the Union. Let’s build on that quality-is-better mantra that Americans have been known for and renew the push beyond our shores.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Why Obama needs Jon Huntsman (and others like him )
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Obama needs Jon Huntsman (and others like him)
Friday’s impressive jobs report is a positive shot in the arm for what the economy needs about now. Politically speaking, adding 243,000 new jobs – the most since last April – is good news indeed for the President’s approval ratings.
What caused many economists to breathe a sigh of relief is that many in the private sector appear to be hiring again, including specialty trades such as manufacturing. While this is no time to be popping champagne and celebrating the demise of the Great Recession, last month’s jobs report tells us many things of the economy moving forward.
One of those indicators is foreign trade. This country is still the world’s #1 exporter, and it will not soon surrender that title. Over 96% of the world’s markets rest beyond our borders. We can only sell so many iPads and caramel mochas here stateside before we are stalled again in shallow economic waters.
Yes, American workers need foreign trade to boost employment here at home. That’s why the President should thank his former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, and many more like him. Huntsman understands what a free market looks like, and he did as good a job as he could pushing Beijing to adopt similar open policies.
If the President has any hopes of turning this ship of state around and further lowering the unemployment rate, enhanced international commerce will be one pillar in that foundation. I don’t know how he should do it, but if Obama were smart (and I know he is), he should look for more individuals such as Huntsman in and around his cabinet.
I’m talking less about esoteric, policy-driven diplomats, and more business-savvy, commercially-minded folks who see dollar signs on behalf of the American economy. It’s time to get a sales force on the international trade stage – a U.S. “dream team” if you will, constantly pushing for American goods and know-how. The days of outsourcing are over, hopefully. The President said as much during his State of the Union. Let’s build on that quality-is-better mantra that Americans have been known for and renew the push beyond our shores.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/03/12
Can and will they cut spending
BY: Armstrong Williams
Can and will they cut Spending
Our Congressional members plan for a serious budget reduction in the future does not
work without a big initial down payment in spending cuts. Today's
Congress cannot bind future congresses, and Congress has been
notoriously unreliable with respect to the fiscal management of the
country's finances. Only a naive observer of America's today's
political environment could believe that congress will constrain
spending to bring the deficit under control when the economy improves.
The only point that the left may have is that fiscal stimulus may have a
small temporary benefit when the money is originally spent, but the
extent of the benefit depends on how the money is spent, e.g.
infrastructure, tax rebates, government program, etc., and technical
arguments about the multiplier effect of the spending. However, it has a
negative impact when it is finally paid for.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Can and will they cut spending
BY: Armstrong Williams
Can and will they cut Spending
Our Congressional members plan for a serious budget reduction in the future does not
work without a big initial down payment in spending cuts. Today's
Congress cannot bind future congresses, and Congress has been
notoriously unreliable with respect to the fiscal management of the
country's finances. Only a naive observer of America's today's
political environment could believe that congress will constrain
spending to bring the deficit under control when the economy improves.
The only point that the left may have is that fiscal stimulus may have a
small temporary benefit when the money is originally spent, but the
extent of the benefit depends on how the money is spent, e.g.
infrastructure, tax rebates, government program, etc., and technical
arguments about the multiplier effect of the spending. However, it has a
negative impact when it is finally paid for.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/02/12
Obama's Military Prowess
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Military Prowess
I have been very critical of this President. Across the board, I often find myself in 180 degree disagreement with him and his administration's policies. Among those disappointments has been his handling of Iraq, and the sheer demagoguery he displayed regarding the War on Terror, beginning with Iraq and certainly including issues such as Guantanamo Bay.
But I have to admit, he gets credit on his handling of one area specifically - the use of the military's special forces.
The Commander-in-Chief's singular decision and authorization of the use of the military's best fighting soldiers in the killing of Osama Bin Laden was impressive. Just this past week, Obama again called on the SEALs to rescue two hostages held in a Somali compound. The stealth warriors eliminated their targets and returned the hostages to safety. All in a day's work.
I admire that. If it works, keep doing it. And that's precisely what Obama did. Relying on the intelligence of his generals and their tedious calculations, he made the right calls. And he may even do it again should the need(s) arise.
Sure, there might have been casualties. And there very well could be in the future. Every loss of American life is regrettable and tragic. But in the final analysis, and compared to alternatives (whole brigades subject to IEDs??), this is smart tactics and even smart politics.
It should come as no surprise, then, to see similar behaviors reflected in Obama's budget offering set to be unveiled later this month. Greater plus-ups for special forces and technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) make sense to the average American. Why work harder to remove the enemy when one can work smarter and from a secure location? And given tight budget constraints and legacy costs such as veterans benefits and other personnel needs that drain Pentagon budgets, credit this administration with trying to do more with less. There will always be a good reason for more spending. That's not the problem. The problem is we don't have the money. The sooner both sides start acting in the right way given that reality, the sooner we can begin to grow our way out of colossal debt.
Yes, his budget will be bloated and fat in other areas, including Defense. But on this one issue, the President has served us well.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Obama's Military Prowess
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Military Prowess
I have been very critical of this President. Across the board, I often find myself in 180 degree disagreement with him and his administration's policies. Among those disappointments has been his handling of Iraq, and the sheer demagoguery he displayed regarding the War on Terror, beginning with Iraq and certainly including issues such as Guantanamo Bay.
But I have to admit, he gets credit on his handling of one area specifically - the use of the military's special forces.
The Commander-in-Chief's singular decision and authorization of the use of the military's best fighting soldiers in the killing of Osama Bin Laden was impressive. Just this past week, Obama again called on the SEALs to rescue two hostages held in a Somali compound. The stealth warriors eliminated their targets and returned the hostages to safety. All in a day's work.
I admire that. If it works, keep doing it. And that's precisely what Obama did. Relying on the intelligence of his generals and their tedious calculations, he made the right calls. And he may even do it again should the need(s) arise.
Sure, there might have been casualties. And there very well could be in the future. Every loss of American life is regrettable and tragic. But in the final analysis, and compared to alternatives (whole brigades subject to IEDs??), this is smart tactics and even smart politics.
It should come as no surprise, then, to see similar behaviors reflected in Obama's budget offering set to be unveiled later this month. Greater plus-ups for special forces and technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) make sense to the average American. Why work harder to remove the enemy when one can work smarter and from a secure location? And given tight budget constraints and legacy costs such as veterans benefits and other personnel needs that drain Pentagon budgets, credit this administration with trying to do more with less. There will always be a good reason for more spending. That's not the problem. The problem is we don't have the money. The sooner both sides start acting in the right way given that reality, the sooner we can begin to grow our way out of colossal debt.
Yes, his budget will be bloated and fat in other areas, including Defense. But on this one issue, the President has served us well.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
02/01/12
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
BY: Armstrong Williams
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
The hit musical Jersey Boys is currently playing in Washington. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. It’s a great show depicting the rough-and-tumble life of Frankie Valli – frontman for the Four Seasons beginning in 1960.
Early in the group’s career, 1963 to be exact, Valli released his third of several #1 chart toppers – Walk Like a Man.
That should be the current theme song of the Romney campaign. Candidate Romney is doing all the right things, and getting not enough credit for it.
He ran a tight operation in Florida after a resounding defeat in South Carolina – with the ground game and institutional backing of key figures to secure the first place finish. And while we’re at it, folks, Romney won the Florida caucuses by a whopping landslide. It wasn't a race when the final ballots were tallied. Gingrich was a distant second. Yes, and Ron Paul had a mere 3%...
Romney going forward must now convince the base that he's a true conservative, which may be difficult in light of many of the statements he has made in the past and many of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts. He must now focus on the fact that that was the past and he has moved forward. He must continue to articulate the reasons he has changed. If he's able to do this he will be quite successful. He has certainly demonstrated that he can put fire in his speeches and not be a dull wall street type orator.
So Governor Romney should keep on doing what he’s doing. Take some Jersey Boys advice and walk like a man. Act as if he owns this nomination, and then go out there and show his fellow Republicans he’s the man for this job.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
BY: Armstrong Williams
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
The hit musical Jersey Boys is currently playing in Washington. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. It’s a great show depicting the rough-and-tumble life of Frankie Valli – frontman for the Four Seasons beginning in 1960.
Early in the group’s career, 1963 to be exact, Valli released his third of several #1 chart toppers – Walk Like a Man.
That should be the current theme song of the Romney campaign. Candidate Romney is doing all the right things, and getting not enough credit for it.
He ran a tight operation in Florida after a resounding defeat in South Carolina – with the ground game and institutional backing of key figures to secure the first place finish. And while we’re at it, folks, Romney won the Florida caucuses by a whopping landslide. It wasn't a race when the final ballots were tallied. Gingrich was a distant second. Yes, and Ron Paul had a mere 3%...
Romney going forward must now convince the base that he's a true conservative, which may be difficult in light of many of the statements he has made in the past and many of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts. He must now focus on the fact that that was the past and he has moved forward. He must continue to articulate the reasons he has changed. If he's able to do this he will be quite successful. He has certainly demonstrated that he can put fire in his speeches and not be a dull wall street type orator.
So Governor Romney should keep on doing what he’s doing. Take some Jersey Boys advice and walk like a man. Act as if he owns this nomination, and then go out there and show his fellow Republicans he’s the man for this job.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
01/31/12
Why Newt is good for the GOP
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Newt is good for the GOP
I thought long and hard about this blog title. It could take on many meanings. But more than any other, I believe Newt Gingrich's decision to remain in the primary race until the bitter end is good for the party because it will keep Mitt Romney battle-ready. Think about it. We saw just a little bit of a threat from Newt in South Carolina (many would call that a MAJOR threat!), and look at how the Romney machine mobilized. It was quite impressive. And if you weren't paying attention, you can be sure the Obama campaign in Chicago was.
One of Romney's closest advisors - former Bush 41 political director Ron Kaufman - used to ask any candidate who ever considered running for office, "Do you have a primary opponent?" If the candidate answered "No", the story goes he would tell them, "Well, see if you can get one...It only makes you tougher for your general election opponent."
In a perfect world, every candidate would be ready for his/her general election opponent from Day 1, but the reality is they're often not. I don't believe Mitt is quite ready for the bump-and-run, smash-mouth political show he will face with President Obama. But he will be. And Newt will help him steel his resolve, hone his message, and present his superior argument to the American voter that the four-year debacle we called Obama's presidency should end.
Embrace these few weeks, my friends. If past is prologue, the challengers nipping at Governor Romney's heels will forge him in the fires of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations - something he can expect in hellacious amounts from Obama.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Why Newt is good for the GOP
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Newt is good for the GOP
I thought long and hard about this blog title. It could take on many meanings. But more than any other, I believe Newt Gingrich's decision to remain in the primary race until the bitter end is good for the party because it will keep Mitt Romney battle-ready. Think about it. We saw just a little bit of a threat from Newt in South Carolina (many would call that a MAJOR threat!), and look at how the Romney machine mobilized. It was quite impressive. And if you weren't paying attention, you can be sure the Obama campaign in Chicago was.
One of Romney's closest advisors - former Bush 41 political director Ron Kaufman - used to ask any candidate who ever considered running for office, "Do you have a primary opponent?" If the candidate answered "No", the story goes he would tell them, "Well, see if you can get one...It only makes you tougher for your general election opponent."
In a perfect world, every candidate would be ready for his/her general election opponent from Day 1, but the reality is they're often not. I don't believe Mitt is quite ready for the bump-and-run, smash-mouth political show he will face with President Obama. But he will be. And Newt will help him steel his resolve, hone his message, and present his superior argument to the American voter that the four-year debacle we called Obama's presidency should end.
Embrace these few weeks, my friends. If past is prologue, the challengers nipping at Governor Romney's heels will forge him in the fires of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations - something he can expect in hellacious amounts from Obama.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
01/30/12
Obama's Fall Surprise
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama Fall Surprise ?
As the fall elections for the presidency nears it will become increasingly clear that President Obama has no credible record of positive results on which to run.
The Obama campaign will and must resort to negative and demagoguery campaigning. However will it be adequate enough for his
return to four more years. Obama is in need of a huge bang such as the one he received after Osama Bin Laden was assassinated and it must occur
in relatively close proximity to the election. There are many opportunities that might afford such a bang, but probably the most likely would be an attack
on the nuclear facilities of Iran, which in their minds can be justified as an attempt to stabilize the Middle East and save the world from terrorists armed
with nuclear weapons.
Historically the president who is in office at the time of the commencement of war efforts receives a significant bounce in the
polls. A political animal such as President Obama will not be insensitive to this historical fact. If one watches closely you can understand the various
developments occurring now, which are the necessary ground work for such an attack. This is not to say that it will not become necessary to attack Iran if they
are indeed developing these weapons of mass destruction, but rather to question the timing which can be politically quite convenient.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Obama's Fall Surprise
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama Fall Surprise ?
As the fall elections for the presidency nears it will become increasingly clear that President Obama has no credible record of positive results on which to run.
The Obama campaign will and must resort to negative and demagoguery campaigning. However will it be adequate enough for his
return to four more years. Obama is in need of a huge bang such as the one he received after Osama Bin Laden was assassinated and it must occur
in relatively close proximity to the election. There are many opportunities that might afford such a bang, but probably the most likely would be an attack
on the nuclear facilities of Iran, which in their minds can be justified as an attempt to stabilize the Middle East and save the world from terrorists armed
with nuclear weapons.
Historically the president who is in office at the time of the commencement of war efforts receives a significant bounce in the
polls. A political animal such as President Obama will not be insensitive to this historical fact. If one watches closely you can understand the various
developments occurring now, which are the necessary ground work for such an attack. This is not to say that it will not become necessary to attack Iran if they
are indeed developing these weapons of mass destruction, but rather to question the timing which can be politically quite convenient.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
01/27/12
A Long road for Newt and Obama
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Long road for Newt and Obama.
Few stalwarts in the Republican Tent No are afraid of giving the party whomever they choose. Before we continue our rejoicing and being awe struck by Newt's resurgence , please know there are two states where Newt has not made the ballot. He continues to live cheaply on debates and, to my knowledge, still hasn't 'girded for the long haul' and done the real work of organizing a 50 state machine (pace not making it on to two state ballots). Remember, also, that we've largely adopted proportional representation in awarding delegates, so Romney's not getting 'skunked' in these contests. Just as President Obama out-organized Hillary, Romney has out-organized Newt (actually, since Newt's not organized, after Florida's vote it could be a walkover). I'd still describe Romney as the favorite to win the requisite delegate total. And, the prospects for a brokered convention are also slight. I think most understand that that would "seem" anti-democratic - that's why we stopped the party-boss smoke-filled room in the first place.
Wait until the battle's joined with the all of a sudden gloating and prideful Barack Obama. He is an incumbent, but not a strong one. He has lost, in large part, the force of rhetoric (not that he can't speak, but no one believes him anymore), and must defend what record he's compiled. That last will be hard with 8+ percent unemployment, roaring deficits, and incoherence in plans to address our long-range issues in energy, competitiveness, tax policy, entitlements etc, etc. He is in the minds of many a failed chief executive.
Dance now, for the summer cometh...and there will be little joy in the BHO tent.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
A Long road for Newt and Obama
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Long road for Newt and Obama.
Few stalwarts in the Republican Tent No are afraid of giving the party whomever they choose. Before we continue our rejoicing and being awe struck by Newt's resurgence , please know there are two states where Newt has not made the ballot. He continues to live cheaply on debates and, to my knowledge, still hasn't 'girded for the long haul' and done the real work of organizing a 50 state machine (pace not making it on to two state ballots). Remember, also, that we've largely adopted proportional representation in awarding delegates, so Romney's not getting 'skunked' in these contests. Just as President Obama out-organized Hillary, Romney has out-organized Newt (actually, since Newt's not organized, after Florida's vote it could be a walkover). I'd still describe Romney as the favorite to win the requisite delegate total. And, the prospects for a brokered convention are also slight. I think most understand that that would "seem" anti-democratic - that's why we stopped the party-boss smoke-filled room in the first place.
Wait until the battle's joined with the all of a sudden gloating and prideful Barack Obama. He is an incumbent, but not a strong one. He has lost, in large part, the force of rhetoric (not that he can't speak, but no one believes him anymore), and must defend what record he's compiled. That last will be hard with 8+ percent unemployment, roaring deficits, and incoherence in plans to address our long-range issues in energy, competitiveness, tax policy, entitlements etc, etc. He is in the minds of many a failed chief executive.
Dance now, for the summer cometh...and there will be little joy in the BHO tent.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
01/26/12
Welcome to the new America.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Welcome to the new America
Are Americans prepared for another four years of excessive spending, class warfare, and unremitting political correctness if President Obama finds a miraculous way to win reelection ?
Ronald Reagan succeeded wildly running for president with the slogan “It’s morning in America.” Would anyone believe it if a candidate tried that now? The most optimistic any of us could muster in the past decade was “hope and change,” and hope, as Spinoza said, is a form of sadness; it’s what you cling to when the present is too hard to bear. Now that even hope and change has left us, what are we to do?
It’s not morning in America; it’s nearly sundown. We need a sense of urgency. Things will not simply work out on their own; we must fix them before it is too late, and there is not much time left until then.
Let me officially welcome you to the new America.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
Welcome to the new America.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Welcome to the new America
Are Americans prepared for another four years of excessive spending, class warfare, and unremitting political correctness if President Obama finds a miraculous way to win reelection ?
Ronald Reagan succeeded wildly running for president with the slogan “It’s morning in America.” Would anyone believe it if a candidate tried that now? The most optimistic any of us could muster in the past decade was “hope and change,” and hope, as Spinoza said, is a form of sadness; it’s what you cling to when the present is too hard to bear. Now that even hope and change has left us, what are we to do?
It’s not morning in America; it’s nearly sundown. We need a sense of urgency. Things will not simply work out on their own; we must fix them before it is too late, and there is not much time left until then.
Let me officially welcome you to the new America.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and Come join the discussion live 4-5, 6-8 p.m. est at www.livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
or tune in 4-5 p.m est on S.C. WGCV, Sirius/XM Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. est, 6-7 p.m. D.C. a.m. 730 WTNT, 7-8 p.m. WGNU a.m. 920 St Louis . Become a fan on FaceBook, and follow him on Twitter
01/25/12
"No Juice" Obama
BY: Armstrong Williams
>
> "No Juice" Obama
>
> I have to hand it to President Obama, he talks a good game. That teleprompter
can help a man work wonders with the spoken word.
>
> It's evident I don't care much for the President's policies, but there's good
reason. And nowhere is that more evident than with Obama's approach to energy.
>
> Last night, the President again revisited the importance of home-grown energy,
beginning with renewables. That's just not smart policy, and he knows it. We
are sitting on a massive gold mine that the Keystone project could tap, and he
ignores it in the name of what - some untapped, underdeveloped, lesser sources
in the form of wind and switchgrass? C'mon.
>
> I believe the President made a major mistake in spending any time last evening
discussing alternative energy sources. Now the Republicans can hammer him on a
record of weak energy policies. Let's not forget the administration isn't
exactly strong on alternative energy. Can you say "Solyndra?" Any further talk
only reminds policy makers of his past blunders. The White House should
consider itself lucky if it can avoid jail time for anyone in the Energy
Department as a result of that solar power fiasco.
>
> Then there's cap-and-trade legislation this White House attempted to push
through in prior years. That initiative alone would have cost every American
higher energy bills. Talk about make-or-break for blue-collar America. Even
those inclined to support the President such as West Virginia Senator Manchin
could not toe that party line. These seemingly inconsequential policies are
taking their toll. The residual effects of the cap-and-trade fight still haunt
this Administration, and they shouldn't discount that moving forward.
>
> In the case of Keystone, the special interests this President loves to rail
against are driving his agenda. Sure, they're of a different breed
(pro-environmentalists), but they are special interests nonetheless. This
country and its people are hurting. We can't afford to deny the potential to
create 20,000 new domestic jobs because of a NIMBY scare or some other anemic
argument.
>
> This isn't the last word on Keystone. Expect House Republicans to leverage
the President's remarks against him. And while they may not damage him
directly, they will use it as a cudgel against his party in the respective
chambers.
>
> I suspect many Democrats in the coming weeks will be calling down to 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue begging the Administration to back away from its renewables
policies, or at the very least, be willing to compromise with the GOP on a more
comprehensive energy initiative.
>
> Maybe that's a good thing to come from last night's speech - we actually see
some bipartisan movement and consensus-building between both sides.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through
Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter
at www.twitter.com/arightside.
"No Juice" Obama
BY: Armstrong Williams
>
> "No Juice" Obama
>
> I have to hand it to President Obama, he talks a good game. That teleprompter
can help a man work wonders with the spoken word.
>
> It's evident I don't care much for the President's policies, but there's good
reason. And nowhere is that more evident than with Obama's approach to energy.
>
> Last night, the President again revisited the importance of home-grown energy,
beginning with renewables. That's just not smart policy, and he knows it. We
are sitting on a massive gold mine that the Keystone project could tap, and he
ignores it in the name of what - some untapped, underdeveloped, lesser sources
in the form of wind and switchgrass? C'mon.
>
> I believe the President made a major mistake in spending any time last evening
discussing alternative energy sources. Now the Republicans can hammer him on a
record of weak energy policies. Let's not forget the administration isn't
exactly strong on alternative energy. Can you say "Solyndra?" Any further talk
only reminds policy makers of his past blunders. The White House should
consider itself lucky if it can avoid jail time for anyone in the Energy
Department as a result of that solar power fiasco.
>
> Then there's cap-and-trade legislation this White House attempted to push
through in prior years. That initiative alone would have cost every American
higher energy bills. Talk about make-or-break for blue-collar America. Even
those inclined to support the President such as West Virginia Senator Manchin
could not toe that party line. These seemingly inconsequential policies are
taking their toll. The residual effects of the cap-and-trade fight still haunt
this Administration, and they shouldn't discount that moving forward.
>
> In the case of Keystone, the special interests this President loves to rail
against are driving his agenda. Sure, they're of a different breed
(pro-environmentalists), but they are special interests nonetheless. This
country and its people are hurting. We can't afford to deny the potential to
create 20,000 new domestic jobs because of a NIMBY scare or some other anemic
argument.
>
> This isn't the last word on Keystone. Expect House Republicans to leverage
the President's remarks against him. And while they may not damage him
directly, they will use it as a cudgel against his party in the respective
chambers.
>
> I suspect many Democrats in the coming weeks will be calling down to 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue begging the Administration to back away from its renewables
policies, or at the very least, be willing to compromise with the GOP on a more
comprehensive energy initiative.
>
> Maybe that's a good thing to come from last night's speech - we actually see
some bipartisan movement and consensus-building between both sides.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through
Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter
at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/24/12
NEWS FLASH: Newt is not the nominee
BY: ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
NEWS FLASH: Newt is not the nominee
Saturday’s primary in South Carolina rocked the entire field. No doubt about it. But let’s not get carried away, folks. Yes, Newt Gingrich won handily with 40% of the vote. But now that the hangover has passed, let’s put the South Carolina primary in perspective.
A few hundred thousand votes in arguably one of the most conservative states in the Union does not a presidential candidate coronate. Gingrich won Saturday’s primary because of two red meat responses in packed convention centers that followed two bone-headed questions from moderators. Newt knew exactly what he was doing – he was playing to the crowd, and using the media and wacko leftist thought as the common enemy everyone in the room shared those nights.
That alone will not win the nomination. And it certainly will not win the presidency against a campaigner who is pretty adept at twisting words and waging class warfare.
I about lost my ham sandwich on Sunday when I read a close Gingrich ally telling reporters that Newt had “crossed the threshold of electability [last night].” WRONG.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The former Speaker is a brilliant debater. I don’t dispute that. But the average American voter wants to hear how their neighbor will get his/her job back; not high-minded rhetoric regarding food stamp policies or what an elite media peddler looks like. Americans don’t think and act in Washington ways. Gingrich needs to start sharing some bold ideas. He even hinted as much over the weekend. As reported in The Hill yesterday, "Gingrich downplayed his debate performances in his victory speech to supporters Saturday night, saying: 'It's not that I'm a good debater it's that I articulate the deepest felt values of the American people.'" He knows he needs to do better outside of just being a superb orator.
Think about it. Everyone recalls 9-9-9 and which candidate owned that policy. Can anyone name some thing that Gingrich would fix – other than he was against the Ryan Medicare plan before he was for it?
See what’s wrong here?
Early indications from Florida point to another heated primary. And last night’s debate only confirmed this will be a gunfight in the Sunshine State. It should tell Romney’s team what they’ve wanted all along – a race that will steel the the eventual nominee (their belief) and prepare him for a tough general campaign.
This is a new race now. Gingrich and Romney both are far from the prize, and for different reasons.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on 4-5 p.m EST on WGCV, 6-7 p.m. in DC AM 730 WTNT
Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday.
View & Listen to the live steam www.Livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
NEWS FLASH: Newt is not the nominee
BY: ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
NEWS FLASH: Newt is not the nominee
Saturday’s primary in South Carolina rocked the entire field. No doubt about it. But let’s not get carried away, folks. Yes, Newt Gingrich won handily with 40% of the vote. But now that the hangover has passed, let’s put the South Carolina primary in perspective.
A few hundred thousand votes in arguably one of the most conservative states in the Union does not a presidential candidate coronate. Gingrich won Saturday’s primary because of two red meat responses in packed convention centers that followed two bone-headed questions from moderators. Newt knew exactly what he was doing – he was playing to the crowd, and using the media and wacko leftist thought as the common enemy everyone in the room shared those nights.
That alone will not win the nomination. And it certainly will not win the presidency against a campaigner who is pretty adept at twisting words and waging class warfare.
I about lost my ham sandwich on Sunday when I read a close Gingrich ally telling reporters that Newt had “crossed the threshold of electability [last night].” WRONG.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The former Speaker is a brilliant debater. I don’t dispute that. But the average American voter wants to hear how their neighbor will get his/her job back; not high-minded rhetoric regarding food stamp policies or what an elite media peddler looks like. Americans don’t think and act in Washington ways. Gingrich needs to start sharing some bold ideas. He even hinted as much over the weekend. As reported in The Hill yesterday, "Gingrich downplayed his debate performances in his victory speech to supporters Saturday night, saying: 'It's not that I'm a good debater it's that I articulate the deepest felt values of the American people.'" He knows he needs to do better outside of just being a superb orator.
Think about it. Everyone recalls 9-9-9 and which candidate owned that policy. Can anyone name some thing that Gingrich would fix – other than he was against the Ryan Medicare plan before he was for it?
See what’s wrong here?
Early indications from Florida point to another heated primary. And last night’s debate only confirmed this will be a gunfight in the Sunshine State. It should tell Romney’s team what they’ve wanted all along – a race that will steel the the eventual nominee (their belief) and prepare him for a tough general campaign.
This is a new race now. Gingrich and Romney both are far from the prize, and for different reasons.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on 4-5 p.m EST on WGCV, 6-7 p.m. in DC AM 730 WTNT
Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday.
View & Listen to the live steam www.Livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/23/12
Mainstream media blatant socialist agenda
BY: Armstrong Williams
Mainstream media blatant socialist agenda
The mainstream media basically gets to choose our president based on the degree to which they choose to scrutinize each candidate. Those that they champion (Obama) are barely vetted at all, whereas those they disdain are dissected to the nth degree. Hopefully the American people will awaken to this phenomenon and not allow themselves to be so easily manipulated. Ideally the elite media will regain a sense of responsibility and integrity as they carry out a most important function in a society blessed with the freedom of the press.
Why is it that the Mainstream media is unable to understand the ultimate result of the socialist agenda they along with our president, are driving? Do they not realize that if they are successful, freedom of the press will ultimately be eliminated as well as their jobs and way of life? Unfortunately ideologues are usually incapable of objective reasoning and this in fact may be the answer to the question.
The reason political punditry has been so inaccurate during this political cycle, is because the mood of the country has been altered in a way that hasn't been seen during our lifetime. The American people are frightened. Not so much that they will not receive their retirement fund, but rather they will lose the American way of life for future generations. For that reason they are willing to accept character defects in someone they feel that may have the possibility of reestablishing the American dream. Multiple polls continue to show that the vast majority strongly feels this nation is moving in the wrong direction. There is also a feeling that this election may be our last opportunity to change directions. All political pundits should be aware of this mood.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on 4-5 p.m EST on WGCV, 6-7 p.m. in DC AM 730 WTNT
Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday.
View & Listen to the live steam www.Livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Mainstream media blatant socialist agenda
BY: Armstrong Williams
Mainstream media blatant socialist agenda
The mainstream media basically gets to choose our president based on the degree to which they choose to scrutinize each candidate. Those that they champion (Obama) are barely vetted at all, whereas those they disdain are dissected to the nth degree. Hopefully the American people will awaken to this phenomenon and not allow themselves to be so easily manipulated. Ideally the elite media will regain a sense of responsibility and integrity as they carry out a most important function in a society blessed with the freedom of the press.
Why is it that the Mainstream media is unable to understand the ultimate result of the socialist agenda they along with our president, are driving? Do they not realize that if they are successful, freedom of the press will ultimately be eliminated as well as their jobs and way of life? Unfortunately ideologues are usually incapable of objective reasoning and this in fact may be the answer to the question.
The reason political punditry has been so inaccurate during this political cycle, is because the mood of the country has been altered in a way that hasn't been seen during our lifetime. The American people are frightened. Not so much that they will not receive their retirement fund, but rather they will lose the American way of life for future generations. For that reason they are willing to accept character defects in someone they feel that may have the possibility of reestablishing the American dream. Multiple polls continue to show that the vast majority strongly feels this nation is moving in the wrong direction. There is also a feeling that this election may be our last opportunity to change directions. All political pundits should be aware of this mood.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on 4-5 p.m EST on WGCV, 6-7 p.m. in DC AM 730 WTNT
Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday.
View & Listen to the live steam www.Livestream.com/armstrongwilliams
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/20/12
A noticeable invisibility in South Carolina
BY: Armstrong Williams
A noticeable invisibility in South Carolina
What I’ve found interesting these past few weeks is the noticeable absence of one heretofore prominent politician, even in his own state. I’m referring of course to South Carolina’s own Sen. Jim DeMint. Sure, he’s all over the Palmetto State, mixing and mingling with his constituents, and still very popular in the state. What I’m more puzzled by is the Senator’s lack of visibility on the national stage, especially when all eyes are on his home state and on a group that heralded him as its de facto kingmaker – the Tea Party.
I consider myself a regular consumer of political media, especially the cable daysides. And unless I’ve fallen asleep the past few weeks, DeMint just hasn’t been the regular fixture on the political circuit. I can’t say that I’ve seen him quoted in national publications who have been covering every angle of the GOP primary in the state. One would think someone so important to a movement such as the Tea Party might be given more prominence in the journalistic heavens, and yet he hasn’t.
Now, I like Jim DeMint a lot. He’s a true conservative. The point of this blog is not to question what he’s done but to publicly ponder the ‘why.’
It’s a safe bet the Tea Party has been on somewhat of a downward spiral lately. A Pew Research Center poll late last year confirmed the waning sentiment both nationally and in the hotbeds of congressional districts where Tea Party loyalists were elected. Some of this is media hype. It’s only natural a movement cannot hope to sustain a heightened level of enthusiasm day in and day out. After all, these are average Americans who have jobs and lives outside of politics.
But back to DeMint. I just find it interesting the South Carolina Senator has not been courted more by the candidates, at least not publicly. And if they are wooing him, DeMint’s not making a spectacle about it. If that’s his M.O., then more power to him. But it seems to me he would want to leverage the interest in his state and his Tea Party allegiances to only grow its power and influence. After all, politics is about influence – persuading your opponents and would-be supporters that yours is the right course of action.
I find it odd.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A noticeable invisibility in South Carolina
BY: Armstrong Williams
A noticeable invisibility in South Carolina
What I’ve found interesting these past few weeks is the noticeable absence of one heretofore prominent politician, even in his own state. I’m referring of course to South Carolina’s own Sen. Jim DeMint. Sure, he’s all over the Palmetto State, mixing and mingling with his constituents, and still very popular in the state. What I’m more puzzled by is the Senator’s lack of visibility on the national stage, especially when all eyes are on his home state and on a group that heralded him as its de facto kingmaker – the Tea Party.
I consider myself a regular consumer of political media, especially the cable daysides. And unless I’ve fallen asleep the past few weeks, DeMint just hasn’t been the regular fixture on the political circuit. I can’t say that I’ve seen him quoted in national publications who have been covering every angle of the GOP primary in the state. One would think someone so important to a movement such as the Tea Party might be given more prominence in the journalistic heavens, and yet he hasn’t.
Now, I like Jim DeMint a lot. He’s a true conservative. The point of this blog is not to question what he’s done but to publicly ponder the ‘why.’
It’s a safe bet the Tea Party has been on somewhat of a downward spiral lately. A Pew Research Center poll late last year confirmed the waning sentiment both nationally and in the hotbeds of congressional districts where Tea Party loyalists were elected. Some of this is media hype. It’s only natural a movement cannot hope to sustain a heightened level of enthusiasm day in and day out. After all, these are average Americans who have jobs and lives outside of politics.
But back to DeMint. I just find it interesting the South Carolina Senator has not been courted more by the candidates, at least not publicly. And if they are wooing him, DeMint’s not making a spectacle about it. If that’s his M.O., then more power to him. But it seems to me he would want to leverage the interest in his state and his Tea Party allegiances to only grow its power and influence. After all, politics is about influence – persuading your opponents and would-be supporters that yours is the right course of action.
I find it odd.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/18/12
GOP candidates overview
BY: Armstrong Williams
GOP candidates overview.
Say what you will about Ron Paul, we know if he were elected President, he would use a butcher's knife to cut the Washington bureaucracy and the Federal budget. Of all the candidates he is a true believer in small government and individual freedom. He has clearly read and understands the Constitution. He is like a born again Christian who has a solid commitment to the new testament. But for his isolationist and unrealistic views of foreign policy he would make a tremendous change agent as President of the United States.
Gingrich and Romney are committed to fiscal conservatism but they are not committed to minimum government and individual freedom in the same spirit as Ron Paul. Romney will be a good conservator of the status quo. He has proven himself as a capable manager and administrator. His vision is for a well run efficient and low cost government, but not necessarily a small government. Gingrich is perhaps the most effective political operative on the presidential stage. He may be more committed to a smaller government than Romney, but he's constrained by the real politic of Washington, DC. This will severely limit what he can and will achieve. Santorum and Governor Perry are making an appeal to the social conservatives as their support base. In my judgement this is a mistake because the real issue in this race is the financial integrity of the United States government. The social issues are a side and ineffective show. The candidate all did an impressive job at this week's SC debate in outlining their positions on the critical issues . The GOP has nothing to be ashamed of with the field that now exist.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
GOP candidates overview
BY: Armstrong Williams
GOP candidates overview.
Say what you will about Ron Paul, we know if he were elected President, he would use a butcher's knife to cut the Washington bureaucracy and the Federal budget. Of all the candidates he is a true believer in small government and individual freedom. He has clearly read and understands the Constitution. He is like a born again Christian who has a solid commitment to the new testament. But for his isolationist and unrealistic views of foreign policy he would make a tremendous change agent as President of the United States.
Gingrich and Romney are committed to fiscal conservatism but they are not committed to minimum government and individual freedom in the same spirit as Ron Paul. Romney will be a good conservator of the status quo. He has proven himself as a capable manager and administrator. His vision is for a well run efficient and low cost government, but not necessarily a small government. Gingrich is perhaps the most effective political operative on the presidential stage. He may be more committed to a smaller government than Romney, but he's constrained by the real politic of Washington, DC. This will severely limit what he can and will achieve. Santorum and Governor Perry are making an appeal to the social conservatives as their support base. In my judgement this is a mistake because the real issue in this race is the financial integrity of the United States government. The social issues are a side and ineffective show. The candidate all did an impressive job at this week's SC debate in outlining their positions on the critical issues . The GOP has nothing to be ashamed of with the field that now exist.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/17/12
Newt returns to civility and logic
BY: Armstrong Williams
Newt returns to civility and logic.
Presidential candidate and former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich returned to his original game plan in last night's SC presidential debate of not being so negative towards his compatriots, but rather attacking the issues head on. He was particularly effective in responding to the issue of race. The questioner wanted to bait him about his earlier controversial race comments regarding janitorial jobs for youth. He clearly made the point that any type of job is good for young people, for it teaches them work ethic and set them on a path of self reliance. He was also highly effective with respect to foreign policy and how we should react towards our obvious enemies. His answers contrasted significantly with those of Ron Paul and Romney found himself echoing Gingrich. Santorum was Vanilla and not making big gaffe or scoring big points. Perry again maintained his role of comic relief. Given the fact that SC has correctly chosen the nominee for the GOP since 1980, the poll numbers over the next several days will be extremely revealing.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Newt returns to civility and logic
BY: Armstrong Williams
Newt returns to civility and logic.
Presidential candidate and former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich returned to his original game plan in last night's SC presidential debate of not being so negative towards his compatriots, but rather attacking the issues head on. He was particularly effective in responding to the issue of race. The questioner wanted to bait him about his earlier controversial race comments regarding janitorial jobs for youth. He clearly made the point that any type of job is good for young people, for it teaches them work ethic and set them on a path of self reliance. He was also highly effective with respect to foreign policy and how we should react towards our obvious enemies. His answers contrasted significantly with those of Ron Paul and Romney found himself echoing Gingrich. Santorum was Vanilla and not making big gaffe or scoring big points. Perry again maintained his role of comic relief. Given the fact that SC has correctly chosen the nominee for the GOP since 1980, the poll numbers over the next several days will be extremely revealing.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/16/12
MLK should be honored with more substantial progress
BY: Armstrong Williams
MLK should be honored with more substantial progress.
The black community currently faces, collectively, a series of problems, each related to the others, intertwined, each compounding one another, and we must face them all together; we as a nation cannot ignore any of them.
Interest groups, fundraisers, and politicians would like most to believe that circumstances can be changed with retooling underprivileged areas, as though people were robots, without any study of behaviors and free choices, which is about as effective as bringing a tennis racket to a baseball field.
Those in authority have their own agenda; they treat moral transgressions like food they pass over in a buffet line—they don’t want to hear or think about them, so they don’t. Against these well-funded politicians and interest groups feasting on the “social ills” of the black community, as though they are inanimate objects unable to make their own choices, we must affirm their freedom and look at the choices many of them make.
First, there is the family. The percentage of poor black children who live in single-mother households is 85%; such children are 4 times likely to live in poverty as those with two parents. Since a majority of black youth is being raised by single mothers, we must study these mothers. I have found that 38% of these mothers live below the poverty line, 62% of these mothers had never been married and almost half of them were also raised by single mothers! The lack of a proper family structure has become a revolving door of ill behavior. Is it possible that a horrible family structure could spill over to other areas of life including employment and education?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
MLK should be honored with more substantial progress
BY: Armstrong Williams
MLK should be honored with more substantial progress.
The black community currently faces, collectively, a series of problems, each related to the others, intertwined, each compounding one another, and we must face them all together; we as a nation cannot ignore any of them.
Interest groups, fundraisers, and politicians would like most to believe that circumstances can be changed with retooling underprivileged areas, as though people were robots, without any study of behaviors and free choices, which is about as effective as bringing a tennis racket to a baseball field.
Those in authority have their own agenda; they treat moral transgressions like food they pass over in a buffet line—they don’t want to hear or think about them, so they don’t. Against these well-funded politicians and interest groups feasting on the “social ills” of the black community, as though they are inanimate objects unable to make their own choices, we must affirm their freedom and look at the choices many of them make.
First, there is the family. The percentage of poor black children who live in single-mother households is 85%; such children are 4 times likely to live in poverty as those with two parents. Since a majority of black youth is being raised by single mothers, we must study these mothers. I have found that 38% of these mothers live below the poverty line, 62% of these mothers had never been married and almost half of them were also raised by single mothers! The lack of a proper family structure has become a revolving door of ill behavior. Is it possible that a horrible family structure could spill over to other areas of life including employment and education?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/12/12
A new kind of warfare
BY: Armstrong Williams
A new kind of warfare
A story that should certainly have your immediate attention is slowly developing in Iran. Over the past several months five Iranian Nuclear scientist have been assassinated. The latest one being yesterday when two motorcyclists attached a magnetic bomb to the car fender and rode away while detonating the bomb. No one has claimed responsibility and the Iranian government is accusing Israel and the USA of the assassinations for which they both vehemently denied any involvement. If in fact we are involved it might be a much easier way to stop their nuclear program than war. This could actually bring their nuclear development to a halt or at least drive it underground which would slow its progress significantly. Whoever is the mastermind behind these deadly attacks must have excellent intelligence in order to be successful without the hint of a trace. Many of these Iranian scientist and with good reason are fearful for their well being and more importantly their lives. Fear of death for many Iranian scientist is a good motivator in forcing them to rethink the repercussions of their deadly actions.
While this may seem barbaric it is not nearly as bad as inflicting thousands of casualties associated with war. Will this be a game changer in Iran's determination to develop an arsenal of nuclear weaponry.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A new kind of warfare
BY: Armstrong Williams
A new kind of warfare
A story that should certainly have your immediate attention is slowly developing in Iran. Over the past several months five Iranian Nuclear scientist have been assassinated. The latest one being yesterday when two motorcyclists attached a magnetic bomb to the car fender and rode away while detonating the bomb. No one has claimed responsibility and the Iranian government is accusing Israel and the USA of the assassinations for which they both vehemently denied any involvement. If in fact we are involved it might be a much easier way to stop their nuclear program than war. This could actually bring their nuclear development to a halt or at least drive it underground which would slow its progress significantly. Whoever is the mastermind behind these deadly attacks must have excellent intelligence in order to be successful without the hint of a trace. Many of these Iranian scientist and with good reason are fearful for their well being and more importantly their lives. Fear of death for many Iranian scientist is a good motivator in forcing them to rethink the repercussions of their deadly actions.
While this may seem barbaric it is not nearly as bad as inflicting thousands of casualties associated with war. Will this be a game changer in Iran's determination to develop an arsenal of nuclear weaponry.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/11/12
Prelude to the Fall of the Obama White house
BY: Armstrong Williams
Prelude to the Fall of the Obama White house.
President Obama's White house is in disarray. Can any business Executive have conflict with the Obama's confidante, Valerie Jarrett and survive. Thus far Jarret is 10 - 0 vs her rivals. With the departing of Bill Daley and the appointment of yet another Chief of Staff we are witnessing 5 Chief of Staffs in less than 4 years. We are now observing the collapse of a desperate Administration who accurately and logically are concluding that they have little or no chance for reelection. I think its fair to conclude that they will come up with some new and interesting strategy to portray Obama as the only hope for those people in our society who feel that the good times have passed them by. This in the minds of Obama and company, includes most of America. Unfortunately for them the people are not as stupid as the administration think they are. Therefore they understand that if you destroy the financial foundation of our nation that ultimately no one will benefit. They also understand that the people are not each other's enemy and the class war fare agenda will ultimately back fire on President Obama. We could possibly have a landslide of great proportions in November that encompasses Congress as well as the White house. Hopefully the GOP would have learned by watching how severely the Democrats bungled things when they held the reins of both Houses and the White house and not misinterpret the meaning of the true mandate.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Prelude to the Fall of the Obama White house
BY: Armstrong Williams
Prelude to the Fall of the Obama White house.
President Obama's White house is in disarray. Can any business Executive have conflict with the Obama's confidante, Valerie Jarrett and survive. Thus far Jarret is 10 - 0 vs her rivals. With the departing of Bill Daley and the appointment of yet another Chief of Staff we are witnessing 5 Chief of Staffs in less than 4 years. We are now observing the collapse of a desperate Administration who accurately and logically are concluding that they have little or no chance for reelection. I think its fair to conclude that they will come up with some new and interesting strategy to portray Obama as the only hope for those people in our society who feel that the good times have passed them by. This in the minds of Obama and company, includes most of America. Unfortunately for them the people are not as stupid as the administration think they are. Therefore they understand that if you destroy the financial foundation of our nation that ultimately no one will benefit. They also understand that the people are not each other's enemy and the class war fare agenda will ultimately back fire on President Obama. We could possibly have a landslide of great proportions in November that encompasses Congress as well as the White house. Hopefully the GOP would have learned by watching how severely the Democrats bungled things when they held the reins of both Houses and the White house and not misinterpret the meaning of the true mandate.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/10/12
The Ron / Rand Paul hidden agenda
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Ron/Rand Paul hidden agenda
If Ron Paul is more moving to position his son as his successor on the presidential trail, he should come out and at least acknowledge the point. Sen. Rand Paul himself should begin to echo the case of what his father stands for, and how he believes he could carry that mantle in his own unique fashion. After all, the Tea Party movement is here to stay, and that’s several tens of thousands of instant supporters in his camp – some of the same ones who sent him as one of two of Kentucky’s favorite sons.
Further, Sen. Rand Paul should begin preparing himself by assuming a more leadership role in the Senate, if not in the true sense of the GOP hierarchy, at least in taking some tough stands on the issues of the day – beginning with the debt ceiling. Sure, we know where he stands, but will he LEAD his party and this country in some greater capacity.
Paul can’t win the 2012 nomination, but he has a cause and a collection of followers looking for its next genuine leader. Perhaps his son is the right person to step into that role. Only time will tell.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Ron / Rand Paul hidden agenda
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Ron/Rand Paul hidden agenda
If Ron Paul is more moving to position his son as his successor on the presidential trail, he should come out and at least acknowledge the point. Sen. Rand Paul himself should begin to echo the case of what his father stands for, and how he believes he could carry that mantle in his own unique fashion. After all, the Tea Party movement is here to stay, and that’s several tens of thousands of instant supporters in his camp – some of the same ones who sent him as one of two of Kentucky’s favorite sons.
Further, Sen. Rand Paul should begin preparing himself by assuming a more leadership role in the Senate, if not in the true sense of the GOP hierarchy, at least in taking some tough stands on the issues of the day – beginning with the debt ceiling. Sure, we know where he stands, but will he LEAD his party and this country in some greater capacity.
Paul can’t win the 2012 nomination, but he has a cause and a collection of followers looking for its next genuine leader. Perhaps his son is the right person to step into that role. Only time will tell.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/09/12
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
BY: Armstrong Williams
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
The hit musical Jersey Boys is currently playing in Washington. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. It’s a great show depicting the rough-and-tumble life of Frankie Valli – frontman for the Four Seasons beginning in 1960.
Early in the group’s career, 1963 to be exact, Valli released his third of several #1 chart toppers – Walk Like a Man.
That should be the current theme song of the Romney campaign. Candidate Romney is doing all the right things, and getting none of the credit for it.
He ran a tight operation in Iowa – with the ground game and institutional backing of key figures to secure the first place finish. And while we’re at it, folks, Romney won the Iowa caucuses. He didn’t “tie” anyone. He won. Yes, it was a close race. But do you think the press would be saying Romney “tied” anyone if Rick Santorum or Ron Paul had finished first? Heck no. They would have pilloried the Massachusetts local for not finishing stronger and finishing the deed. That’s biased journalism if you ask me, and suggests the media wants to make the race even closer than it already is. And believe me, it’s close enough, as the results proved.
The same criticism can’t be leveled at Santorum’s camp. Make no mistake, he made a respectable showing, even with meager campaign resources. But the media can’t use that as a highlight for one candidate (Santorum), and treat it as a negative for another (Romney), by suggesting he is somehow buying this nomination.
So Governor Romney should keep on doing what he’s doing. Take some Jersey Boys advice and walk like a man. Act as if he owns this nomination, and then go out there and show his fellow Republicans he’s the man for this job.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
BY: Armstrong Williams
Team Romney: Walk Like a Man
The hit musical Jersey Boys is currently playing in Washington. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. It’s a great show depicting the rough-and-tumble life of Frankie Valli – frontman for the Four Seasons beginning in 1960.
Early in the group’s career, 1963 to be exact, Valli released his third of several #1 chart toppers – Walk Like a Man.
That should be the current theme song of the Romney campaign. Candidate Romney is doing all the right things, and getting none of the credit for it.
He ran a tight operation in Iowa – with the ground game and institutional backing of key figures to secure the first place finish. And while we’re at it, folks, Romney won the Iowa caucuses. He didn’t “tie” anyone. He won. Yes, it was a close race. But do you think the press would be saying Romney “tied” anyone if Rick Santorum or Ron Paul had finished first? Heck no. They would have pilloried the Massachusetts local for not finishing stronger and finishing the deed. That’s biased journalism if you ask me, and suggests the media wants to make the race even closer than it already is. And believe me, it’s close enough, as the results proved.
The same criticism can’t be leveled at Santorum’s camp. Make no mistake, he made a respectable showing, even with meager campaign resources. But the media can’t use that as a highlight for one candidate (Santorum), and treat it as a negative for another (Romney), by suggesting he is somehow buying this nomination.
So Governor Romney should keep on doing what he’s doing. Take some Jersey Boys advice and walk like a man. Act as if he owns this nomination, and then go out there and show his fellow Republicans he’s the man for this job.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/06/12
Rewarding innovation and not laziness
BY: Armstrong Williams
Rewarding innovation and not laziness
I believe businesses are not investing today because they feel or fear that the demand for their products or services is not there or not there in a large enough quantity to merit investment. Obviously this varies from business to business and from industry to industry.
Uncertainty in national leadership (especially the White house) sow continuous seeds of doubt and confusion: If combined with the well established fact that the leader is desirous of punishing the financially innovative to benefit and enrich the financially sloven, it is only a matter of time before it wreaks havoc on the productivity of the economy. Consequently businesses will cease to grow and future generations of entrepreneurial's will wither away. When this happens self doubt and confusion become the order of the day and a once great economic engine slowly disintegrates into a bygone era.
The seed of a profit motive based society that rewards work and innovation or a seed of doubt in the free-market system that rewards the entitled, either or which will become pervasive. It is up to the people to choose the leader who they think will grow them into a capitalistic world dominating economic engine and force to be reckon with for generations. The leader must set examples of what economic models despite their flaws has sustained the middle class and ultimately the nation for generations. A society is ultimately judge upon what it rewards, and in America’s case we should reward innovation and a good worth ethic. The examples that we set by rewarding the lazy and entitled have destroyed our economy and created an un warming welcome to investors, foreign and domestic.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Rewarding innovation and not laziness
BY: Armstrong Williams
Rewarding innovation and not laziness
I believe businesses are not investing today because they feel or fear that the demand for their products or services is not there or not there in a large enough quantity to merit investment. Obviously this varies from business to business and from industry to industry.
Uncertainty in national leadership (especially the White house) sow continuous seeds of doubt and confusion: If combined with the well established fact that the leader is desirous of punishing the financially innovative to benefit and enrich the financially sloven, it is only a matter of time before it wreaks havoc on the productivity of the economy. Consequently businesses will cease to grow and future generations of entrepreneurial's will wither away. When this happens self doubt and confusion become the order of the day and a once great economic engine slowly disintegrates into a bygone era.
The seed of a profit motive based society that rewards work and innovation or a seed of doubt in the free-market system that rewards the entitled, either or which will become pervasive. It is up to the people to choose the leader who they think will grow them into a capitalistic world dominating economic engine and force to be reckon with for generations. The leader must set examples of what economic models despite their flaws has sustained the middle class and ultimately the nation for generations. A society is ultimately judge upon what it rewards, and in America’s case we should reward innovation and a good worth ethic. The examples that we set by rewarding the lazy and entitled have destroyed our economy and created an un warming welcome to investors, foreign and domestic.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/05/12
The lost American home dream
BY: Armstrong Williams
The lost American home dream
One of the foundations of the American Dream has always been the hope of someday purchasing one's own home. In the past, however, it took nearly a lifetime of
sacrifice before most people could afford to do so.
The first decade of the new millennium in America bore witness to a viral explosion in real estate investment, fueled by low mortgage rates and
an abandonment of the equity markets . The nation created a new market overnight to continue the necessary growth in the United States
and with one simple key: home mortgage debt.
In the blink of an eye, the American consumers, companies and investment markets shifted from an investment practice and equity-oriented
philosophy that had characterized the dot-com era to a debt-fueled runaway train with no brakes.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The lost American home dream
BY: Armstrong Williams
The lost American home dream
One of the foundations of the American Dream has always been the hope of someday purchasing one's own home. In the past, however, it took nearly a lifetime of
sacrifice before most people could afford to do so.
The first decade of the new millennium in America bore witness to a viral explosion in real estate investment, fueled by low mortgage rates and
an abandonment of the equity markets . The nation created a new market overnight to continue the necessary growth in the United States
and with one simple key: home mortgage debt.
In the blink of an eye, the American consumers, companies and investment markets shifted from an investment practice and equity-oriented
philosophy that had characterized the dot-com era to a debt-fueled runaway train with no brakes.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/04/12
The GOP Candidates: ACT II
BY: Armstrong Williams
The GOP Candidates. ACT II
The problem for third place candidate Ron Paul in Iowa is that a caucus situation with a relatively right wing voting base is ideal for his candidacy and yet he's unable to capitalize. If he couldn't win in Iowa than he's toast everywhere else. My prediction is that his 15 minutes of fame as a viable candidate is over. Now it's time to focus on what are the other message emanating from the Iowa Caucus. Mitt Romney inability to break over the 25% margin tells us that with all of his advantages, 3/4 of the GOP voters are still in search of someone else.
Will that someone else be Rick Santorum or could Gingrich re-emerge again? It will truly depend on the traction that Santorum is able to gain in a State where it is impossible for him to visit every county, because he just doesn't have the time or financial resources. If he can remain strong in the described setting than he will remain a strong candidate for the next month. However the reality is he will now be attacked by Gingrich for this is necessary for Newt to have Romney isolated into a one on one situation. Romney has no incentive to attack Santorum for no other reason than the fact he needs the conservative wing to be split so that he can prevail. The most conservative GOP voters must be split in order for Romney to prevail. Rick Perry after his embarrassing showing in Iowa has no choice but to quit the race. Michelle Bachman should do the same but will stay around for one or two more primaries. Who will their supporters get behind once they are no longer in the race ? It is likely to be Gingrich or Santorum which will be a tremendous boost for the candidate that survives.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The GOP Candidates: ACT II
BY: Armstrong Williams
The GOP Candidates. ACT II
The problem for third place candidate Ron Paul in Iowa is that a caucus situation with a relatively right wing voting base is ideal for his candidacy and yet he's unable to capitalize. If he couldn't win in Iowa than he's toast everywhere else. My prediction is that his 15 minutes of fame as a viable candidate is over. Now it's time to focus on what are the other message emanating from the Iowa Caucus. Mitt Romney inability to break over the 25% margin tells us that with all of his advantages, 3/4 of the GOP voters are still in search of someone else.
Will that someone else be Rick Santorum or could Gingrich re-emerge again? It will truly depend on the traction that Santorum is able to gain in a State where it is impossible for him to visit every county, because he just doesn't have the time or financial resources. If he can remain strong in the described setting than he will remain a strong candidate for the next month. However the reality is he will now be attacked by Gingrich for this is necessary for Newt to have Romney isolated into a one on one situation. Romney has no incentive to attack Santorum for no other reason than the fact he needs the conservative wing to be split so that he can prevail. The most conservative GOP voters must be split in order for Romney to prevail. Rick Perry after his embarrassing showing in Iowa has no choice but to quit the race. Michelle Bachman should do the same but will stay around for one or two more primaries. Who will their supporters get behind once they are no longer in the race ? It is likely to be Gingrich or Santorum which will be a tremendous boost for the candidate that survives.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/03/12
Winners and losers in Iowa
BY: Armstrong Williams
Winners and losers in Iowa
The famed Iowa caucuses are this week, and it’s time for some predictions, along with some clear messages to a few candidates that it’s perhaps time to pack it up and head on home.
But first, expect Mitt Romney to win this Tuesday. The overall GOP frontrunner has surprised pundits both in and out of the Hawkeye state with his deft campaigning and his behind-the-scenes courting of all the right power players. Even if Tea Party favorite Ron Paul edges out a victory over Romney, it’s still an important finish for the former Massachusetts governor.
An Iowa win or second place finish would position Romney nicely for New Hampshire and then South Carolina, Florida, etc. Yes, he finished second to Huckabee four years ago, but this time it’s different. And he knows it.
It also sends a clear message to the GOP establishment of who their “guy” needs to be. No more hand-wringing and waiting next to the water cooler for the next best thing. Been there, done that with oh, four or five others (remember: Trump, Perry, Christie, Cain, the list goes on). The party lieutenants need to step up and begin to get behind their frontrunner. We’re not there yet, but folks in the institutions need to begin to come to grips with Romney and become more focused on beating Obama.
Now, on to the losers. Even though former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is slated to do well in Iowa, the sensation is more like a roman candle firework – pretty to watch and loud, but short-lived and anti-climactic. Santorum knows this as well. He can do whatever he likes moving on to New Hampshire, but I fear this will be the high water mark of his presidential run.
Jon Huntsman and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann should both exit stage right following Iowa. You can bet Bachmann will not. After all, she did win earlier this year. But neither has the staying power, and Huntsman just hasn’t caught fire with any constituency.
More importantly perhaps, a Romney win would send a message to Governor Perry and maybe even Newt Gingrich that their days are numbered. The allure of Perry started dissipating the day after he announced. What a flop. And while he still has a lot of money in the bank, he’s been able to do absolutely nothing with it, appealing to no one. He will need to take a long hard look at his campaign moving forward, and make some bold moves if he’s to do any better as the primaries move south.
This week may say more about the losers than it will the winner in Iowa. That’s typically how the first test of presidential muster follows. I personally will be watching for how Romney will treat his win and what he decides to do with it. There are plenty in the GOP establishment still sour on the smooth campaigner, and he needs to shore up that element pretty darn quickly. Obama is waiting in the wings ready to pounce.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Winners and losers in Iowa
BY: Armstrong Williams
Winners and losers in Iowa
The famed Iowa caucuses are this week, and it’s time for some predictions, along with some clear messages to a few candidates that it’s perhaps time to pack it up and head on home.
But first, expect Mitt Romney to win this Tuesday. The overall GOP frontrunner has surprised pundits both in and out of the Hawkeye state with his deft campaigning and his behind-the-scenes courting of all the right power players. Even if Tea Party favorite Ron Paul edges out a victory over Romney, it’s still an important finish for the former Massachusetts governor.
An Iowa win or second place finish would position Romney nicely for New Hampshire and then South Carolina, Florida, etc. Yes, he finished second to Huckabee four years ago, but this time it’s different. And he knows it.
It also sends a clear message to the GOP establishment of who their “guy” needs to be. No more hand-wringing and waiting next to the water cooler for the next best thing. Been there, done that with oh, four or five others (remember: Trump, Perry, Christie, Cain, the list goes on). The party lieutenants need to step up and begin to get behind their frontrunner. We’re not there yet, but folks in the institutions need to begin to come to grips with Romney and become more focused on beating Obama.
Now, on to the losers. Even though former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is slated to do well in Iowa, the sensation is more like a roman candle firework – pretty to watch and loud, but short-lived and anti-climactic. Santorum knows this as well. He can do whatever he likes moving on to New Hampshire, but I fear this will be the high water mark of his presidential run.
Jon Huntsman and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann should both exit stage right following Iowa. You can bet Bachmann will not. After all, she did win earlier this year. But neither has the staying power, and Huntsman just hasn’t caught fire with any constituency.
More importantly perhaps, a Romney win would send a message to Governor Perry and maybe even Newt Gingrich that their days are numbered. The allure of Perry started dissipating the day after he announced. What a flop. And while he still has a lot of money in the bank, he’s been able to do absolutely nothing with it, appealing to no one. He will need to take a long hard look at his campaign moving forward, and make some bold moves if he’s to do any better as the primaries move south.
This week may say more about the losers than it will the winner in Iowa. That’s typically how the first test of presidential muster follows. I personally will be watching for how Romney will treat his win and what he decides to do with it. There are plenty in the GOP establishment still sour on the smooth campaigner, and he needs to shore up that element pretty darn quickly. Obama is waiting in the wings ready to pounce.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/22/11
Merry XMAS and Not happy holidays
BY: Armstrong Williams
Merry XMAS and Not Happy Holidays
It is interesting to watch people conduct themselves this time of year as they try to figure out whether they should say Merry Christmas or not based on the appearance and the belief of the person they're speaking with.
Whether you wish someone a Merry Christmas or not should have nothing to do with their belief or political philosophy, it is all about the holiday spirit.
Whether a person believes in the saving power of Jesus Christ or not is insignificant when it comes to wishing good will for a fellow human being. It's just like saying good morning to someone. Do you scrutinize and examine them before saying good morning, or are you actually hopeful they're having a good morning? If in fact we believe in the meaning of the season then their beliefs and politics become irrelevant. We are all children of the lord and deserve blessings one in the same.
We must stop being so artificially sensitive to something that is so good and wholesome. If we cease to capitulate to the destructive tendencies of political correctness we will diminish the pervasive dampening of the American spirit which, at this point and time, is in desperate need of revitalization.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Merry XMAS and Not happy holidays
BY: Armstrong Williams
Merry XMAS and Not Happy Holidays
It is interesting to watch people conduct themselves this time of year as they try to figure out whether they should say Merry Christmas or not based on the appearance and the belief of the person they're speaking with.
Whether you wish someone a Merry Christmas or not should have nothing to do with their belief or political philosophy, it is all about the holiday spirit.
Whether a person believes in the saving power of Jesus Christ or not is insignificant when it comes to wishing good will for a fellow human being. It's just like saying good morning to someone. Do you scrutinize and examine them before saying good morning, or are you actually hopeful they're having a good morning? If in fact we believe in the meaning of the season then their beliefs and politics become irrelevant. We are all children of the lord and deserve blessings one in the same.
We must stop being so artificially sensitive to something that is so good and wholesome. If we cease to capitulate to the destructive tendencies of political correctness we will diminish the pervasive dampening of the American spirit which, at this point and time, is in desperate need of revitalization.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/21/11
The Bigger Picture
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Bigger Picture
Just yesterday the House GOP rejected legislation that would have extended payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits for an extra two months. While it would have been great to see bipartisanship take a backseat to getting something done, I have to agree with House Speaker Boehner and his pursuit of tax cuts and how necessary it is to cut spending. It seems like Obama and his Democrats are missing the truly big picture.
You see, what is missing amongst all this payroll holiday tax talk is the admission that America is broke. We all know it, we all feel it, and at the very least we see it everyday in one form or another; America is Broke!
In order to pay for all of these tax cuts, and further expenditures, we have to borrow money from the Chinese. We, as United States citizens, are like drug addicts and the Chinese are our suppliers and loan sharks. Sure, an extra $80 or so is a lot of money to a lot of people, but it's not a large enough amount of money to hide the fact that it is borrowed money.
It's a rare case when increased debt can solve a debt problem. Very rare, and What About The Deficit!? Does no one mind their books anymore? 2012 will be the first year that the United States debt to GDP ratio will exceed 100%. Spending more money than you make is the quickest way to the poor house, and I don't want to see that for this great country of ours.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Bigger Picture
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Bigger Picture
Just yesterday the House GOP rejected legislation that would have extended payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits for an extra two months. While it would have been great to see bipartisanship take a backseat to getting something done, I have to agree with House Speaker Boehner and his pursuit of tax cuts and how necessary it is to cut spending. It seems like Obama and his Democrats are missing the truly big picture.
You see, what is missing amongst all this payroll holiday tax talk is the admission that America is broke. We all know it, we all feel it, and at the very least we see it everyday in one form or another; America is Broke!
In order to pay for all of these tax cuts, and further expenditures, we have to borrow money from the Chinese. We, as United States citizens, are like drug addicts and the Chinese are our suppliers and loan sharks. Sure, an extra $80 or so is a lot of money to a lot of people, but it's not a large enough amount of money to hide the fact that it is borrowed money.
It's a rare case when increased debt can solve a debt problem. Very rare, and What About The Deficit!? Does no one mind their books anymore? 2012 will be the first year that the United States debt to GDP ratio will exceed 100%. Spending more money than you make is the quickest way to the poor house, and I don't want to see that for this great country of ours.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/20/11
Disappearing without a trace
BY: Armstrong Williams
Disappearing without a trace
How easily we forget. Hopefully the American people during this current election cycle will remember the lavish praise heaped upon John Corzine by President Obama and Vice President Biden. They told us he was one of the brightest and wisest members of their party. This is the same Corzine that presided over one of the largest financial debacles in the history of America in which $1.2 billion dollars of investors' capital disappeared without a trace. Perhaps it's also listening to individuals like Obama and Biden that is causing our financial freedoms to disappear without a trace.
While the President spends enormous amounts of money advertising to try and heap the negative attention on his opponents, we the people would be very wise to remember what this President has done in the past and not what he is now saying with his silver tongue, eloquence in the here and now. There's a well known saying, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Let's make sure we're not shamed again.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Disappearing without a trace
BY: Armstrong Williams
Disappearing without a trace
How easily we forget. Hopefully the American people during this current election cycle will remember the lavish praise heaped upon John Corzine by President Obama and Vice President Biden. They told us he was one of the brightest and wisest members of their party. This is the same Corzine that presided over one of the largest financial debacles in the history of America in which $1.2 billion dollars of investors' capital disappeared without a trace. Perhaps it's also listening to individuals like Obama and Biden that is causing our financial freedoms to disappear without a trace.
While the President spends enormous amounts of money advertising to try and heap the negative attention on his opponents, we the people would be very wise to remember what this President has done in the past and not what he is now saying with his silver tongue, eloquence in the here and now. There's a well known saying, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Let's make sure we're not shamed again.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/14/11
Business owners and private wealth individuals are hoarding cash
BY: Armstrong Williams
Business owners and private wealth individuals are hoarding cash
The business community realizes that the increased money supply is
financing government spending and the private sector must eventually pay
the piper. Many private wealth individuals and businessmen are hoarding
cash for fear of over regulation and the Obama administration strangling real
growth of the US economy.
Consequently, the business community is not investing as much
as it might because it is concerned about inflation and higher future
taxes to pay for the borrowing. Since business investment takes time
for a return, the business man making an investment now expecting a
return 2 or 3 years from now knows that his taxes are going to be
increased with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the 3.8% new
Obama care tax on unearned earnings. Thus the businessman is not
investing today because they know their return is being significantly
reduced 2 years from now.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Business owners and private wealth individuals are hoarding cash
BY: Armstrong Williams
Business owners and private wealth individuals are hoarding cash
The business community realizes that the increased money supply is
financing government spending and the private sector must eventually pay
the piper. Many private wealth individuals and businessmen are hoarding
cash for fear of over regulation and the Obama administration strangling real
growth of the US economy.
Consequently, the business community is not investing as much
as it might because it is concerned about inflation and higher future
taxes to pay for the borrowing. Since business investment takes time
for a return, the business man making an investment now expecting a
return 2 or 3 years from now knows that his taxes are going to be
increased with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the 3.8% new
Obama care tax on unearned earnings. Thus the businessman is not
investing today because they know their return is being significantly
reduced 2 years from now.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/13/11
Tax Credits to stimulate the economy ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Tax Credits to stimulate the economy ?
The ill conceived idea to stimulate the economy thru a tax credit for firms that
increase employment, shows an academic economist fundamental lack of
understanding of why companies increase employment. Jobs are a by-product
of increased sales and revenues. Companies do not like to hire employees.
They are expensive, require management and cannot be easily laid off in the
event of incompetence or loss of business. Companies increase employment
because they have additional business that needs to be processed, and they
cannot process it thru overtime or increased capital. No businessman in his
right mind would hire someone merely because labor is 10% cheaper because of
tax credits. He would only increase employment if that is his only
alternative to process additional business. If he has additional business,
then he will hire additional employees regardless of the 10% credit.
Therefore the credit is an inefficient way to increase employment and waste
of taxpayer money.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Tax Credits to stimulate the economy ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Tax Credits to stimulate the economy ?
The ill conceived idea to stimulate the economy thru a tax credit for firms that
increase employment, shows an academic economist fundamental lack of
understanding of why companies increase employment. Jobs are a by-product
of increased sales and revenues. Companies do not like to hire employees.
They are expensive, require management and cannot be easily laid off in the
event of incompetence or loss of business. Companies increase employment
because they have additional business that needs to be processed, and they
cannot process it thru overtime or increased capital. No businessman in his
right mind would hire someone merely because labor is 10% cheaper because of
tax credits. He would only increase employment if that is his only
alternative to process additional business. If he has additional business,
then he will hire additional employees regardless of the 10% credit.
Therefore the credit is an inefficient way to increase employment and waste
of taxpayer money.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/09/11
Men and Philandering ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Men and Philandering?
Do women who have been successfully and happily married for many years not want to know if their husband is committing adultery? Are there conditions that you don't embarrass your wife and family? Is it critical that the adulterous affair is purely sexual and not threatening to your wife and marriage stability? Is discretion paramount? While we're not advocating this behavior, many women who are successfully married realize that their husbands will never be angels and that sometimes adultery happens. Would you break up a happy marriage for adulterous behavior?
These questions have been swirling around in my head lately as the number of mass media indictments of adultery has been increasing at an ever more rapid pace. My confusion came to a head during the recent, what I would like to call, “Herman Cain Show.” Every other week there was a new allegation, or a new woman claiming to have been harassed by the former presidential hopeful.
At first it seemed like a joke and a lie, and a poorly scripted one at that, but there are only so many times you can hear a joke before it starts to sound true. At this point, there has been so much swirling around about Herman Cain’s nefarious ways that it is impossible to ignore or even give the benefit of the doubt. But more importantly, is this the way powerful men conduct themselves in relationships?
Do powerful men have a secret longing for the days of the bible when a man could have as many wives as they could afford? Or will the democratization ‘scare them straight?’ Only time will tell.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Men and Philandering ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Men and Philandering?
Do women who have been successfully and happily married for many years not want to know if their husband is committing adultery? Are there conditions that you don't embarrass your wife and family? Is it critical that the adulterous affair is purely sexual and not threatening to your wife and marriage stability? Is discretion paramount? While we're not advocating this behavior, many women who are successfully married realize that their husbands will never be angels and that sometimes adultery happens. Would you break up a happy marriage for adulterous behavior?
These questions have been swirling around in my head lately as the number of mass media indictments of adultery has been increasing at an ever more rapid pace. My confusion came to a head during the recent, what I would like to call, “Herman Cain Show.” Every other week there was a new allegation, or a new woman claiming to have been harassed by the former presidential hopeful.
At first it seemed like a joke and a lie, and a poorly scripted one at that, but there are only so many times you can hear a joke before it starts to sound true. At this point, there has been so much swirling around about Herman Cain’s nefarious ways that it is impossible to ignore or even give the benefit of the doubt. But more importantly, is this the way powerful men conduct themselves in relationships?
Do powerful men have a secret longing for the days of the bible when a man could have as many wives as they could afford? Or will the democratization ‘scare them straight?’ Only time will tell.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/08/11
The Invisible Man - Timothy F. Geithner, US Treasury Secretary
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Invisible Man - Timothy F. Geithner, US Treasury Secretary
Treasury Secretary Geithner in Europe this week announced his support for the German and French plan to stabilize the Euro-zone.
Secretary Geithner merely sings in the chorus among his colleagues- he is one among many. He was virtually tossed out of Europe in September when he told European leaders to put aside their differences and resolve issues related to the catastrophic risk for markets because if Europe didn't erect a stronger firewall to end the European debt crisis then the world would truly be in trouble.
The Europeans were quick to remind the US Treasury Secretary that he should return home and use his same rhetoric to deal with the US debt levels and it's own catastrophic risk with the pension fund crisis, the recent downgrade of US debt and possible future downgrades as well. Just yesterday in France, Secretary Geithner exclaimed his confidence that the Euro-zone countries will succeed in their restructuring. But wait, didn’t Secretary Geithner also say he was confident in the Super Committee’s ability to compromise on reforms? If the past is any indication of the future, then we are very seriously in trouble.
Mr. Geithner came to his position as an acknowledged self tax preparing cheater and has never gained favor with the American public. The citizens of the United States of America deserve better, we deserve a strong and respected Treasury Secretary. As the Europeans have so persistently told Mr. Geithner, it is time to go home.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Invisible Man - Timothy F. Geithner, US Treasury Secretary
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Invisible Man - Timothy F. Geithner, US Treasury Secretary
Treasury Secretary Geithner in Europe this week announced his support for the German and French plan to stabilize the Euro-zone.
Secretary Geithner merely sings in the chorus among his colleagues- he is one among many. He was virtually tossed out of Europe in September when he told European leaders to put aside their differences and resolve issues related to the catastrophic risk for markets because if Europe didn't erect a stronger firewall to end the European debt crisis then the world would truly be in trouble.
The Europeans were quick to remind the US Treasury Secretary that he should return home and use his same rhetoric to deal with the US debt levels and it's own catastrophic risk with the pension fund crisis, the recent downgrade of US debt and possible future downgrades as well. Just yesterday in France, Secretary Geithner exclaimed his confidence that the Euro-zone countries will succeed in their restructuring. But wait, didn’t Secretary Geithner also say he was confident in the Super Committee’s ability to compromise on reforms? If the past is any indication of the future, then we are very seriously in trouble.
Mr. Geithner came to his position as an acknowledged self tax preparing cheater and has never gained favor with the American public. The citizens of the United States of America deserve better, we deserve a strong and respected Treasury Secretary. As the Europeans have so persistently told Mr. Geithner, it is time to go home.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/06/11
We are vastly different people today
BY: Armstrong Williams
We are vastly different people today.
We have seen worst times than we're facing in the world today. Situations in many ways were more desperate but we have not faced them with such a generation of people with weak resolve. When we were facing such great difficulty we had a strength of resolve and resiliency that we just don't witness in today's era. It truly is the result that you should anticipate. We have been doing everything possible to create this total dependency in the population. To a large degree that vision has succeeded. We faced the Revolutionary War, Civil war and cold war and all had the potential to destroy us. The difference is we're not the same kind of people. We yield more and more to the temptation of the European socialist state. The point of which is to create weak and passive populations, what De Tocqueville referred to Democracy in America as Industrial Sheep. Unfortunately the sheep are no long industrist they are just sheep. They're wondering around looking for someone to tell them what to think and what to do.
We now have a mentality among the poupulous that nanny government must care for their ever awakening need. This is the dangerous attitude that is tearing us apart at the seams.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
We are vastly different people today
BY: Armstrong Williams
We are vastly different people today.
We have seen worst times than we're facing in the world today. Situations in many ways were more desperate but we have not faced them with such a generation of people with weak resolve. When we were facing such great difficulty we had a strength of resolve and resiliency that we just don't witness in today's era. It truly is the result that you should anticipate. We have been doing everything possible to create this total dependency in the population. To a large degree that vision has succeeded. We faced the Revolutionary War, Civil war and cold war and all had the potential to destroy us. The difference is we're not the same kind of people. We yield more and more to the temptation of the European socialist state. The point of which is to create weak and passive populations, what De Tocqueville referred to Democracy in America as Industrial Sheep. Unfortunately the sheep are no long industrist they are just sheep. They're wondering around looking for someone to tell them what to think and what to do.
We now have a mentality among the poupulous that nanny government must care for their ever awakening need. This is the dangerous attitude that is tearing us apart at the seams.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/01/11
Man Up Cain
BY: Armstrong Williams
Man Up Cain
Marriage should be for a life time and couples should work through betrayal and challenges that many marriages are confronted with. Herman Cain and his wife Gloria have been married for over 40 years. When you've invested that much time in a marriage there's a part of you that doesn't want to destroy your marriage because of some allegations, no matter how intense, and you also do not want to once again be alone. Obviously a marriage for many couples is not judged on a season of allegations and challenges, especially when you've been in the relationship for 46 years. Why would Cain knowingly urge his wife to give interviews defending his character when he knew she would later be humiliated for doing so? He knew without a doubt that she was enabling a lie which to many is worse than betrayal. Either Gloria Cain is very naive or Herman Cain is very deceptive. Cain cannot repent unless he admits and acknowledges his wrong doing and serious character flaws. All we have seen from Cain is deceit and hypocrisy and no admission of guilt. He should just apologize to the people who have given him their faith and trust. Cain needs to man up, acknowledge his short comings, and not profit from this chaotic behavior.
We are watching the last hope of human kind be destroyed by a group of people that have bought into a false reality. We have forgotten what makes human beings strive and what we owe to God, we are destroying it all. It's no longer a theoretical possibility, it's a strong possibility. Just look at the acting and posturing from the failed Super Committee when they knew all along the meetings and constant rhetoric would be an utter failure. I am truly beginning to worry about my beloved America. Truly.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Man Up Cain
BY: Armstrong Williams
Man Up Cain
Marriage should be for a life time and couples should work through betrayal and challenges that many marriages are confronted with. Herman Cain and his wife Gloria have been married for over 40 years. When you've invested that much time in a marriage there's a part of you that doesn't want to destroy your marriage because of some allegations, no matter how intense, and you also do not want to once again be alone. Obviously a marriage for many couples is not judged on a season of allegations and challenges, especially when you've been in the relationship for 46 years. Why would Cain knowingly urge his wife to give interviews defending his character when he knew she would later be humiliated for doing so? He knew without a doubt that she was enabling a lie which to many is worse than betrayal. Either Gloria Cain is very naive or Herman Cain is very deceptive. Cain cannot repent unless he admits and acknowledges his wrong doing and serious character flaws. All we have seen from Cain is deceit and hypocrisy and no admission of guilt. He should just apologize to the people who have given him their faith and trust. Cain needs to man up, acknowledge his short comings, and not profit from this chaotic behavior.
We are watching the last hope of human kind be destroyed by a group of people that have bought into a false reality. We have forgotten what makes human beings strive and what we owe to God, we are destroying it all. It's no longer a theoretical possibility, it's a strong possibility. Just look at the acting and posturing from the failed Super Committee when they knew all along the meetings and constant rhetoric would be an utter failure. I am truly beginning to worry about my beloved America. Truly.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/28/11
The Eurozone is tanking
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Eurozone is tanking !
What's going on in Europe is scaring the living daylights out of me. The Germans cannot sell German government bonds to the bond market. They only sold about 40% of their sovereign bonds last week. This is the strongest country in Europe and they can't sell their Euro bonds? That is proof positive that investors have zero confidence in the Euro. They have confidence in Germany, but not the Euro. If Germany sells Euro bonds and the Euro market breaks up. German Euro bonds will convert to Deutsche Mark bonds and no one knows how they will be priced. Italy is a story unto itself, it has gone so far down the wrong path that, in an auction on Friday, it had to pay investors 6.5% on six-month bonds.
This is all so painful to watch, mostly because it is a true indictment of the final breakup of the Eurozone, but when it breaks up what are the implications for Europe, world trade, and the good ol' USA? All we know is that the short term impact of a break up will Not be good.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Eurozone is tanking
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Eurozone is tanking !
What's going on in Europe is scaring the living daylights out of me. The Germans cannot sell German government bonds to the bond market. They only sold about 40% of their sovereign bonds last week. This is the strongest country in Europe and they can't sell their Euro bonds? That is proof positive that investors have zero confidence in the Euro. They have confidence in Germany, but not the Euro. If Germany sells Euro bonds and the Euro market breaks up. German Euro bonds will convert to Deutsche Mark bonds and no one knows how they will be priced. Italy is a story unto itself, it has gone so far down the wrong path that, in an auction on Friday, it had to pay investors 6.5% on six-month bonds.
This is all so painful to watch, mostly because it is a true indictment of the final breakup of the Eurozone, but when it breaks up what are the implications for Europe, world trade, and the good ol' USA? All we know is that the short term impact of a break up will Not be good.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/26/11
The Spoiled Pakistanis
The Spoiled Pakistanis
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Pakistanis continue to spit in our eyes despite all of our overtures and attempts to gain their friendship. They know we are over a barrel and we don't have the controls. Why have we given them so much autonomy? We have convinced ourselves that we need them so that we can pursue our goals in Afghanistan, but in order to find a solution to the Pakistani problem we must first reexamine our goals in Afghanistan. What are the realistic chances that we are going to convert them to a democratic society like ours? I suspect the chances are negative, it just won't happen.
By continuing to pursue democracy in Afghanistan we are simply wasting our time and resources just as Russia and every other society that has gone into Afghanistan over the century. This is perhaps a situation where we need to take the advice of the flight attendant, at the beginning of the flight who points out if there is a crisis place your own mask on first and then help the person next to you. We are quickly running out of options and are in of need major self examination and care before we can do anything to help the rest of the world.
How can we demand that other countries elect, or otherwise appoint, capable and astute leaders when the one that we have doesn't have the confidence of his own constituents? It is analogous to trying to sell landscaping services within your neighborhood while your own yard is a mess. It simple does not work.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Spoiled Pakistanis
The Spoiled Pakistanis
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Pakistanis continue to spit in our eyes despite all of our overtures and attempts to gain their friendship. They know we are over a barrel and we don't have the controls. Why have we given them so much autonomy? We have convinced ourselves that we need them so that we can pursue our goals in Afghanistan, but in order to find a solution to the Pakistani problem we must first reexamine our goals in Afghanistan. What are the realistic chances that we are going to convert them to a democratic society like ours? I suspect the chances are negative, it just won't happen.
By continuing to pursue democracy in Afghanistan we are simply wasting our time and resources just as Russia and every other society that has gone into Afghanistan over the century. This is perhaps a situation where we need to take the advice of the flight attendant, at the beginning of the flight who points out if there is a crisis place your own mask on first and then help the person next to you. We are quickly running out of options and are in of need major self examination and care before we can do anything to help the rest of the world.
How can we demand that other countries elect, or otherwise appoint, capable and astute leaders when the one that we have doesn't have the confidence of his own constituents? It is analogous to trying to sell landscaping services within your neighborhood while your own yard is a mess. It simple does not work.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/22/11
Super Committee hidden agenda
BY: Armstrong Williams
Super Committee failure
Some people seem surprised that the "Super Committee" has failed to achieve its goal, but it should not come as a shock. The Republicans are committed to not raising taxes, which the president certainly knows, and the Democrats are not committed to reducing out of control entitlements. It was quite predictable that an agreement would not be reached, which is why candidate Gingrich called the panel the silliest thing he has ever heard of.
It does, however, provide an excellent excuse for the President who presides over a dysfunctional government, but wants to exempt himself as part of that dysfunction yet lay it on everyone else. Had the Super Committee been able to reach an agreement the economy would not have improved in any substantial way because we're dealing with a relatively small amount of money in comparison to our debt and deficit, the result would have been more focus on Obama and his lack of leadership.
President Obama's goal from the start was for the committee to fail, this way he can rail against Congress in the upcoming Presidential election. Hopefully at some point Congress and the people will begin to hold the President's feet to the fire and tell him that he is our leader, Commander in Chief, and not the Cheerleader in Chief.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Super Committee hidden agenda
BY: Armstrong Williams
Super Committee failure
Some people seem surprised that the "Super Committee" has failed to achieve its goal, but it should not come as a shock. The Republicans are committed to not raising taxes, which the president certainly knows, and the Democrats are not committed to reducing out of control entitlements. It was quite predictable that an agreement would not be reached, which is why candidate Gingrich called the panel the silliest thing he has ever heard of.
It does, however, provide an excellent excuse for the President who presides over a dysfunctional government, but wants to exempt himself as part of that dysfunction yet lay it on everyone else. Had the Super Committee been able to reach an agreement the economy would not have improved in any substantial way because we're dealing with a relatively small amount of money in comparison to our debt and deficit, the result would have been more focus on Obama and his lack of leadership.
President Obama's goal from the start was for the committee to fail, this way he can rail against Congress in the upcoming Presidential election. Hopefully at some point Congress and the people will begin to hold the President's feet to the fire and tell him that he is our leader, Commander in Chief, and not the Cheerleader in Chief.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/21/11
Gigantic Time bomb
BY: Armstrong Williams
Gigantic Time bomb
Unfunded medicare liability is $90 trillion. Unfunded Social Security is $20 trillion. How can any of us comprehend the kind of debt that this country has? I thought $15 trillion in debt was a lot, this is absolute nonsense. What do we fund these liabilities with when the money becomes worthless? It's like the universe, how do you get your hands around something that size!? There is no way this country is going to do anything but crash and burn, the only issue is on what day. When the government stops printing money, what happens? Medicare and Medicaid strongly indicates that big government is caring for most people in our nation and as a result they have a gigantic time bomb sitting on their balance sheet.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Gigantic Time bomb
BY: Armstrong Williams
Gigantic Time bomb
Unfunded medicare liability is $90 trillion. Unfunded Social Security is $20 trillion. How can any of us comprehend the kind of debt that this country has? I thought $15 trillion in debt was a lot, this is absolute nonsense. What do we fund these liabilities with when the money becomes worthless? It's like the universe, how do you get your hands around something that size!? There is no way this country is going to do anything but crash and burn, the only issue is on what day. When the government stops printing money, what happens? Medicare and Medicaid strongly indicates that big government is caring for most people in our nation and as a result they have a gigantic time bomb sitting on their balance sheet.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/18/11
A rare glimpse into Obama's thinking
BY: Armstrong Williams
A rare glimpse into Obama’s thinking
If you haven’t read Fortune Magazine’s piece on its 2011 “Business Person of the Year”: Starbucks chairman and CEO Howard Schultz, it’s an interesting read. Reporter David Kaplan tells a compelling story not just of Schultz’s canny abilities in running a mega-powerful commercial titan such as Starbucks, but also how politically savvy the coffee magnate can be. Perhaps he never intended to wield such power, but according to the piece, he is.
And the President is paying attention as well. Evidently, earlier this September, Obama called Schultz to talk shop and seek his guidance on the current (weak) business climate across the country. Schultz had made it known that he was deeply concerned about the current trajectory (or nosedive) of the U.S. economy and what its leaders proposed to do about it.
Now, conversations between the leader of the country and a leader of a major U.S. company wouldn’t necessarily count as news. But what made this September conversation different is its timing. Obama called Schultz soon after the CEO announced in a public way that he was “disgusted with Washington’s dysfunction” and would no longer be making campaign contributions to incumbents in either party. Big news indeed. What hurt more was that Schultz is a big Democratic donor, and his inability to find his wallet for the foreseeable future bothered the White House immensely.
Let me get this straight. The best way to get the President’s attention is by announcing you’re not giving his party any more money? Are you serious?
And just to clear up any doubts he might’ve had in calling Schultz, Obama was quoted as saying, “I’d like to talk to you about a number of things, including your campaign initiative, as well as your thoughts on the economy and job creation.” What a joke.
What’s laughable is this President and his minions publicly decry contributions from major moguls, and PACs, yet quietly vie for the monetary attention.
When will the White House just come out and admit it's in full campaign mode? Stop trying to cover it up. It might make folks less inclined to avoid you if they know you intend to shake them down on why they're not giving campaign money this election cycle.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A rare glimpse into Obama's thinking
BY: Armstrong Williams
A rare glimpse into Obama’s thinking
If you haven’t read Fortune Magazine’s piece on its 2011 “Business Person of the Year”: Starbucks chairman and CEO Howard Schultz, it’s an interesting read. Reporter David Kaplan tells a compelling story not just of Schultz’s canny abilities in running a mega-powerful commercial titan such as Starbucks, but also how politically savvy the coffee magnate can be. Perhaps he never intended to wield such power, but according to the piece, he is.
And the President is paying attention as well. Evidently, earlier this September, Obama called Schultz to talk shop and seek his guidance on the current (weak) business climate across the country. Schultz had made it known that he was deeply concerned about the current trajectory (or nosedive) of the U.S. economy and what its leaders proposed to do about it.
Now, conversations between the leader of the country and a leader of a major U.S. company wouldn’t necessarily count as news. But what made this September conversation different is its timing. Obama called Schultz soon after the CEO announced in a public way that he was “disgusted with Washington’s dysfunction” and would no longer be making campaign contributions to incumbents in either party. Big news indeed. What hurt more was that Schultz is a big Democratic donor, and his inability to find his wallet for the foreseeable future bothered the White House immensely.
Let me get this straight. The best way to get the President’s attention is by announcing you’re not giving his party any more money? Are you serious?
And just to clear up any doubts he might’ve had in calling Schultz, Obama was quoted as saying, “I’d like to talk to you about a number of things, including your campaign initiative, as well as your thoughts on the economy and job creation.” What a joke.
What’s laughable is this President and his minions publicly decry contributions from major moguls, and PACs, yet quietly vie for the monetary attention.
When will the White House just come out and admit it's in full campaign mode? Stop trying to cover it up. It might make folks less inclined to avoid you if they know you intend to shake them down on why they're not giving campaign money this election cycle.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/16/11
Obamacare Supreme slippery slope
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obamacare Supreme Slippery Slope
If the Supreme Court were to allow the Obama administration to mandate purchases of health insurance, it would set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent, our government could tell its citizens how they must manage their own resources. This would establish a slippery slope of unfathomable complexity. It would start a transition into socialism and could only end with a communist dictatorship; it would be the beginning of the destruction of personal freedom in America.
Personal freedom has defined America since its inception and it is painful to see the very values on which we were founded, legally and literally, erode before our very eyes. As the old saying goes, if you give an inch they’ll take a mile; a health insurance mandate might not seem like much now, but allowing the government to determine how an individual should allocate their resources is the first step down a road that we, as Americans, should not want to travel.
What’s next, limiting and/or mandating the number of children conceived like China? Perhaps the next time one of our domestic car makers like Ford or GM is struggling the government can disallow the purchase of foreign cars. Or they could submit that, because our dollar is tanking any moneys that you earn beyond the limit of 300k monthly must go directly to the public coffers.
The big issue here is one that requires a bit of history. You see the original 13 states only accepted the idea of a federal government so long as its power remained limited, the line in the sand being drawn where an issue involved only one state; the Interstate Commerce Clause. The only way for our government to flex its muscle is by perverting the spirit of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of our constitution and making health care national instead of state as it has been for decades. Once that dam breaks it will be far easier for our government to regulate the actions of any individual in any part of the United States and I, for one, don’t want ‘Big Brother’ breathing down my neck anymore than necessary.
Now that this case is before our nation's highest court it is my hope that some level of common sense will stir in the minds of the Supreme Court Justices. The Obamacare administration needs a serious reminder that a government that governs least governs best.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obamacare Supreme slippery slope
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obamacare Supreme Slippery Slope
If the Supreme Court were to allow the Obama administration to mandate purchases of health insurance, it would set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent, our government could tell its citizens how they must manage their own resources. This would establish a slippery slope of unfathomable complexity. It would start a transition into socialism and could only end with a communist dictatorship; it would be the beginning of the destruction of personal freedom in America.
Personal freedom has defined America since its inception and it is painful to see the very values on which we were founded, legally and literally, erode before our very eyes. As the old saying goes, if you give an inch they’ll take a mile; a health insurance mandate might not seem like much now, but allowing the government to determine how an individual should allocate their resources is the first step down a road that we, as Americans, should not want to travel.
What’s next, limiting and/or mandating the number of children conceived like China? Perhaps the next time one of our domestic car makers like Ford or GM is struggling the government can disallow the purchase of foreign cars. Or they could submit that, because our dollar is tanking any moneys that you earn beyond the limit of 300k monthly must go directly to the public coffers.
The big issue here is one that requires a bit of history. You see the original 13 states only accepted the idea of a federal government so long as its power remained limited, the line in the sand being drawn where an issue involved only one state; the Interstate Commerce Clause. The only way for our government to flex its muscle is by perverting the spirit of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of our constitution and making health care national instead of state as it has been for decades. Once that dam breaks it will be far easier for our government to regulate the actions of any individual in any part of the United States and I, for one, don’t want ‘Big Brother’ breathing down my neck anymore than necessary.
Now that this case is before our nation's highest court it is my hope that some level of common sense will stir in the minds of the Supreme Court Justices. The Obamacare administration needs a serious reminder that a government that governs least governs best.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/15/11
My way or the Highway
BY: Armstrong Williams
My way or the Highway
John Corzine who is considered by many one of the smartest fixed income minds in the business took immeasurable risk with the capital of his firm. It was revealed that the company was leveraged 40-1. In summary, the company only had 2.5% equity invested against risk positions. Note: even in the height of the sub-prime crisis 40-1 leverage would have been considered extremely risk, where small movements in underlying positions could represent deleterious outcomes for investors. Did the my way or highway Jon Corzine not learn for the greatest financial meltdown seen in the US economy. The answer is simple, here is another example to the entrusted “gambling with other peoples money.” The irony of this is that in the August 2011 Bond deal there is a Key Man clause that states if Mr. Corzine departs prior to July 1, 2013 as MF Global’s full time chief executive officer due to his appointment to a federal position by the President of the United States and the confirmation of that appointment by the United States Senate, investors would get an additional 1.00% coupon on their existing 6.250% bonds. I beg to differ in that the “clause” should have said if John Corzine decides to increase the risk taking at MF Global similar to previous risk position at Goldman Sachs, investors should be redeemed their money at 100 cents on the dollar. Another alarming concern, there is approximately $600 million of unaccounted for customer funds.
Again the public trust has been breached by those who are entrusted to protect other people’s money. What is the difference between Corizine and Madoff? Corizine lost other people’s money by taking unnecessary and unapproved risks. Madoff stole other people’s money in a Ponzi scheme. What Corizine did may be technically legal but he certainly did not have approval from his shareholders to take “bet your company” risks. Where were the regulatory and supervisory agencies. I am beginning to think we may have to pad our mattresses again with money…..at least you know where it resides and if any is missing the house pet (cat or dog) can provide better answers than what we hear from the Wall Street experts (Regulators, Bankers etc)
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
LISTEN TO ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS LIVE TONIGHT AT 7:30 PM ON CNBC'S LARRY KUDLOW REPORT
My way or the Highway
BY: Armstrong Williams
My way or the Highway
John Corzine who is considered by many one of the smartest fixed income minds in the business took immeasurable risk with the capital of his firm. It was revealed that the company was leveraged 40-1. In summary, the company only had 2.5% equity invested against risk positions. Note: even in the height of the sub-prime crisis 40-1 leverage would have been considered extremely risk, where small movements in underlying positions could represent deleterious outcomes for investors. Did the my way or highway Jon Corzine not learn for the greatest financial meltdown seen in the US economy. The answer is simple, here is another example to the entrusted “gambling with other peoples money.” The irony of this is that in the August 2011 Bond deal there is a Key Man clause that states if Mr. Corzine departs prior to July 1, 2013 as MF Global’s full time chief executive officer due to his appointment to a federal position by the President of the United States and the confirmation of that appointment by the United States Senate, investors would get an additional 1.00% coupon on their existing 6.250% bonds. I beg to differ in that the “clause” should have said if John Corzine decides to increase the risk taking at MF Global similar to previous risk position at Goldman Sachs, investors should be redeemed their money at 100 cents on the dollar. Another alarming concern, there is approximately $600 million of unaccounted for customer funds.
Again the public trust has been breached by those who are entrusted to protect other people’s money. What is the difference between Corizine and Madoff? Corizine lost other people’s money by taking unnecessary and unapproved risks. Madoff stole other people’s money in a Ponzi scheme. What Corizine did may be technically legal but he certainly did not have approval from his shareholders to take “bet your company” risks. Where were the regulatory and supervisory agencies. I am beginning to think we may have to pad our mattresses again with money…..at least you know where it resides and if any is missing the house pet (cat or dog) can provide better answers than what we hear from the Wall Street experts (Regulators, Bankers etc)
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
LISTEN TO ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS LIVE TONIGHT AT 7:30 PM ON CNBC'S LARRY KUDLOW REPORT
11/11/11
What's best about our country, rests on our Veterans shoulders
BY: Armstrong Williams
What's best about our country, rests on our Veterans shoulders.
We often do not observe Veterans day as it should be. It's a day where we actively remember our ancestors, our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones and our family members who have served for the betterment of this great nation.
The thing to remember about war is that there are very few moments of individual gallantry. The individual combatant rarely dwarfs his surroundings. No John Wayne's to ride through a hale of enemy fire to save the day.
In fact, those one-dimensional embodiments of masculine striving are usually the first to die. Moments of war rarely allow for clarity.
War is a chaos where platoons of men are condemned to slaughter one another. War is a horror where one is ordered to kill strangers, to run in the face of enemy fire, to ignore the sight of his friends as they crumple to the ground. This lack of clarity becomes transparent to every soldier as his captain shouts, "Over the top men, everyone out!"
In that moment, each soldier finds himself engulfed in death and confusion. There is a scene in Steven Spielberg's film "Saving Private Ryan", in which a young man has his arm blown off. He stumbles around, gazing at his shattered limb, unsure of what to do.
War is detached horror.
War is confusion.
I mention this only to point out that those Veterans, who grappled with man's worst, did so to preserve man's best. As we remember our Veterans, it hardly seems enough to remember these soldiers in cliques of gallantry.
It is not enough to reduce the service of our patriots to an excuse for a really big sale – as do retailers.
It is not enough to dilute this holiday with ostentatious displays of consumerism and pageantry. After all, the importance of celebrating Veterans Day is not to celebrate per say, but to confirm the significance of their sacrifice.
Let us not forget that what is best about this country rests on our Veterans shoulders.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
What's best about our country, rests on our Veterans shoulders
BY: Armstrong Williams
What's best about our country, rests on our Veterans shoulders.
We often do not observe Veterans day as it should be. It's a day where we actively remember our ancestors, our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones and our family members who have served for the betterment of this great nation.
The thing to remember about war is that there are very few moments of individual gallantry. The individual combatant rarely dwarfs his surroundings. No John Wayne's to ride through a hale of enemy fire to save the day.
In fact, those one-dimensional embodiments of masculine striving are usually the first to die. Moments of war rarely allow for clarity.
War is a chaos where platoons of men are condemned to slaughter one another. War is a horror where one is ordered to kill strangers, to run in the face of enemy fire, to ignore the sight of his friends as they crumple to the ground. This lack of clarity becomes transparent to every soldier as his captain shouts, "Over the top men, everyone out!"
In that moment, each soldier finds himself engulfed in death and confusion. There is a scene in Steven Spielberg's film "Saving Private Ryan", in which a young man has his arm blown off. He stumbles around, gazing at his shattered limb, unsure of what to do.
War is detached horror.
War is confusion.
I mention this only to point out that those Veterans, who grappled with man's worst, did so to preserve man's best. As we remember our Veterans, it hardly seems enough to remember these soldiers in cliques of gallantry.
It is not enough to reduce the service of our patriots to an excuse for a really big sale – as do retailers.
It is not enough to dilute this holiday with ostentatious displays of consumerism and pageantry. After all, the importance of celebrating Veterans Day is not to celebrate per say, but to confirm the significance of their sacrifice.
Let us not forget that what is best about this country rests on our Veterans shoulders.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/10/11
Election Day lessons for Voters
BY: Armstrong Williams
Election Day lessons for Voters
I made an interesting observation Tuesday night. No political scientist would jump to confirm this, as it’s merely an anecdote, not rooted in fact. But if it’s anywhere close to the truth, we have serious problems facing our country in the coming years from simply a perspective of being an informed voter.
I found myself late Tuesday evening walking around an Alexandria suburb, and was amazed at all the political signs for a series of candidates. There were signs for Alexandria Clerk of Court and perhaps a state delegate or two. But the ones I noticed the most were indicative of a heated race for a state Senate seat in the area (don’t ask me what district it was; I live in DC remember!). But the two candidates were close to each other in one thing – their names.
The incumbent – a Democrat – was named Barker, while his opponent was named Baker. Baker was a Republican whom not many expected to win, even though pollsters predicted the Virginia Senate could shift from its historic Democratic dominance to Republican control this cycle.
So there I am, and clearly in the Democratic bastion of Alexandria, there were more signs for Barker, the incumbent. When I stopped and asked a passerby who he was voting for, he looked at me puzzled, then pointed at the Barker sign, and said, “I guess that fella.”
When I asked him why, he couldn’t offer a concrete answer, but sheepishly responded, “I guess because he has more signs, he must be doing something right…”
As laughable as that seems, it dawned on me that, in this day and age where any voter can simply key in a few letters such as “Barker” on a Google search, they can learn all they want about that person. And yet, voters still choose to be rationally ignorant. That’s the political science term for those who believe because so many vote, and the likelihood that their individual ballot will make any difference to the overall outcome is so small, they choose to not participate at all. Or, in this case, the voter allowed the last thing he saw prior to casting his ballot to persuade his judgment.
Then I continued my un-scientific experiment by asking someone upon exiting the voting precinct who they voted for, Barker or Baker. She replied she didn’t know, but the one with the “D” after his name, because she was a lifelong Democrat. Here again, she’s entitled to vote for whomever she likes. But can we say that was an informed decision? Had she bothered to do any comparative analyses on where the incumbent stood on say, K-12 education funding? She assumed that since he was a Democrat, he would be correct on the issues. But that’s not always a given. Instead of proactively seeking information, less than, for example, she would if buying a dishwasher, she chose not to.
The point here folks, is voting is a wonderful thing. It’s a tremendous power our Founders gave to us, and our troops fight to preserve. When we – yes, ALL of us – choose to put so little effort into that action, it belittles the process and the sacrifices made to preserve the privilege. Notwithstanding the fact that many choose not to even vote at all these days, yet when they do, it should be done with a little more consideration and time invested. After all, the decisions at the local level impact us more than any other.
Something to think about…
(By the way, the incumbent Barker won Tuesday's election handily)
Election Day lessons for Voters
BY: Armstrong Williams
Election Day lessons for Voters
I made an interesting observation Tuesday night. No political scientist would jump to confirm this, as it’s merely an anecdote, not rooted in fact. But if it’s anywhere close to the truth, we have serious problems facing our country in the coming years from simply a perspective of being an informed voter.
I found myself late Tuesday evening walking around an Alexandria suburb, and was amazed at all the political signs for a series of candidates. There were signs for Alexandria Clerk of Court and perhaps a state delegate or two. But the ones I noticed the most were indicative of a heated race for a state Senate seat in the area (don’t ask me what district it was; I live in DC remember!). But the two candidates were close to each other in one thing – their names.
The incumbent – a Democrat – was named Barker, while his opponent was named Baker. Baker was a Republican whom not many expected to win, even though pollsters predicted the Virginia Senate could shift from its historic Democratic dominance to Republican control this cycle.
So there I am, and clearly in the Democratic bastion of Alexandria, there were more signs for Barker, the incumbent. When I stopped and asked a passerby who he was voting for, he looked at me puzzled, then pointed at the Barker sign, and said, “I guess that fella.”
When I asked him why, he couldn’t offer a concrete answer, but sheepishly responded, “I guess because he has more signs, he must be doing something right…”
As laughable as that seems, it dawned on me that, in this day and age where any voter can simply key in a few letters such as “Barker” on a Google search, they can learn all they want about that person. And yet, voters still choose to be rationally ignorant. That’s the political science term for those who believe because so many vote, and the likelihood that their individual ballot will make any difference to the overall outcome is so small, they choose to not participate at all. Or, in this case, the voter allowed the last thing he saw prior to casting his ballot to persuade his judgment.
Then I continued my un-scientific experiment by asking someone upon exiting the voting precinct who they voted for, Barker or Baker. She replied she didn’t know, but the one with the “D” after his name, because she was a lifelong Democrat. Here again, she’s entitled to vote for whomever she likes. But can we say that was an informed decision? Had she bothered to do any comparative analyses on where the incumbent stood on say, K-12 education funding? She assumed that since he was a Democrat, he would be correct on the issues. But that’s not always a given. Instead of proactively seeking information, less than, for example, she would if buying a dishwasher, she chose not to.
The point here folks, is voting is a wonderful thing. It’s a tremendous power our Founders gave to us, and our troops fight to preserve. When we – yes, ALL of us – choose to put so little effort into that action, it belittles the process and the sacrifices made to preserve the privilege. Notwithstanding the fact that many choose not to even vote at all these days, yet when they do, it should be done with a little more consideration and time invested. After all, the decisions at the local level impact us more than any other.
Something to think about…
(By the way, the incumbent Barker won Tuesday's election handily)
11/09/11
Obama's dirty laundry
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Dirty Laundry
"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, according to the website.
Obama replied, "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day," the site reported. -CNN
In an off-mic situation Obama and Sarkozy are discovered not to trust Netanyahu and Sarkozy went so far as to call him a liar. Not only did Obama refuse to defend him, but chimed in by saying he has to "deal" with the Israeli Prime Minister everyday. The disdain of these two world leaders for there ally was apparent. It is also apparent that the President's support of Israel publicly is only a facade. I truly hope the American people are taking serious notes now that they have finally seen our President's true feelings about Israel and the fact that the uneasiness that has been created since Obama's tenure is deep seeded and very personal. So Obama can continue to give hollow speeches trying to ease the concerns of his Jewish constituency, but alas the dirty laundry is out in the open for everyone to see and finally understand. Amazingly, or perhaps not, the main stream media barely reported the story and yet if it were a Republican president causing such a gaffe that it would have been front page headlines for quite sometime. What does it mean when our President joined in the denigration of one of our most trusted traditional allies? What does it tell us when the mainstream media glosses over the story. It means that people need to learn to think for themselves and not trust a jaded media which instead of reporting the news, manipulates every situation to fit their agenda.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's dirty laundry
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Dirty Laundry
"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, according to the website.
Obama replied, "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day," the site reported. -CNN
In an off-mic situation Obama and Sarkozy are discovered not to trust Netanyahu and Sarkozy went so far as to call him a liar. Not only did Obama refuse to defend him, but chimed in by saying he has to "deal" with the Israeli Prime Minister everyday. The disdain of these two world leaders for there ally was apparent. It is also apparent that the President's support of Israel publicly is only a facade. I truly hope the American people are taking serious notes now that they have finally seen our President's true feelings about Israel and the fact that the uneasiness that has been created since Obama's tenure is deep seeded and very personal. So Obama can continue to give hollow speeches trying to ease the concerns of his Jewish constituency, but alas the dirty laundry is out in the open for everyone to see and finally understand. Amazingly, or perhaps not, the main stream media barely reported the story and yet if it were a Republican president causing such a gaffe that it would have been front page headlines for quite sometime. What does it mean when our President joined in the denigration of one of our most trusted traditional allies? What does it tell us when the mainstream media glosses over the story. It means that people need to learn to think for themselves and not trust a jaded media which instead of reporting the news, manipulates every situation to fit their agenda.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/08/11
Consumerism
BY: Armstrong Williams
Consumerism
75% of our economy is built on consumer confidence, a foundation that is amorphous at best. Everything is great when going according to plan, but as soon as it gets hot in that kitchen you are left without any support whatsoever.
For our economy to be strong it has to be built on savings and investment. In addition to building up an emergency reserve, savings can also enable you to invest in companies that will provide you with residual income; the foundation of building wealth. In order to reach that point you will have to follow a path of delayed gratification. Just using a credit card and spending money that you don't have is the opposite of delayed gratification. Delayed gratification is what's necessary for success in any part of your life, not just the economy. We often must pass on the immediately available pleasure in our lives in order to focus on, and do, what is necessary to have a long term productive life. Compulsive behavior leads one to commit a sin every hour. You must discipline yourself and do what you need to do, not just what you want to do. Remember the popular song Feelings, Nothing More than Feelings? The point is that intellect has to come before feelings. When you think about it, President Obama was elected on 'Feelings, Nothing More than Feelings.' Obama is like the Dr. that has good bed side manners and he gives you a very soothing diagnosis that you have six weeks to live, but you feel great about it.
Think about it.
Hope and change?
Please let me remind you that Hope was and never will be a policy to return our nation to greatness. You must take action, which is lacking, and the action that we're taking is a good example of Einstein's warning that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Consumerism
BY: Armstrong Williams
Consumerism
75% of our economy is built on consumer confidence, a foundation that is amorphous at best. Everything is great when going according to plan, but as soon as it gets hot in that kitchen you are left without any support whatsoever.
For our economy to be strong it has to be built on savings and investment. In addition to building up an emergency reserve, savings can also enable you to invest in companies that will provide you with residual income; the foundation of building wealth. In order to reach that point you will have to follow a path of delayed gratification. Just using a credit card and spending money that you don't have is the opposite of delayed gratification. Delayed gratification is what's necessary for success in any part of your life, not just the economy. We often must pass on the immediately available pleasure in our lives in order to focus on, and do, what is necessary to have a long term productive life. Compulsive behavior leads one to commit a sin every hour. You must discipline yourself and do what you need to do, not just what you want to do. Remember the popular song Feelings, Nothing More than Feelings? The point is that intellect has to come before feelings. When you think about it, President Obama was elected on 'Feelings, Nothing More than Feelings.' Obama is like the Dr. that has good bed side manners and he gives you a very soothing diagnosis that you have six weeks to live, but you feel great about it.
Think about it.
Hope and change?
Please let me remind you that Hope was and never will be a policy to return our nation to greatness. You must take action, which is lacking, and the action that we're taking is a good example of Einstein's warning that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/07/11
The race for a Veep should begin now
BY: Armstrong Williams
The race for a Veep should begin now
I know this may seem far-fetched for Republicans, especially since a nominee hasn’t even been picked yet, but I believe whoever ultimately gets the nod must select a running mate fairly quickly. The rationale is it’s becoming more apparent (at least now) that Obama will give the GOP nominee a run for his money, even as his approval rating hovers at 40% and could slide further. Yet Obama continues to campaign from the Oval Office, and will continue to make in-roads into his base, getting them to the point where a vote for him is not more of the same, but instead a vote against the Republican Party.
The electorate is volatile, and whoever the nominee is will need every advantage they can, and that includes more spokespersons to challenge this president and his administration.
Let’s assume Mitt Romney wins. Prior to his poorly-handled scandals, Herman Cain would’ve made a nice veep pick. Even though Cain was strong on similar issues as Romney, his background and skin color would have siphoned some of the black vote from Obama, I believe.
But that alone should not have forced Romney’s hand. More than race, Romney needs to burnish his conservative bona fides, and that means he needs to pick someone with mass appeal to the conservative right, and yes, someone to the right of Romney.
It doesn’t need to be a governor, Romney has that on his resume. Though governors do tend to fare better on presidential runs than say, Senators. I personally like someone like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), but many would say he’s untested and too young. One day, however…
Finally, Joe Biden is not exactly batting .1000 of late. His gaffes and blunders make him prime fodder for a GOP bulldog to come after him; the sooner the better.
As much as Republicans and much of the country would like to see Obama run out of Washington on a rail, this race is going to be close, and dirty. The GOP nominee would serve himself well if he made his VP pick well in advance of the GOP Convention in Tampa, then use that added attention to hammer the Obama camp.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The race for a Veep should begin now
BY: Armstrong Williams
The race for a Veep should begin now
I know this may seem far-fetched for Republicans, especially since a nominee hasn’t even been picked yet, but I believe whoever ultimately gets the nod must select a running mate fairly quickly. The rationale is it’s becoming more apparent (at least now) that Obama will give the GOP nominee a run for his money, even as his approval rating hovers at 40% and could slide further. Yet Obama continues to campaign from the Oval Office, and will continue to make in-roads into his base, getting them to the point where a vote for him is not more of the same, but instead a vote against the Republican Party.
The electorate is volatile, and whoever the nominee is will need every advantage they can, and that includes more spokespersons to challenge this president and his administration.
Let’s assume Mitt Romney wins. Prior to his poorly-handled scandals, Herman Cain would’ve made a nice veep pick. Even though Cain was strong on similar issues as Romney, his background and skin color would have siphoned some of the black vote from Obama, I believe.
But that alone should not have forced Romney’s hand. More than race, Romney needs to burnish his conservative bona fides, and that means he needs to pick someone with mass appeal to the conservative right, and yes, someone to the right of Romney.
It doesn’t need to be a governor, Romney has that on his resume. Though governors do tend to fare better on presidential runs than say, Senators. I personally like someone like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), but many would say he’s untested and too young. One day, however…
Finally, Joe Biden is not exactly batting .1000 of late. His gaffes and blunders make him prime fodder for a GOP bulldog to come after him; the sooner the better.
As much as Republicans and much of the country would like to see Obama run out of Washington on a rail, this race is going to be close, and dirty. The GOP nominee would serve himself well if he made his VP pick well in advance of the GOP Convention in Tampa, then use that added attention to hammer the Obama camp.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/04/11
Super Committee deadline
BY: Armstrong Williams
To be clear: It’s entirely possible the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction can fail to meet its mandated purpose of recommending reductions from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion from the federal budget by Thanksgiving. That’s a tall order. But they mustnot fail if we expect our governing institutions to retain what little credibility that remains among them.
The first casualty of an empty Super Committee is our nation’s economic health. Set aside for the moment the sheer need for austerity. If the panel were to miss its mark, economic chaos could ensue. Moody’s Investor Service has already lowered our nation’s stellar credit rating. And just last week, the credit house said that, while no downgrade is automatic, the Super Committee would serve it and Congress well by tackling big budget busters such as entitlement reform. Put another way, Congress should get out of its own way.
Not long ago, Democrats led by the President blamed consumer demand as the key inhibitor to economic growth in 2011. Then Republicans piled on and said it was looming uncertainty that paralyzed investors and businesses alike, freezing precious capital. Even Obama later subscribed to that reasoning. So why is it now, when both parties clearly have their fingers on the crux of the matter, they are singularly responsible for that very uncertainty and yet refuse to execute the steps to end it?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Super Committee deadline
BY: Armstrong Williams
To be clear: It’s entirely possible the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction can fail to meet its mandated purpose of recommending reductions from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion from the federal budget by Thanksgiving. That’s a tall order. But they mustnot fail if we expect our governing institutions to retain what little credibility that remains among them.
The first casualty of an empty Super Committee is our nation’s economic health. Set aside for the moment the sheer need for austerity. If the panel were to miss its mark, economic chaos could ensue. Moody’s Investor Service has already lowered our nation’s stellar credit rating. And just last week, the credit house said that, while no downgrade is automatic, the Super Committee would serve it and Congress well by tackling big budget busters such as entitlement reform. Put another way, Congress should get out of its own way.
Not long ago, Democrats led by the President blamed consumer demand as the key inhibitor to economic growth in 2011. Then Republicans piled on and said it was looming uncertainty that paralyzed investors and businesses alike, freezing precious capital. Even Obama later subscribed to that reasoning. So why is it now, when both parties clearly have their fingers on the crux of the matter, they are singularly responsible for that very uncertainty and yet refuse to execute the steps to end it?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/02/11
Cain Must explain and move forward
BY: Armstrong Williams
Can Cain Explain
What you hear from some conservative commentators, that this is a “high-tech lynching” of an “uppity black conservative” and the media punishing him for being “black while conservative,” is either ludicrous or boring. Ludicrous, because you can’t for a minute tell me Politico wouldn’t have run the story if it had been Romney, Perry, Paul or Bachmann. It has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with the fact that this is what news does today, and maybe the fact that he’s a Republican. That’s what newspapers do today in the Age of Twitter – they report first, ask questions later. And if it’s not ludicrous, it’s boring, because we already know the media is biased against Republicans. So what? We’ve been saying that for years.
But on the question of race. Don’t Republicans hate it when they oppose Democrats ‘of color’ on policy or make a personal accusation – and the first response of that Democrat ‘of color’ and his/her defenders is to say, “You must be a racist.” Don’t Republicans hate that? Well, why is the first response from some conservatives that this must have to do with Cain’s race? That makes them guilty of the same race-baiting we accuse Democrats of. Let’s stick to the issue.
The real question is, why is Mr. Cain’s response so inconsistent and incoherent? Most Republican voters find it hard to believe he didn’t remember details about a significant accusation only 12 years old. Put yourself in his shoes, Bruce. You’re successful. You have ambitions. You have a career and a reputation. And two women make accusations that could end it all today. You’re telling me you wouldn’t have that episode seared into your brain and soul for the rest of your life? So Republicans are right to have questions about all this and wonder why he’s having so much trouble remembering.
Republicans are a forgiving group. If he’d been clear, consistent, and open about this from the beginning and if the accusations truly were baseless, he’d be fine and it would be yesterday’s news. Especially if it turns out this wasn’t about sex or infidelity but was instead about inappropriate office humor, as Mr. Cain is suggesting.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Cain Must explain and move forward
BY: Armstrong Williams
Can Cain Explain
What you hear from some conservative commentators, that this is a “high-tech lynching” of an “uppity black conservative” and the media punishing him for being “black while conservative,” is either ludicrous or boring. Ludicrous, because you can’t for a minute tell me Politico wouldn’t have run the story if it had been Romney, Perry, Paul or Bachmann. It has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with the fact that this is what news does today, and maybe the fact that he’s a Republican. That’s what newspapers do today in the Age of Twitter – they report first, ask questions later. And if it’s not ludicrous, it’s boring, because we already know the media is biased against Republicans. So what? We’ve been saying that for years.
But on the question of race. Don’t Republicans hate it when they oppose Democrats ‘of color’ on policy or make a personal accusation – and the first response of that Democrat ‘of color’ and his/her defenders is to say, “You must be a racist.” Don’t Republicans hate that? Well, why is the first response from some conservatives that this must have to do with Cain’s race? That makes them guilty of the same race-baiting we accuse Democrats of. Let’s stick to the issue.
The real question is, why is Mr. Cain’s response so inconsistent and incoherent? Most Republican voters find it hard to believe he didn’t remember details about a significant accusation only 12 years old. Put yourself in his shoes, Bruce. You’re successful. You have ambitions. You have a career and a reputation. And two women make accusations that could end it all today. You’re telling me you wouldn’t have that episode seared into your brain and soul for the rest of your life? So Republicans are right to have questions about all this and wonder why he’s having so much trouble remembering.
Republicans are a forgiving group. If he’d been clear, consistent, and open about this from the beginning and if the accusations truly were baseless, he’d be fine and it would be yesterday’s news. Especially if it turns out this wasn’t about sex or infidelity but was instead about inappropriate office humor, as Mr. Cain is suggesting.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/01/11
Immigration revisited
BY: Armstrong Williams
Immigration revisited
Is it possible to be pro-immigration in this country and still support the principles of the State of Alabama’s immigration laws, dubbed some of the strictest in the nation? Absolutely.
Sound paradoxical? Not at all.
First things first. Yes, the state’s laws are tough, and in some cases, questionable, as in one provision that requires students to document their immigration status before enrolling in school. The fact that less than 10% Hispanics failed to do so in recent weeks shouldn’t come as any surprise, if you believe that close to 10% of Alabama’s Hispanic population is here illegally. I don’t know the exact number in the state, but it’s not as if no one of Hispanic origin showed to school that day.
I hate to continue laying America’s toughest social problems – the economy, moral compass, immigration, etc. – at the feet of this president and Congress, but it’s their fault.
Alabama’s laws are based on a simple principle: If you’re in the state in such a manner that wantonly violates the laws of the land, then they’re going to do what the Feds are unwilling to do – step up and call you out.
If you don’t like the current immigration policies, then change the law! Don’t just complain about more responsible governments like Alabama’s who step up and actually enforce the laws on the books.
And listen, there is a role here for pro-immigration groups, both Hispanic and non – to play. It’s in everyone’s best interests to step up and clean up the immigration policies of the United States. Let’s end the confusion and the suspicious glances. Let’s end the mindless accusations such as one Alabama lawmaker, when he said he sponsored the bill because, “They were coming in here like thieves in the night and taking our jobs and tax revenue.” That’s a little over the top. Immigration violators are deserving of justice, not hatred. And when one slams into the other, then problems arise.
Congress and the president have a responsibility to address this issue; not bat it around every two or four years to score political points. Easier said than done? It shouldn’t be. Just look at states such as Arizona, South Carolina, Utah and Georgia. Alabama isn’t a border state, they’re just tired of waiting for the Feds to act. Aren’t we all.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Immigration revisited
BY: Armstrong Williams
Immigration revisited
Is it possible to be pro-immigration in this country and still support the principles of the State of Alabama’s immigration laws, dubbed some of the strictest in the nation? Absolutely.
Sound paradoxical? Not at all.
First things first. Yes, the state’s laws are tough, and in some cases, questionable, as in one provision that requires students to document their immigration status before enrolling in school. The fact that less than 10% Hispanics failed to do so in recent weeks shouldn’t come as any surprise, if you believe that close to 10% of Alabama’s Hispanic population is here illegally. I don’t know the exact number in the state, but it’s not as if no one of Hispanic origin showed to school that day.
I hate to continue laying America’s toughest social problems – the economy, moral compass, immigration, etc. – at the feet of this president and Congress, but it’s their fault.
Alabama’s laws are based on a simple principle: If you’re in the state in such a manner that wantonly violates the laws of the land, then they’re going to do what the Feds are unwilling to do – step up and call you out.
If you don’t like the current immigration policies, then change the law! Don’t just complain about more responsible governments like Alabama’s who step up and actually enforce the laws on the books.
And listen, there is a role here for pro-immigration groups, both Hispanic and non – to play. It’s in everyone’s best interests to step up and clean up the immigration policies of the United States. Let’s end the confusion and the suspicious glances. Let’s end the mindless accusations such as one Alabama lawmaker, when he said he sponsored the bill because, “They were coming in here like thieves in the night and taking our jobs and tax revenue.” That’s a little over the top. Immigration violators are deserving of justice, not hatred. And when one slams into the other, then problems arise.
Congress and the president have a responsibility to address this issue; not bat it around every two or four years to score political points. Easier said than done? It shouldn’t be. Just look at states such as Arizona, South Carolina, Utah and Georgia. Alabama isn’t a border state, they’re just tired of waiting for the Feds to act. Aren’t we all.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/31/11
A chink in Obama's armor
BY: Armstrong Williams
A chink in Obama’s armor
Stop right there, Mr. President. Whoever is advising you that it’s alright and not a contradiction in any way that you can continue to rail against lobbyists while lining your pockets with their political help is selling you some bad corn whiskey, as my grandfather used to say.
A report by the New York Times last week uncovered that over a dozen of the President’s top campaign fundraisers all have close ties to the lobbying industry. This during the very weeks where Obama is out on the political hustings (at taxpayers’ expense, mind you) throwing all sorts of invectives at fat cats on Wall Street and all those who “influence Washington.” Something’s not right when Obama takes such a purist position on campaign dollars and self-righteously condemns those who would peddle their agendas yet has a virtual money-machine behind the White House curtain.
An Obama spokesman said on Friday, “Barack Obama hasn’t accepted a dime from federal lobbyists or political action committees…” Okay, someone smart set up a technical definition of what constituted a lobbyist and then found a way to flirt the rules. So you don’t actually have a registered lobbyist giving you money. Isn’t it still the same, Mr. President, when they are paid by corporations to run around the country and collect or “bundle” that same money the same purposes? If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, well, you get the picture.
This is a major chink in the President’s armor, because it begins to speak to his credibility on the campaign stump. I’m not exaggerating. The only bright side in his presidency are Obama’s personal likability scores among the voters; they believe he’s a genuinely sincere guy. But to see him and his campaign skirting around campaign issues in a campaign season…well, he begins to look a lot like Al Gore. And we all know what happened to Gore.
I personally don’t have an issue with accepting campaign dollars from lobbyists or corporations. The money will flow no matter what. Just look at McCain-Feingold and all the good that campaign-finance reform did…NOT.
Up until now, the President had some fairly firm ground upon which to attack Republicans, particularly with a ‘big business’ label. But if circumstances continue to show Obama is dipping his gravy ladle into the same cess pot of money as others, voters get cynical. And that’s the last thing the President needs now in this climate.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A chink in Obama's armor
BY: Armstrong Williams
A chink in Obama’s armor
Stop right there, Mr. President. Whoever is advising you that it’s alright and not a contradiction in any way that you can continue to rail against lobbyists while lining your pockets with their political help is selling you some bad corn whiskey, as my grandfather used to say.
A report by the New York Times last week uncovered that over a dozen of the President’s top campaign fundraisers all have close ties to the lobbying industry. This during the very weeks where Obama is out on the political hustings (at taxpayers’ expense, mind you) throwing all sorts of invectives at fat cats on Wall Street and all those who “influence Washington.” Something’s not right when Obama takes such a purist position on campaign dollars and self-righteously condemns those who would peddle their agendas yet has a virtual money-machine behind the White House curtain.
An Obama spokesman said on Friday, “Barack Obama hasn’t accepted a dime from federal lobbyists or political action committees…” Okay, someone smart set up a technical definition of what constituted a lobbyist and then found a way to flirt the rules. So you don’t actually have a registered lobbyist giving you money. Isn’t it still the same, Mr. President, when they are paid by corporations to run around the country and collect or “bundle” that same money the same purposes? If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, well, you get the picture.
This is a major chink in the President’s armor, because it begins to speak to his credibility on the campaign stump. I’m not exaggerating. The only bright side in his presidency are Obama’s personal likability scores among the voters; they believe he’s a genuinely sincere guy. But to see him and his campaign skirting around campaign issues in a campaign season…well, he begins to look a lot like Al Gore. And we all know what happened to Gore.
I personally don’t have an issue with accepting campaign dollars from lobbyists or corporations. The money will flow no matter what. Just look at McCain-Feingold and all the good that campaign-finance reform did…NOT.
Up until now, the President had some fairly firm ground upon which to attack Republicans, particularly with a ‘big business’ label. But if circumstances continue to show Obama is dipping his gravy ladle into the same cess pot of money as others, voters get cynical. And that’s the last thing the President needs now in this climate.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/27/11
America the beautiful
BY: Armstrong Williams
America the Beautiful
America is facing tough times: high unemployment, high debt, economic uncertainty, unstable relations amongst other nations, and the list goes on. I am not composing this article to magnify the issues. I am composing it for the individuals who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis: the soldiers in the trenches and the people facing tremendous odds and see no way out. The statistics that support defeat in this current economic climate are momentous, but to inform all readers LIFE IS NOT A STATISTICS TEST. Anyone facing hardship might not be blessed with millions, political status, or whatever trivial benefit your mind can conjure up but you are blessed with a choice. Many people think the greatness of a country lies within its tall buildings, economic exchanges, or political “status”.
Tall buildings don’t create tall buildings, and inanimate objects don’t create societies. This composition is an urge for the individuals to compete valiantly in the midst of speculative circumstances. The choice that lies within the hands of anyone reading this article is to survive or consensually become a victim. Embrace the challenges that you face daily, for they drive you to become better. Tap into your potential and ignite it with the inextinguishable flame of faith that can never, and will never, be defeated. Don’t ever let any movement or politician tell you that you are at the bottom. You may not be born with many means, but it’s not how you start it’s how you finish. Americans are not victims, we are winners. This country was not built on complaints, but actions driven by motivation to defeat a larger force. I am encouraging all Americans to consider the history of triumph and not consensual defeat. Did David complain to God about how big Goliath was? Did Churchill tuck and run against the Nazi’s? Did the Union concede to the excellent fighting ability of the South? Did Dr. King have the mentality that he and his followers were the bottom of all society? Did Steve Jobs give up and collect unemployment benefits after he was released from Apple? I think not.
Individuals that have lower means are actually at an advantage over those who do. The individuals with lower means are forced into a situation in which they must rely on their creative ability over inanimate objects. Everybody is blessed with a choice to compete or accept defeat regardless of circumstances. Competitors should not be focused on the difficulty of the problem, but the inefficiencies that the problems possess. We, as Americans, should obsess ourselves with solutions, not magnifying problems for that is what made us so great in the first place.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
America the beautiful
BY: Armstrong Williams
America the Beautiful
America is facing tough times: high unemployment, high debt, economic uncertainty, unstable relations amongst other nations, and the list goes on. I am not composing this article to magnify the issues. I am composing it for the individuals who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis: the soldiers in the trenches and the people facing tremendous odds and see no way out. The statistics that support defeat in this current economic climate are momentous, but to inform all readers LIFE IS NOT A STATISTICS TEST. Anyone facing hardship might not be blessed with millions, political status, or whatever trivial benefit your mind can conjure up but you are blessed with a choice. Many people think the greatness of a country lies within its tall buildings, economic exchanges, or political “status”.
Tall buildings don’t create tall buildings, and inanimate objects don’t create societies. This composition is an urge for the individuals to compete valiantly in the midst of speculative circumstances. The choice that lies within the hands of anyone reading this article is to survive or consensually become a victim. Embrace the challenges that you face daily, for they drive you to become better. Tap into your potential and ignite it with the inextinguishable flame of faith that can never, and will never, be defeated. Don’t ever let any movement or politician tell you that you are at the bottom. You may not be born with many means, but it’s not how you start it’s how you finish. Americans are not victims, we are winners. This country was not built on complaints, but actions driven by motivation to defeat a larger force. I am encouraging all Americans to consider the history of triumph and not consensual defeat. Did David complain to God about how big Goliath was? Did Churchill tuck and run against the Nazi’s? Did the Union concede to the excellent fighting ability of the South? Did Dr. King have the mentality that he and his followers were the bottom of all society? Did Steve Jobs give up and collect unemployment benefits after he was released from Apple? I think not.
Individuals that have lower means are actually at an advantage over those who do. The individuals with lower means are forced into a situation in which they must rely on their creative ability over inanimate objects. Everybody is blessed with a choice to compete or accept defeat regardless of circumstances. Competitors should not be focused on the difficulty of the problem, but the inefficiencies that the problems possess. We, as Americans, should obsess ourselves with solutions, not magnifying problems for that is what made us so great in the first place.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/25/11
No debt gifts for the Greeks
By: Armstrong Williams
No debt gifts for the Greeks
The last full week of October 2011 marked another bad week for Greece. Earlier Monday, the Athens stock market plummeted on news that the nation’s European allies had failed to meet an agreement to keep the nation afloat.
Greece’s bank shares took a beating on news they may be forced to accept higher losses on their government's bonds as part of the larger European deal.
And while the government seems paralyzed with inaction, the people of Greece (mostly public workers) took to the streets once again to protest.
I don’t generally have a problem with protesters. Ahh, who am I kidding – I usually do have a problem with them. The reason is they rarely can cite the reason for their anger. In this case, it’s even more evident as the protesters should be going after their policymakers for not taking the necessary steps for a return to long-term stability in the nation. Instead, they want a return to the status quo ante – an untenable state of affairs where government was seen as the answer to all of the country’s woes.
Sound familiar?
There’s a crisis of confidence in Europe right now, and its effects are spilling over in small but impactful ways in our country and its own inability to recover.
The sooner the eurozone’s leaders realize they need to address the Greek financial crisis for what it is – runaway government spending perpetrated and masked by irresponsible state leaders – the sooner the continent can prevent other larger nations from falling into similar situations.
I’m not one who wants to see an entire country suffer because of the ineptitude of a select few, but the example needs to be made of Greece for the greater good of other nations.
What kind of message does it send that a nation can pile billions of debt up and then, almost righteously, expect others to bail them out because they were “too big to fail?”
As one Eurozone analyst recently commented, “There is no prospect of revival in Greece until and unless Europe gets its act together. Greece will have to wait in this comatose state, zombified state, until Europe collapses or fixes its problems.”
While that statement may be accurate, it’s for a different reason. Europe won’t collapse, that much is certain. But to “fix” its problems, it must exact a form of economic punishment onto Greece the likes of which it has not seen. The sooner that can happen, the quicker the continent can begin to recover economically.
There is no easy way out for the Greeks. The pain is inevitable, the suffering is optional.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
No debt gifts for the Greeks
By: Armstrong Williams
No debt gifts for the Greeks
The last full week of October 2011 marked another bad week for Greece. Earlier Monday, the Athens stock market plummeted on news that the nation’s European allies had failed to meet an agreement to keep the nation afloat.
Greece’s bank shares took a beating on news they may be forced to accept higher losses on their government's bonds as part of the larger European deal.
And while the government seems paralyzed with inaction, the people of Greece (mostly public workers) took to the streets once again to protest.
I don’t generally have a problem with protesters. Ahh, who am I kidding – I usually do have a problem with them. The reason is they rarely can cite the reason for their anger. In this case, it’s even more evident as the protesters should be going after their policymakers for not taking the necessary steps for a return to long-term stability in the nation. Instead, they want a return to the status quo ante – an untenable state of affairs where government was seen as the answer to all of the country’s woes.
Sound familiar?
There’s a crisis of confidence in Europe right now, and its effects are spilling over in small but impactful ways in our country and its own inability to recover.
The sooner the eurozone’s leaders realize they need to address the Greek financial crisis for what it is – runaway government spending perpetrated and masked by irresponsible state leaders – the sooner the continent can prevent other larger nations from falling into similar situations.
I’m not one who wants to see an entire country suffer because of the ineptitude of a select few, but the example needs to be made of Greece for the greater good of other nations.
What kind of message does it send that a nation can pile billions of debt up and then, almost righteously, expect others to bail them out because they were “too big to fail?”
As one Eurozone analyst recently commented, “There is no prospect of revival in Greece until and unless Europe gets its act together. Greece will have to wait in this comatose state, zombified state, until Europe collapses or fixes its problems.”
While that statement may be accurate, it’s for a different reason. Europe won’t collapse, that much is certain. But to “fix” its problems, it must exact a form of economic punishment onto Greece the likes of which it has not seen. The sooner that can happen, the quicker the continent can begin to recover economically.
There is no easy way out for the Greeks. The pain is inevitable, the suffering is optional.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/20/11
Parasitic infestation of our nation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Parasitic infestation of our nation.
When our country and our system of government was established government worked, and it was accepted by patriots who were willing to sacrifice personal income and comfort in order to serve their fellow citizen and strengthen the fabric of our nation. Both government workers and politicians were not likely to seek lifetime positions because of the sacrificial nature of government service.
What would the founders think if they could see the situation today where Washington, DC is the richest city in the United States. Right now you're probably thinking to yourself, "Really? I find that hard to believe." Okay, click here. Interestingly enough this wealth has little or nothing to do with private industry. So what is it? Part of the reason for the wealth of this city is that, on average, Federal employees are compensated $126,000.00 annually. Perhaps someone should provide this information to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters so they can finally understand where the real target of their frustrations lie.
$126,000 is more than twice the compensation of the average American who supports these salaries out of their own pockets through taxation.
The government workers are parasites living off of everyone else and in many cases are contributing very little. In the last three years the number of federal employees has exploded and there are no signs in sight that this will slow down. In a time like ours where we are mired in a financial crisis can we really afford to maintain such a parasitic class in our nation?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Parasitic infestation of our nation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Parasitic infestation of our nation.
When our country and our system of government was established government worked, and it was accepted by patriots who were willing to sacrifice personal income and comfort in order to serve their fellow citizen and strengthen the fabric of our nation. Both government workers and politicians were not likely to seek lifetime positions because of the sacrificial nature of government service.
What would the founders think if they could see the situation today where Washington, DC is the richest city in the United States. Right now you're probably thinking to yourself, "Really? I find that hard to believe." Okay, click here. Interestingly enough this wealth has little or nothing to do with private industry. So what is it? Part of the reason for the wealth of this city is that, on average, Federal employees are compensated $126,000.00 annually. Perhaps someone should provide this information to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters so they can finally understand where the real target of their frustrations lie.
$126,000 is more than twice the compensation of the average American who supports these salaries out of their own pockets through taxation.
The government workers are parasites living off of everyone else and in many cases are contributing very little. In the last three years the number of federal employees has exploded and there are no signs in sight that this will slow down. In a time like ours where we are mired in a financial crisis can we really afford to maintain such a parasitic class in our nation?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/19/11
Economic Health
Economic Health
BY: Armstrong Williams
Long term chronic care for everyone, especially the elderly, is not affordable in Obamacare which is why they are scrambling to either remove that component of the bill or find some other monetary solution. Long term care is extraordinarily expensive, in fact in our current system over 40% of health care dollars are spent in the last six months of life. If you multiply that over an entire society you can begin to get an appreciation of the staggering amount of money we're talking about.
This is however one unaffordable component of the bill, in fact the entire Obamacare is unaffordable; one reason why so many employers are not hiring people. As an employer you automatically become responsible for huge healthcare benefits for every employee, significantly increasing the cost of hiring anyone on payroll. This is an excellent opportunity for people to awaken and understand that socialism will bankrupt capitalism. Capitalism is based upon the individual's responsibility for themselves and their families. Socialism is based on the governments responsibility for every individual. In order for socialism to work it must control all of the capital, which of course would be anathema for a capitalistic society. Therefore introducing Obamacare into a capitalistic society goes a long way towards destroying the whole concept of self reliance and financial independence. You cannot expect to continue a prosperous capitalist economy under a socialistic regime and there is ample historical evidence of this timeless truth. We must all hope that our system of government truly works and that the guardians of the constitution, the US Supreme Court will discard Obamacare, recognizing it's destructive nature.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Economic Health
Economic Health
BY: Armstrong Williams
Long term chronic care for everyone, especially the elderly, is not affordable in Obamacare which is why they are scrambling to either remove that component of the bill or find some other monetary solution. Long term care is extraordinarily expensive, in fact in our current system over 40% of health care dollars are spent in the last six months of life. If you multiply that over an entire society you can begin to get an appreciation of the staggering amount of money we're talking about.
This is however one unaffordable component of the bill, in fact the entire Obamacare is unaffordable; one reason why so many employers are not hiring people. As an employer you automatically become responsible for huge healthcare benefits for every employee, significantly increasing the cost of hiring anyone on payroll. This is an excellent opportunity for people to awaken and understand that socialism will bankrupt capitalism. Capitalism is based upon the individual's responsibility for themselves and their families. Socialism is based on the governments responsibility for every individual. In order for socialism to work it must control all of the capital, which of course would be anathema for a capitalistic society. Therefore introducing Obamacare into a capitalistic society goes a long way towards destroying the whole concept of self reliance and financial independence. You cannot expect to continue a prosperous capitalist economy under a socialistic regime and there is ample historical evidence of this timeless truth. We must all hope that our system of government truly works and that the guardians of the constitution, the US Supreme Court will discard Obamacare, recognizing it's destructive nature.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/18/11
A Bankrupt Jobs bill
A Bankrupt jobs bill
By
Armstrong Williams
Jesse Jackson Jr. Proposed jobs bill would have a devastating ripple effect on the US economy if it were to pass.
What about the Americans who make less than $40,000 per year; the equivalent of $19.25 an hour? 65% of American workersmake less than $40,000 per year. Do they not have an incentive to quit their jobs and become unemployed to increase their income? There are approximately 211 million workers in the US and 137 million make less than $40,000. For the ease of arithmetic, let us assume 100 million workers quit their jobs for these new government jobs. The cost to the taxpayer would be an additional $4.0 trillion. The total cost ofJackson’s program to the government would be a whopping$6.2 trillion or 44% of GDP. Is the Federal government bankrupt yet? Almost half the GDP would go to highly paid government jobs for the unemployed.
Uncle Sam would not be spared from this carnage. Without these businesses making profits and employing their highly paid employees, there would be few, if any, tax paying entities remaining to shoulder the crushing tax burden resulting from the government hiring the unemployed at $40,000 per year.
Of course, the Federal Reserve Bank would come to the rescueof the economy as it always does when it senses a potential financial disaster. It’s time honored solution to most financial problems is to print money. It this case, it would print a lot of money. If it wanted to save the economy, it would print enough money so that $40,000 in real terms would be less than today’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour or about $14,500 per year. This would require the Fed to triple the money supply. Therefore every dollar that you hold today would be worth $.33 if Jackson’s Job plan were to be “saved” by the Fed.
Fortunately, not even the Liberal Democrats in Congress are stupid enough to take Jackson’s job proposal seriously. Elementary arithmetic and common sense leads to theinescapable conclusion that $40,000 jobs for the unemployed would be an unmitigated economic disaster. But we all know that when media cameras are present, Congressmen tend to open their mouths before they think.
Unfortunately, members of Congress will not apply the logic of Jackson’s ridiculous jobs proposal to serious proposals ofextending unemployment benefits and raising the minimum wage. If they did, they would understand that extending unemployment benefits and having a high minimum wage also has a negative impact on the economy. The politically incorrect flip side of this argument is that reduced unemployment benefits and lower minimum wages would have a positive impact on the economy.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A Bankrupt Jobs bill
A Bankrupt jobs bill
By
Armstrong Williams
Jesse Jackson Jr. Proposed jobs bill would have a devastating ripple effect on the US economy if it were to pass.
What about the Americans who make less than $40,000 per year; the equivalent of $19.25 an hour? 65% of American workersmake less than $40,000 per year. Do they not have an incentive to quit their jobs and become unemployed to increase their income? There are approximately 211 million workers in the US and 137 million make less than $40,000. For the ease of arithmetic, let us assume 100 million workers quit their jobs for these new government jobs. The cost to the taxpayer would be an additional $4.0 trillion. The total cost ofJackson’s program to the government would be a whopping$6.2 trillion or 44% of GDP. Is the Federal government bankrupt yet? Almost half the GDP would go to highly paid government jobs for the unemployed.
Uncle Sam would not be spared from this carnage. Without these businesses making profits and employing their highly paid employees, there would be few, if any, tax paying entities remaining to shoulder the crushing tax burden resulting from the government hiring the unemployed at $40,000 per year.
Of course, the Federal Reserve Bank would come to the rescueof the economy as it always does when it senses a potential financial disaster. It’s time honored solution to most financial problems is to print money. It this case, it would print a lot of money. If it wanted to save the economy, it would print enough money so that $40,000 in real terms would be less than today’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour or about $14,500 per year. This would require the Fed to triple the money supply. Therefore every dollar that you hold today would be worth $.33 if Jackson’s Job plan were to be “saved” by the Fed.
Fortunately, not even the Liberal Democrats in Congress are stupid enough to take Jackson’s job proposal seriously. Elementary arithmetic and common sense leads to theinescapable conclusion that $40,000 jobs for the unemployed would be an unmitigated economic disaster. But we all know that when media cameras are present, Congressmen tend to open their mouths before they think.
Unfortunately, members of Congress will not apply the logic of Jackson’s ridiculous jobs proposal to serious proposals ofextending unemployment benefits and raising the minimum wage. If they did, they would understand that extending unemployment benefits and having a high minimum wage also has a negative impact on the economy. The politically incorrect flip side of this argument is that reduced unemployment benefits and lower minimum wages would have a positive impact on the economy.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/17/11
A Bankrupt Jobs bill
A Bankrupt jobs bill
By
Armstrong Williams
Jesse Jackson Jr. Proposed jobs bill would have a devastating ripple effect on the US economy if it were to pass. The Chicago Congressmen is proposing that our Federal government paying $40,000 a year for all unemployed Americans.
Please bear in mind that there are 15 million unemployed Americans nation wide. The cost of the government employing them would be a staggering six hundred billion dollars. Try and wrap you common sense around this comic offering.
What about the Americans who make less than $40,000 per year; the equivalent of $19.25 an hour? 65% of American workersmake less than $40,000 per year. Do they not have an incentive to quit their jobs and become unemployed to increase their income? There are approximately 211 million workers in the US and 137 million make less than $40,000. For the ease of arithmetic, let us assume 100 million workers quit their jobs for these new government jobs. The cost to the taxpayer would be an additional $4.0 trillion. The total cost ofJackson’s program to the government would be a whopping$6.2 trillion or 44% of GDP. Is the Federal government bankrupt yet? Almost half the GDP would go to highly paid government jobs for the unemployed.
Uncle Sam would not be spared from this carnage. Without these businesses making profits and employing their highly paid employees, there would be few, if any, tax paying entities remaining to shoulder the crushing tax burden resulting from the government hiring the unemployed at $40,000 per year.
Of course, the Federal Reserve Bank would come to the rescueof the economy as it always does when it senses a potential financial disaster. It’s time honored solution to most financial problems is to print money. It this case, it would print a lot of money. If it wanted to save the economy, it would print enough money so that $40,000 in real terms would be less than today’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour or about $14,500 per year. This would require the Fed to triple the money supply. Therefore every dollar that you hold today would be worth $.33 if Jackson’s Job plan were to be “saved” by the Fed.
Fortunately, not even the Liberal Democrats in Congress are stupid enough to take Jackson’s job proposal seriously. Elementary arithmetic and common sense leads to theinescapable conclusion that $40,000 jobs for the unemployed would be an unmitigated economic disaster. But we all know that when media cameras are present, Congressmen tend to open their mouths before they think.
Unfortunately, members of Congress will not apply the logic of Jackson’s ridiculous jobs proposal to serious proposals ofextending unemployment benefits and raising the minimum wage. If they did, they would understand that extending unemployment benefits and having a high minimum wage also has a negative impact on the economy. The politically incorrect flip side of this argument is that reduced unemployment benefits and lower minimum wages would have a positive impact on the economy.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A Bankrupt Jobs bill
A Bankrupt jobs bill
By
Armstrong Williams
Jesse Jackson Jr. Proposed jobs bill would have a devastating ripple effect on the US economy if it were to pass. The Chicago Congressmen is proposing that our Federal government paying $40,000 a year for all unemployed Americans.
Please bear in mind that there are 15 million unemployed Americans nation wide. The cost of the government employing them would be a staggering six hundred billion dollars. Try and wrap you common sense around this comic offering.
What about the Americans who make less than $40,000 per year; the equivalent of $19.25 an hour? 65% of American workersmake less than $40,000 per year. Do they not have an incentive to quit their jobs and become unemployed to increase their income? There are approximately 211 million workers in the US and 137 million make less than $40,000. For the ease of arithmetic, let us assume 100 million workers quit their jobs for these new government jobs. The cost to the taxpayer would be an additional $4.0 trillion. The total cost ofJackson’s program to the government would be a whopping$6.2 trillion or 44% of GDP. Is the Federal government bankrupt yet? Almost half the GDP would go to highly paid government jobs for the unemployed.
Uncle Sam would not be spared from this carnage. Without these businesses making profits and employing their highly paid employees, there would be few, if any, tax paying entities remaining to shoulder the crushing tax burden resulting from the government hiring the unemployed at $40,000 per year.
Of course, the Federal Reserve Bank would come to the rescueof the economy as it always does when it senses a potential financial disaster. It’s time honored solution to most financial problems is to print money. It this case, it would print a lot of money. If it wanted to save the economy, it would print enough money so that $40,000 in real terms would be less than today’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour or about $14,500 per year. This would require the Fed to triple the money supply. Therefore every dollar that you hold today would be worth $.33 if Jackson’s Job plan were to be “saved” by the Fed.
Fortunately, not even the Liberal Democrats in Congress are stupid enough to take Jackson’s job proposal seriously. Elementary arithmetic and common sense leads to theinescapable conclusion that $40,000 jobs for the unemployed would be an unmitigated economic disaster. But we all know that when media cameras are present, Congressmen tend to open their mouths before they think.
Unfortunately, members of Congress will not apply the logic of Jackson’s ridiculous jobs proposal to serious proposals ofextending unemployment benefits and raising the minimum wage. If they did, they would understand that extending unemployment benefits and having a high minimum wage also has a negative impact on the economy. The politically incorrect flip side of this argument is that reduced unemployment benefits and lower minimum wages would have a positive impact on the economy.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/14/11
Social Darwinism Prevails.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Social Darwinism Prevails.
The most dangerous place in America today is atop the polls of the Republican Presidential field. If you channel surf, or read daily publications, you will see that the only economic plan put forward in the campaign has been Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform which has become the subject of ridicule and scorn. It was ignored completely until he surged in the polls as the leading contender. Four years ago the number 1 candidate in the Republican poll was Giluiani at 30% and McCain was a measly 14%.
Remember the fable about the father whale and the son whale swimming through the whaling fleet. The father said to the son, "if you don't blow your spout they won't know where to aim the harpoon." This is one of life's less glorious lessons, particularly when it comes to politics and business. If you have success you become a target not only of your competitors but of people who have succumb to the sins of jealousy and envy. Your competitors are coming after you because they want to displace you as number one, the jealous get a thrill out of taking down those who are successful.
There is a German term "schaden freude" meaning one relishes the misery of another, especially those who appear to be on the apex of life. It is an inevitable hazard of being number 1 and you can see political examples in the GOP primaries. In European diplomacy for the last 500 years powers 2 and 3 have always ganged up on the top dog. In sports everybody hates the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees. In business everybody is trying to find a way to displace Microsoft Windows. How many fans does Walmart have in the Liberal media despite supplying low cost goods to middle America? Why is McDonald's always criticized for good tasting low cost meals? Remember, in the real world social Darwinism prevails. Everybody wants to take down the winner, and when that winner successfully defends their place we know they have earned it.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Social Darwinism Prevails.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Social Darwinism Prevails.
The most dangerous place in America today is atop the polls of the Republican Presidential field. If you channel surf, or read daily publications, you will see that the only economic plan put forward in the campaign has been Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform which has become the subject of ridicule and scorn. It was ignored completely until he surged in the polls as the leading contender. Four years ago the number 1 candidate in the Republican poll was Giluiani at 30% and McCain was a measly 14%.
Remember the fable about the father whale and the son whale swimming through the whaling fleet. The father said to the son, "if you don't blow your spout they won't know where to aim the harpoon." This is one of life's less glorious lessons, particularly when it comes to politics and business. If you have success you become a target not only of your competitors but of people who have succumb to the sins of jealousy and envy. Your competitors are coming after you because they want to displace you as number one, the jealous get a thrill out of taking down those who are successful.
There is a German term "schaden freude" meaning one relishes the misery of another, especially those who appear to be on the apex of life. It is an inevitable hazard of being number 1 and you can see political examples in the GOP primaries. In European diplomacy for the last 500 years powers 2 and 3 have always ganged up on the top dog. In sports everybody hates the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees. In business everybody is trying to find a way to displace Microsoft Windows. How many fans does Walmart have in the Liberal media despite supplying low cost goods to middle America? Why is McDonald's always criticized for good tasting low cost meals? Remember, in the real world social Darwinism prevails. Everybody wants to take down the winner, and when that winner successfully defends their place we know they have earned it.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/13/11
Can common sense prevail ?
Subject: Can common sense prevail ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Can common sense prevail ?
Some seem surprise that Hermain Cain is now the front runner. What Cain represents is something that has been severely lacking in political leadership, and that is common sense. Interestingly enough the vast majority of people in this country still have a modicum of common sense. Many politicians appear to have some when they first go to Washington and than rapidly lose it due to the influence of special interest groups, including organized political parties. If Mr. Cain can resist contamination by traditional Washington influences, he may prove to be just what our nation needs for restoration to greatness.
The Liberals must be twisting in the wind at the thought that the "racist" Republicans, including the Tea Party out of which Mr. Cain Sprung are endorsing to a large degree a black man. Could these racist actually not realize he's black or is it possible the moniker of racism is applied to the wrong party. If Mr. Cain becomes the nominee and chooses Mark Rubio as his VP the left wing will be in a severe quandary. A large component of what the left has always considered to be an unshakable voting base could abandon them. At which time they will have produce real and substantive policies and not emotional rhetoric.
Harry Belafonte, Cornell West, Tavis Smiley and others is it time for you to stop engaging in divisive rhetoric and turn your attention to ways of uplifting people instead of dividing them. When people listen to you they should go away with a sense of empowerment and ability rather than a sense of entitlement and impotence.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Can common sense prevail ?
Subject: Can common sense prevail ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Can common sense prevail ?
Some seem surprise that Hermain Cain is now the front runner. What Cain represents is something that has been severely lacking in political leadership, and that is common sense. Interestingly enough the vast majority of people in this country still have a modicum of common sense. Many politicians appear to have some when they first go to Washington and than rapidly lose it due to the influence of special interest groups, including organized political parties. If Mr. Cain can resist contamination by traditional Washington influences, he may prove to be just what our nation needs for restoration to greatness.
The Liberals must be twisting in the wind at the thought that the "racist" Republicans, including the Tea Party out of which Mr. Cain Sprung are endorsing to a large degree a black man. Could these racist actually not realize he's black or is it possible the moniker of racism is applied to the wrong party. If Mr. Cain becomes the nominee and chooses Mark Rubio as his VP the left wing will be in a severe quandary. A large component of what the left has always considered to be an unshakable voting base could abandon them. At which time they will have produce real and substantive policies and not emotional rhetoric.
Harry Belafonte, Cornell West, Tavis Smiley and others is it time for you to stop engaging in divisive rhetoric and turn your attention to ways of uplifting people instead of dividing them. When people listen to you they should go away with a sense of empowerment and ability rather than a sense of entitlement and impotence.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/12/11
Is there a black mindset ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is there a black mindset ?
It's interesting that many of the so called black intellectuals have severely criticized Herman Cain for his social and political views. One has to wonder why they feel that anyone who is black must agree with their point of view, or otherwise has a suspect intellect. It does nothing except advance the negative stereotype that Black Americans are of a singular mindset, and undermines the efforts of the civil rights leaders of the past. Despite this, Herman Cain very wisely didn't react emotionally to Cornell West's diatribe, but rather calmly explained that his views were cultivated by growing up in the real world of hard work and economic reality as opposed to the artificial world of academia.
It is high time for the overall black community to recognize that each one of them has a brain and the ability to think and reach conclusions for themselves. They must be reminded that one of the strengths of this community that allowed them to survive slavery, Jim Crow, and violent racism was a system of values that transcended race or class. They also identified with Godly principles. It is my hope that this community will once again place principle above politics to the benefit of the entire country and not just Black Americans.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Is there a black mindset ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is there a black mindset ?
It's interesting that many of the so called black intellectuals have severely criticized Herman Cain for his social and political views. One has to wonder why they feel that anyone who is black must agree with their point of view, or otherwise has a suspect intellect. It does nothing except advance the negative stereotype that Black Americans are of a singular mindset, and undermines the efforts of the civil rights leaders of the past. Despite this, Herman Cain very wisely didn't react emotionally to Cornell West's diatribe, but rather calmly explained that his views were cultivated by growing up in the real world of hard work and economic reality as opposed to the artificial world of academia.
It is high time for the overall black community to recognize that each one of them has a brain and the ability to think and reach conclusions for themselves. They must be reminded that one of the strengths of this community that allowed them to survive slavery, Jim Crow, and violent racism was a system of values that transcended race or class. They also identified with Godly principles. It is my hope that this community will once again place principle above politics to the benefit of the entire country and not just Black Americans.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/11/11
Most Litigious nation in the world
BY: Armstrong Williams
Most litigious nation in the world.
Republicans are right to draw a line in the sand. We have an obligation to say “no” to tax increases that do nothing to stem the profligate, big-government spending favored by the Democrats. Unchecked government spending is a road that, if traveled, will further plunge our nation into a downward spiral of economic weakness due to massive debt and uncontrollable entitlements, which Democrats will argue may only be solved by “redistributing wealth” through back-breaking tax increases that will erode the spirit and principles that distinguish our country leaving only a shadow of past greatness. That is what is at stake; the stakes have never been higher.
Conservatives cannot allow Republican lawmakers to soften or defect on the Party’s fundamental principles; or worse, align with those who are diametrically opposed to everything the GOP stands for: free enterprise, reasonable taxes, limited government and tort reform. Yes, tort reform and here’s why.
Ignoring tort reform has been devastating to taxpayers, the economy and American business. The U.S. is the most litigious nation in the world; it weakens us competitively and lessens respect for America’s legal system in the eyes of the world. The question isn’t how this critical issue fell from our sight lines to the sidelines. The question is: Why have we permitted trial lawyers to worm their way into our ranks to undermine GOP priorities and the Party itself?
Williams is the author of the new book "Reawakening Virtues". Listen to Williams daily on Sirius Power 128, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am set. www.rightsidewire.com.
Most Litigious nation in the world
BY: Armstrong Williams
Most litigious nation in the world.
Republicans are right to draw a line in the sand. We have an obligation to say “no” to tax increases that do nothing to stem the profligate, big-government spending favored by the Democrats. Unchecked government spending is a road that, if traveled, will further plunge our nation into a downward spiral of economic weakness due to massive debt and uncontrollable entitlements, which Democrats will argue may only be solved by “redistributing wealth” through back-breaking tax increases that will erode the spirit and principles that distinguish our country leaving only a shadow of past greatness. That is what is at stake; the stakes have never been higher.
Conservatives cannot allow Republican lawmakers to soften or defect on the Party’s fundamental principles; or worse, align with those who are diametrically opposed to everything the GOP stands for: free enterprise, reasonable taxes, limited government and tort reform. Yes, tort reform and here’s why.
Ignoring tort reform has been devastating to taxpayers, the economy and American business. The U.S. is the most litigious nation in the world; it weakens us competitively and lessens respect for America’s legal system in the eyes of the world. The question isn’t how this critical issue fell from our sight lines to the sidelines. The question is: Why have we permitted trial lawyers to worm their way into our ranks to undermine GOP priorities and the Party itself?
Williams is the author of the new book "Reawakening Virtues". Listen to Williams daily on Sirius Power 128, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am set. www.rightsidewire.com.
10/10/11
Bloomberg for President ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Bloomberg for President ?
Michael Bloomberg is making maneuvers to announce his candidacy for President and challenge Obama and the GOP field as an Independent. His strategy is to launch his campaign beginning August 2012 with a media blitz leading up to election day.
According to Crain's newspaper, Bloomberg's wealth increased by $2 Billion dollars from last year. He is preparing his personal war chest to fund his presidential race.
Can this strategy win Bloomberg the White house in 2012? His goal is to win in the Electoral College. His advisers believe Obama has a third of the electoral College locked, the GOP has a third and a well funded Independent could prevail in the Electoral College.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Bloomberg for President ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Bloomberg for President ?
Michael Bloomberg is making maneuvers to announce his candidacy for President and challenge Obama and the GOP field as an Independent. His strategy is to launch his campaign beginning August 2012 with a media blitz leading up to election day.
According to Crain's newspaper, Bloomberg's wealth increased by $2 Billion dollars from last year. He is preparing his personal war chest to fund his presidential race.
Can this strategy win Bloomberg the White house in 2012? His goal is to win in the Electoral College. His advisers believe Obama has a third of the electoral College locked, the GOP has a third and a well funded Independent could prevail in the Electoral College.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/07/11
Government spending dark side
BY: Armstrong Williams
Government spending dark side.
Government spending "crowds out" private spending. At best, it transfers a dollar of private spending through taxation to the public sector. However closer analysis of government spending confirms that it is less efficient in creating income and wealth than private spending. For example, no rational consumer buying a new car would destroy his old car worth $3,000 unless he was given $4,000 of someone else’s money in a “cash for clunkers” program to do so.
The liberal establishment maintains that it is not current taxation which finances the government deficit spending but debt. Thus it is not crowding out private spending. However, government debt crowds out private borrowing and investment. Liberal economists argue that government borrowing is not crowding out private investment because the banks have plenty of money to lend to the private sector. Unfortunately, in an attempt to protect depositors and the government guarantee of such deposits, the bank regulators have increased the credit underwriting standards on the banks. Consequently, banks are not lending to struggling small and medium sized businesses that need working capital to grow and create jobs.
Monetary stimulus is no longer an option. Over the past three years, the Federal Reserve has attempted to stimulate the economy by printing money and reducing short-term interest rates to near 0%. Unfortunately, this monetary stimulus is setting the stage for inflation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Government spending dark side
BY: Armstrong Williams
Government spending dark side.
Government spending "crowds out" private spending. At best, it transfers a dollar of private spending through taxation to the public sector. However closer analysis of government spending confirms that it is less efficient in creating income and wealth than private spending. For example, no rational consumer buying a new car would destroy his old car worth $3,000 unless he was given $4,000 of someone else’s money in a “cash for clunkers” program to do so.
The liberal establishment maintains that it is not current taxation which finances the government deficit spending but debt. Thus it is not crowding out private spending. However, government debt crowds out private borrowing and investment. Liberal economists argue that government borrowing is not crowding out private investment because the banks have plenty of money to lend to the private sector. Unfortunately, in an attempt to protect depositors and the government guarantee of such deposits, the bank regulators have increased the credit underwriting standards on the banks. Consequently, banks are not lending to struggling small and medium sized businesses that need working capital to grow and create jobs.
Monetary stimulus is no longer an option. Over the past three years, the Federal Reserve has attempted to stimulate the economy by printing money and reducing short-term interest rates to near 0%. Unfortunately, this monetary stimulus is setting the stage for inflation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/06/11
Time to focus on mechanics
Subject: Time to focus on mechanics
Thursday, October 6 Blog
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to focus on mechanics
So New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is not running for the Republican nomination for president. It’s now time for the GOP to wipe away the tears and get down to the business of nominating the one who will in fact face President Obama next November. Make no mistake, it will be a formidable test. Obama and his team will bring several hundred million dollars to bear, attacking the Republican candidate with everything they have.
Equal to the task, you can bet Republicans will be loaded for bear – ready to lay into an abysmal record of dysfunction and borderline ineptitude.
And it’s on those points that Republican primary voters should base their decision. Let’s face it, Obama is struggling to run the nation. His economic team acts like they earned their economics degrees from an online bank that doubles as a college on weekends.
And all the talk recently over a new Obama makeover – a more charming president – plays right into the hands of someone who knows how to run an organization, not just talk a good game.
That’s right, 2012 may just be the year of the Technocrat-in-Chief. I’m referring to someone who knows the inner movements of an institution, what makes it tick, and how to turn things around when it’s no longer functioning properly. We’ve had “hope” and “change.” And just as the McCain bumper stickers of 2008 were right (“Hope is not an Agenda”), they had the wrong man for the job then.
I’m not officially endorsing him, but given these obvious revelations, Mitt Romney is looking more and more like the guy who can do the job, not just talk about the job. His very nature is mechanical, even his mannerisms. But doggone it, the guy knows what makes a company tick – from its people , to its culture, to its bottom line. And Lord knows our nation’s bottom line needs some adjusting.
So as the wannabes and the almost-rans have finally filtered out, we now know a few things about the present field: 1) Sarah Palin is NOT running for president; 2) Ron Paul will finally exit stage right as a viable presidential contender; 3) Herman Cain is a serious man with some serious gumption to say some serious things; 4) Rick Perry is fading fast; and 5) Mitt Romney, on paper at least, is looking like the technocrat who could get the job done. It may not be graceful and full of style, but hey, haven’t we tried that already?? Look where it got us.
Order Armstrong Williams' new book today on Amazon.com "Reawakening Virtues". Listen to Williams daily on Sirius Power 128, 7pm-8pm est. www.rightsidewire.com
Time to focus on mechanics
Subject: Time to focus on mechanics
Thursday, October 6 Blog
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to focus on mechanics
So New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is not running for the Republican nomination for president. It’s now time for the GOP to wipe away the tears and get down to the business of nominating the one who will in fact face President Obama next November. Make no mistake, it will be a formidable test. Obama and his team will bring several hundred million dollars to bear, attacking the Republican candidate with everything they have.
Equal to the task, you can bet Republicans will be loaded for bear – ready to lay into an abysmal record of dysfunction and borderline ineptitude.
And it’s on those points that Republican primary voters should base their decision. Let’s face it, Obama is struggling to run the nation. His economic team acts like they earned their economics degrees from an online bank that doubles as a college on weekends.
And all the talk recently over a new Obama makeover – a more charming president – plays right into the hands of someone who knows how to run an organization, not just talk a good game.
That’s right, 2012 may just be the year of the Technocrat-in-Chief. I’m referring to someone who knows the inner movements of an institution, what makes it tick, and how to turn things around when it’s no longer functioning properly. We’ve had “hope” and “change.” And just as the McCain bumper stickers of 2008 were right (“Hope is not an Agenda”), they had the wrong man for the job then.
I’m not officially endorsing him, but given these obvious revelations, Mitt Romney is looking more and more like the guy who can do the job, not just talk about the job. His very nature is mechanical, even his mannerisms. But doggone it, the guy knows what makes a company tick – from its people , to its culture, to its bottom line. And Lord knows our nation’s bottom line needs some adjusting.
So as the wannabes and the almost-rans have finally filtered out, we now know a few things about the present field: 1) Sarah Palin is NOT running for president; 2) Ron Paul will finally exit stage right as a viable presidential contender; 3) Herman Cain is a serious man with some serious gumption to say some serious things; 4) Rick Perry is fading fast; and 5) Mitt Romney, on paper at least, is looking like the technocrat who could get the job done. It may not be graceful and full of style, but hey, haven’t we tried that already?? Look where it got us.
Order Armstrong Williams' new book today on Amazon.com "Reawakening Virtues". Listen to Williams daily on Sirius Power 128, 7pm-8pm est. www.rightsidewire.com
10/04/11
Obama's New Deal Rehash
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's New Deal Rehash
President Obama, the man who personally identified himself with the virtue of hope and as the embodiment of change, has the stalest ideas of anyone in Washington. A lot has been said about the jobs bill he keeps exhorting Congress to pass while it lingers in the Democrat-controlled Senate, namely that it is just a rehash of the stimulus package passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2009. The only difference, of course, is that it will be paid for with tax increases—it’s an even worse idea.
Both stimuli are simply poor rehashes of the New Deal. Obama has bought into the long debunked myth that we spent our way out of the Great Depression. For those not familiar with the debunking, allow me to summarize briefly. Money has to come from somewhere, if you simply print money you inflate prices and have, in so doing, effectively wound up where you started.
It's sad that the facts of the Depression are so easily forgotten. Economist Lawrence Reed of the Mackinac Institute says President Herbert Hoover is mistakenly presented in standard history texts as a laissez-faire president while the reality is that he signed into law so many costly and foolish bills that one of Franklin Roosevelt’s top aides later said, “practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's New Deal Rehash
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's New Deal Rehash
President Obama, the man who personally identified himself with the virtue of hope and as the embodiment of change, has the stalest ideas of anyone in Washington. A lot has been said about the jobs bill he keeps exhorting Congress to pass while it lingers in the Democrat-controlled Senate, namely that it is just a rehash of the stimulus package passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2009. The only difference, of course, is that it will be paid for with tax increases—it’s an even worse idea.
Both stimuli are simply poor rehashes of the New Deal. Obama has bought into the long debunked myth that we spent our way out of the Great Depression. For those not familiar with the debunking, allow me to summarize briefly. Money has to come from somewhere, if you simply print money you inflate prices and have, in so doing, effectively wound up where you started.
It's sad that the facts of the Depression are so easily forgotten. Economist Lawrence Reed of the Mackinac Institute says President Herbert Hoover is mistakenly presented in standard history texts as a laissez-faire president while the reality is that he signed into law so many costly and foolish bills that one of Franklin Roosevelt’s top aides later said, “practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/03/11
The wrong way to campaign
The wrong way to campaign
BY: Armstrong Williams
I can’t figure former House Speaker Newt Gingrich out. The second tier candidate just doesn’t know when to put his best strengths forward while tempering his enormous ego.
While campaigning in Iowa over the weekend, Gingrich apparently told a crowd in the Hawkeye State the biggest reason to vote for him over his GOP rivals isn’t his ideas or even his new Contract with America. Gosh-darnit, he’s just plain smarter than the rest.
Huh?
“[I]f you watch them and watch me,” Gingrich told Iowans, “the difference in the depth of knowledge and the difference in the ability to debate Obama, the difference in actually having done it at the national level…I’m a pretty good mechanic who knows how to fix the car and the other folks are good at selling it. They’re nice people, but they don’t have the knowledge to do something like this on this scale. This is enormously complicated.”
What humility. What demurring decency. And this guy says he’s a populist? A man of the people? Which group – the megalomaniacal society of America?
It won’t take long for voters to realize that perhaps Gingrich is the wrong man for the job precisely because he thinks he can go up against President Obama. That’s one of the president’s largest weaknesses – his propensity to talk down to average Americans; to lecture them as though he is the Omniscient One.
Gingrich is following suit, and it doesn’t suit him well at all. This is the same candidate who, by the way, railed against the Ryan Medicare plan, only to apologize in less than 24 hours with a less-than-savvy response. Yeah, that’s smart alright.
It seems Gingrich is continuing his free-fall in this nominating race; so much so that, if he had any hopes of serving in a Cain/Romney/Perry/Christie cabinet, even those chances are dimming.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The wrong way to campaign
The wrong way to campaign
BY: Armstrong Williams
I can’t figure former House Speaker Newt Gingrich out. The second tier candidate just doesn’t know when to put his best strengths forward while tempering his enormous ego.
While campaigning in Iowa over the weekend, Gingrich apparently told a crowd in the Hawkeye State the biggest reason to vote for him over his GOP rivals isn’t his ideas or even his new Contract with America. Gosh-darnit, he’s just plain smarter than the rest.
Huh?
“[I]f you watch them and watch me,” Gingrich told Iowans, “the difference in the depth of knowledge and the difference in the ability to debate Obama, the difference in actually having done it at the national level…I’m a pretty good mechanic who knows how to fix the car and the other folks are good at selling it. They’re nice people, but they don’t have the knowledge to do something like this on this scale. This is enormously complicated.”
What humility. What demurring decency. And this guy says he’s a populist? A man of the people? Which group – the megalomaniacal society of America?
It won’t take long for voters to realize that perhaps Gingrich is the wrong man for the job precisely because he thinks he can go up against President Obama. That’s one of the president’s largest weaknesses – his propensity to talk down to average Americans; to lecture them as though he is the Omniscient One.
Gingrich is following suit, and it doesn’t suit him well at all. This is the same candidate who, by the way, railed against the Ryan Medicare plan, only to apologize in less than 24 hours with a less-than-savvy response. Yeah, that’s smart alright.
It seems Gingrich is continuing his free-fall in this nominating race; so much so that, if he had any hopes of serving in a Cain/Romney/Perry/Christie cabinet, even those chances are dimming.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/30/11
Joe Biden's moment of candor
BY: Armstrong Williams
Joe Biden’s moment of candor
Say what you will about the Vice President, but Joe Biden has one helluva mouth on him. Whether it’s telling the President in front of a large crowd (and a very hot mic) this is one big…er, well, you know…or telling a key swing presidential state that his boss is to blame for their financial woes, he’s nothing if he ain’t honest.
Early yesterday (while on a campaign swing, mind you), Joe Biden missed a key talking point while visiting a local Florida radio station. Apparently, the abysmal state of America’s economy is no longer former President Bush’s fault, but his own!
“There’s a lot of people in Florida that have good reason to be upset because they’ve lost jobs," Biden told WLRN in the interview. "Even though 50 some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant."
"What’s relevant is, we’re in charge. And right now, we are the ones in charge, and it’s gotten better but it hasn't gotten good enough. And in states like Florida it's even been more stagnant because of the real estate market.”
And now here come the RNC attack ads, Mr. Vice President…
Look, it seems everyone in the country BUT the White House knows the Obama Administration has underperformed in fixing the economy. I’m just glad someone high in the administration finally admitted it.
The sad truth here is there is still time to turn this economy around and take credit for it. If Obama would quit the shrill complaining and finger-pointing and go about responsibly addressing the nation’s woes, his handlers wouldn’t have to worry about Joe Biden going off the reservation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Joe Biden's moment of candor
BY: Armstrong Williams
Joe Biden’s moment of candor
Say what you will about the Vice President, but Joe Biden has one helluva mouth on him. Whether it’s telling the President in front of a large crowd (and a very hot mic) this is one big…er, well, you know…or telling a key swing presidential state that his boss is to blame for their financial woes, he’s nothing if he ain’t honest.
Early yesterday (while on a campaign swing, mind you), Joe Biden missed a key talking point while visiting a local Florida radio station. Apparently, the abysmal state of America’s economy is no longer former President Bush’s fault, but his own!
“There’s a lot of people in Florida that have good reason to be upset because they’ve lost jobs," Biden told WLRN in the interview. "Even though 50 some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant."
"What’s relevant is, we’re in charge. And right now, we are the ones in charge, and it’s gotten better but it hasn't gotten good enough. And in states like Florida it's even been more stagnant because of the real estate market.”
And now here come the RNC attack ads, Mr. Vice President…
Look, it seems everyone in the country BUT the White House knows the Obama Administration has underperformed in fixing the economy. I’m just glad someone high in the administration finally admitted it.
The sad truth here is there is still time to turn this economy around and take credit for it. If Obama would quit the shrill complaining and finger-pointing and go about responsibly addressing the nation’s woes, his handlers wouldn’t have to worry about Joe Biden going off the reservation.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/29/11
Coke: The un-American cola?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Coke: The un-American cola?
I don’t care what anyone says, Coca-Cola is distinctly an American brand. Isn’t it the next line after “Mom,” “apple pie” and “baseball?” From it’s unique, Old Glory red color to the taste that launched a thousand ships, Coke belongs in the USA.
You may be asking: was there ever any doubt it would leave? Well, yeah.
That’s the word from Coke’s top executive earlier this week when asked what he felt about America’s tax policies. According to the Financial Times, CEO Muhtar Kent said “in many respects” it was easier dealing with the Chinese on business issues, which he compared the Communist country to a “well-managed company.” Kent went on to tell the FT, “In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment.”
Now, set aside China’s abysmal human rights record and its terrible pollution propensities, because they have no bearing on what one of the world’s top executives just told us all – America is no longer open for business.
The world’s largest economy moves with the nimbleness of an elephant, and acts like an ass when it makes business decisions. Gee, I wonder where I’ve seen those two animals recently? Oh, right…they are the symbols of our country’s political parties. Go figure.
Look, there’s nothing like the cold hard truth of economic reality. You can criticize Kent for many things, but he’s right – the private sector is the job creator in this country, and throughout the world.
This Congress heralds its own virtues when its members avoid the 15th government shutdown in as many months, and we wonder why Wall Street quakes in its boots?
If you want to create jobs and generate commerce, you need to move product. You move product by staying competitive. It’s almost to a point where to be “competitive” in this country means you must’ve somehow swindled someone out of some thing. That’s the bogus line our president seems to parrot when he sees a company doing well.
“Let’s tax them, or regulate them…” he says. “Someone is making money? Oh, my, well this here family isn’t, so I guess we should ‘investigate’ what’s gone wrong…”
We need to end this assault on American businesses, and stop penalizing them through our tax code when they want to go out and market to 95% of the customers beyond American borders.
If Coca-Cola is worried about American know-how to attract business, so should the rest of the country.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Coke: The un-American cola?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Coke: The un-American cola?
I don’t care what anyone says, Coca-Cola is distinctly an American brand. Isn’t it the next line after “Mom,” “apple pie” and “baseball?” From it’s unique, Old Glory red color to the taste that launched a thousand ships, Coke belongs in the USA.
You may be asking: was there ever any doubt it would leave? Well, yeah.
That’s the word from Coke’s top executive earlier this week when asked what he felt about America’s tax policies. According to the Financial Times, CEO Muhtar Kent said “in many respects” it was easier dealing with the Chinese on business issues, which he compared the Communist country to a “well-managed company.” Kent went on to tell the FT, “In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment.”
Now, set aside China’s abysmal human rights record and its terrible pollution propensities, because they have no bearing on what one of the world’s top executives just told us all – America is no longer open for business.
The world’s largest economy moves with the nimbleness of an elephant, and acts like an ass when it makes business decisions. Gee, I wonder where I’ve seen those two animals recently? Oh, right…they are the symbols of our country’s political parties. Go figure.
Look, there’s nothing like the cold hard truth of economic reality. You can criticize Kent for many things, but he’s right – the private sector is the job creator in this country, and throughout the world.
This Congress heralds its own virtues when its members avoid the 15th government shutdown in as many months, and we wonder why Wall Street quakes in its boots?
If you want to create jobs and generate commerce, you need to move product. You move product by staying competitive. It’s almost to a point where to be “competitive” in this country means you must’ve somehow swindled someone out of some thing. That’s the bogus line our president seems to parrot when he sees a company doing well.
“Let’s tax them, or regulate them…” he says. “Someone is making money? Oh, my, well this here family isn’t, so I guess we should ‘investigate’ what’s gone wrong…”
We need to end this assault on American businesses, and stop penalizing them through our tax code when they want to go out and market to 95% of the customers beyond American borders.
If Coca-Cola is worried about American know-how to attract business, so should the rest of the country.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/28/11
I miss Bill Clinton
I miss Bill Clinton
BY: Armstrong Williams
I never thought it would come to this. I never imagined a time post 2000 when I would actually lament a return to the past. But here we are, facing a recession as deep and even longer than the one in the early 1990s. A recession that ushered in none other than the Comeback Kid – President William Jefferson Clinton.
His was a presidency that brought us DNA samples; Don’t ask, Don’t tell; school uniforms; and wagging fingers regarding a certain intern.
But set all that aside (if you can), and recall some of the fiscal successes of his presidency, and it’s easy to long for those days again.
Yes, the United States enjoyed years of growing surpluses during the Clinton presidency – many of which could be attributed equally to the Republican Congress – but pair them together, and it’s easy to see why the country could use another Bill Clinton in place of the current Oval Office occupant. Here’s why:
One thing is evident regarding the Clinton years, he knew when he had been beat. Following the loss of both houses of Congress in 1994, the president rightly declared, “The era of Big Government is over.” He spent the next several years resisting that fact, but enacting policies that matched the statement. Remember welfare reform in 1996? It took a Republican Congress to force a liberal president to enact that landmark law. Yet it took a chief executive to do his part.
President Obama knows the era of big government in 2011 is over. It took the Tea Party to prove to him this fact. Now, he must repeat the steps of Clinton and work with Republicans to enact meaningful, center-right policies that reflect the will of this nation. Resistance is futile. Just look at the imminent loss of the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2012, and perhaps even the loss of Obama’s own job if he’s not careful in these upcoming months.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
I miss Bill Clinton
I miss Bill Clinton
BY: Armstrong Williams
I never thought it would come to this. I never imagined a time post 2000 when I would actually lament a return to the past. But here we are, facing a recession as deep and even longer than the one in the early 1990s. A recession that ushered in none other than the Comeback Kid – President William Jefferson Clinton.
His was a presidency that brought us DNA samples; Don’t ask, Don’t tell; school uniforms; and wagging fingers regarding a certain intern.
But set all that aside (if you can), and recall some of the fiscal successes of his presidency, and it’s easy to long for those days again.
Yes, the United States enjoyed years of growing surpluses during the Clinton presidency – many of which could be attributed equally to the Republican Congress – but pair them together, and it’s easy to see why the country could use another Bill Clinton in place of the current Oval Office occupant. Here’s why:
One thing is evident regarding the Clinton years, he knew when he had been beat. Following the loss of both houses of Congress in 1994, the president rightly declared, “The era of Big Government is over.” He spent the next several years resisting that fact, but enacting policies that matched the statement. Remember welfare reform in 1996? It took a Republican Congress to force a liberal president to enact that landmark law. Yet it took a chief executive to do his part.
President Obama knows the era of big government in 2011 is over. It took the Tea Party to prove to him this fact. Now, he must repeat the steps of Clinton and work with Republicans to enact meaningful, center-right policies that reflect the will of this nation. Resistance is futile. Just look at the imminent loss of the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2012, and perhaps even the loss of Obama’s own job if he’s not careful in these upcoming months.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/27/11
'A house is not a home if there's no one there.'
BY: Armstrong Williams
'A house is not a home if there's no one there.'
Even as housing prices decline, the average home price in America is still almost 4 times annual income, making financing a home the only option for many people. When housing finance first took hold as the primary method by which Americans bought home, in the 1950s, the average house cost about one year’s income. The run up in housing prices has made it such that even those who get into homes don’t actually own them for most of their lives. They finance, often a small fraction of the value of the home (holding less than 1% equity in many cases).
Today, with declining employment among young Americans, estimated at around 17% for those between 18 and 24, many have delayed long term commitments because of their inability to support a household. They are often priced out of the houses near major employment centers, and have had to resort to moving far out of metropolitan areas if they are to find an affordable home. In fact, the very term ‘affordable’ has taken on almost Orwellian significance, as many people find that they will essentially be in debt for most of their lives if they buy.
The effects on neighborhoods have been even more pernicious, with an estimated $500 billion a year in home equity lost since 2008. In 2009 alone, an estimated 91.5 million families lost more than $2 trillion dollar in nominal home value. With almost half of all home sales since 2008 being foreclosures and short sales, neighborhoods have been decimated. Not only has the home value for neighbors who stay in their homes been decimated, but so have the neighborhoods themselves. Some neighborhoods in places like Riverside County in California, and Louden County in Northern Virginia look almost like ghost towns, with practically brand new, vacant houses littering new developments. As Luther Vandross once said, ‘A house is not a home if there’s no one there.’ The same can be said of a neighborhood.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
'A house is not a home if there's no one there.'
BY: Armstrong Williams
'A house is not a home if there's no one there.'
Even as housing prices decline, the average home price in America is still almost 4 times annual income, making financing a home the only option for many people. When housing finance first took hold as the primary method by which Americans bought home, in the 1950s, the average house cost about one year’s income. The run up in housing prices has made it such that even those who get into homes don’t actually own them for most of their lives. They finance, often a small fraction of the value of the home (holding less than 1% equity in many cases).
Today, with declining employment among young Americans, estimated at around 17% for those between 18 and 24, many have delayed long term commitments because of their inability to support a household. They are often priced out of the houses near major employment centers, and have had to resort to moving far out of metropolitan areas if they are to find an affordable home. In fact, the very term ‘affordable’ has taken on almost Orwellian significance, as many people find that they will essentially be in debt for most of their lives if they buy.
The effects on neighborhoods have been even more pernicious, with an estimated $500 billion a year in home equity lost since 2008. In 2009 alone, an estimated 91.5 million families lost more than $2 trillion dollar in nominal home value. With almost half of all home sales since 2008 being foreclosures and short sales, neighborhoods have been decimated. Not only has the home value for neighbors who stay in their homes been decimated, but so have the neighborhoods themselves. Some neighborhoods in places like Riverside County in California, and Louden County in Northern Virginia look almost like ghost towns, with practically brand new, vacant houses littering new developments. As Luther Vandross once said, ‘A house is not a home if there’s no one there.’ The same can be said of a neighborhood.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/26/11
Herman Cain for Veep
BY: Armstrong Williams
Herman Cain for Veep
I continue to be impressed with Herman Cain. And after the kind of week he’s had - first during Thursday night’s GOP debates, and then winning Florida’s straw poll – it’s beginning to show this guy has given the presidency a lot of careful thought. And his views are resonating with the masses.
That’s what it takes to win this nomination – consideration over not just what it will take to pull this economy out of recession, but what to do about the other big problems we as a society face. You see, Cain doesn’t fixate on one thing. It all has a purpose, fits together.
That’s what comes through when you’re a veteran CEO. I see those same traits in him as I do in me when I run my business. It’s almost a black-and-white picture. I say “almost” because public policy is inherently grey. But even then, Cain seems to understand and appreciate the nuances of what he or the next President will face.
So why the title of this blog as Cain for VICE president? I just doubt he can win. The deck seems stacked against him. Not because of the color of his skin (isn’t it great, by the way, that in these times, we can say such things without hesitation? That’s progress.), but rather, he lacks the network and infrastructure to pull off the upset.
But even if he can’t go all the way and secure the GOP nomination, the ultimate winner should definitely take a look at this man for his #2 spot.
What a powerful ticket partner Cain would make; a successful business man who also takes time to study foreign relations and other executive mandates. Yet he doesn’t lose sight of the common sense that escapes Washington by the ton each and every day.
And unlike other so-called second tier candidates such as Jon Huntsman or Rick Santorum, there’s no desperation in Cain’s voice. He’s not trying to out-shout his peers on the stage. He has points to be made, and he’ll wait his turn to make them. But when it does come around to him, his responses are equally demonstrative and purposeful. His thoughts on Social Security last Thursday and how to reform the program, for example, showed the consideration he’s given these intractable issues we face.
Like I said, I continue to be impressed with Mr. Cain.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Herman Cain for Veep
BY: Armstrong Williams
Herman Cain for Veep
I continue to be impressed with Herman Cain. And after the kind of week he’s had - first during Thursday night’s GOP debates, and then winning Florida’s straw poll – it’s beginning to show this guy has given the presidency a lot of careful thought. And his views are resonating with the masses.
That’s what it takes to win this nomination – consideration over not just what it will take to pull this economy out of recession, but what to do about the other big problems we as a society face. You see, Cain doesn’t fixate on one thing. It all has a purpose, fits together.
That’s what comes through when you’re a veteran CEO. I see those same traits in him as I do in me when I run my business. It’s almost a black-and-white picture. I say “almost” because public policy is inherently grey. But even then, Cain seems to understand and appreciate the nuances of what he or the next President will face.
So why the title of this blog as Cain for VICE president? I just doubt he can win. The deck seems stacked against him. Not because of the color of his skin (isn’t it great, by the way, that in these times, we can say such things without hesitation? That’s progress.), but rather, he lacks the network and infrastructure to pull off the upset.
But even if he can’t go all the way and secure the GOP nomination, the ultimate winner should definitely take a look at this man for his #2 spot.
What a powerful ticket partner Cain would make; a successful business man who also takes time to study foreign relations and other executive mandates. Yet he doesn’t lose sight of the common sense that escapes Washington by the ton each and every day.
And unlike other so-called second tier candidates such as Jon Huntsman or Rick Santorum, there’s no desperation in Cain’s voice. He’s not trying to out-shout his peers on the stage. He has points to be made, and he’ll wait his turn to make them. But when it does come around to him, his responses are equally demonstrative and purposeful. His thoughts on Social Security last Thursday and how to reform the program, for example, showed the consideration he’s given these intractable issues we face.
Like I said, I continue to be impressed with Mr. Cain.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/22/11
Diplomatic Lunacy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Diplomatic Lunacy
Palestinian Authority efforts to secure statehood represent an abandonment of the very foundation of the peace process, which requires the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate directly to resolve their conflict. The PA lusts for statehood despite its near-total reliance on foreign aid to prop up its frail economy and the government’s physical and political division between PA-controlled areas on the West Bank and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
The proposition of Palestinian statehood today is ludicrous: this would involve bestowing legitimacy on a government that includes a radical, Islamist terrorist group which is committed to the destruction of its neighbor Israel, has championed use of suicide terrorism to murder innocents, and has indiscriminately fired thousands of rockets into Israeli towns and cities after Israel withdrew completely from Gaza.
Should the U.N. really grant the precious gift of global recognition to a PA that pays salaries to known terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails, honors suicide terrorists as martyrs and holds them up as role models for children?
The Palestinian strategy for leading the world down this misguided path is insidious. The PA is aiming to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel, undermining America’s role as an honest broker in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and marginalizing our country’s global standing by cloaking anti-Israel intent in the internationalization of the conflict.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Diplomatic Lunacy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Diplomatic Lunacy
Palestinian Authority efforts to secure statehood represent an abandonment of the very foundation of the peace process, which requires the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate directly to resolve their conflict. The PA lusts for statehood despite its near-total reliance on foreign aid to prop up its frail economy and the government’s physical and political division between PA-controlled areas on the West Bank and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
The proposition of Palestinian statehood today is ludicrous: this would involve bestowing legitimacy on a government that includes a radical, Islamist terrorist group which is committed to the destruction of its neighbor Israel, has championed use of suicide terrorism to murder innocents, and has indiscriminately fired thousands of rockets into Israeli towns and cities after Israel withdrew completely from Gaza.
Should the U.N. really grant the precious gift of global recognition to a PA that pays salaries to known terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails, honors suicide terrorists as martyrs and holds them up as role models for children?
The Palestinian strategy for leading the world down this misguided path is insidious. The PA is aiming to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel, undermining America’s role as an honest broker in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and marginalizing our country’s global standing by cloaking anti-Israel intent in the internationalization of the conflict.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/21/11
The Plight of Farmers
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Plight of Farmers
Having grown up on a tobacco farm and worked at the US Department of Agriculture, I can tell you that the concerns that keep black farmers up at night are not unique and are mostly shared by farmers of all stripes. Aside from some specific issues of discrimination, black farmers worry about access to capital, pray for a little luck with the weather and wish for a more predictable regulatory environment. High levels of uncertainty translate into a lack of investments and lack of jobs on the farm just as on Wall Street. Farmers are practical people. They understand that uncertainty in the capital markets is tied to the economy as a whole. Their concerns about the weather are typically conveyed to a higher power, not Washington bureacrats. But when a seemingly endless stream of burdensome, costly and scientifically unfounded regulations threatens their livelihood, they expect the government to stop and consider their plight. And when the President visits rural America as he did this month and dismisses these concerns out of hand, it sends a clear message to them that now is not the time for new investments in the American farm.
Read Williams new book "Reawakening Virtues" on Amazon.com. Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 128
7-8pm & 4-5 am Mon- Fri. est. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him
on twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside
The Plight of Farmers
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Plight of Farmers
Having grown up on a tobacco farm and worked at the US Department of Agriculture, I can tell you that the concerns that keep black farmers up at night are not unique and are mostly shared by farmers of all stripes. Aside from some specific issues of discrimination, black farmers worry about access to capital, pray for a little luck with the weather and wish for a more predictable regulatory environment. High levels of uncertainty translate into a lack of investments and lack of jobs on the farm just as on Wall Street. Farmers are practical people. They understand that uncertainty in the capital markets is tied to the economy as a whole. Their concerns about the weather are typically conveyed to a higher power, not Washington bureacrats. But when a seemingly endless stream of burdensome, costly and scientifically unfounded regulations threatens their livelihood, they expect the government to stop and consider their plight. And when the President visits rural America as he did this month and dismisses these concerns out of hand, it sends a clear message to them that now is not the time for new investments in the American farm.
Read Williams new book "Reawakening Virtues" on Amazon.com. Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 128
7-8pm & 4-5 am Mon- Fri. est. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him
on twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside
09/20/11
Hold....Hold.....Hold
BY: Armstrong Williams
Hold. Hold. Hold....
The Republican Party and common sense thinking people in this country must maintain their core message. The core message is that the Federal Government has an unsustainable spending problem resulting in crippling deficits and an overbearing national debt that is a drag on America’s economy. To eliminate the deficit, government spending must be cut. Since entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is nearly 60% of the budget and growing significantly faster than national income, entitlement spending must be reduced. Increased taxes are not a viable option because history has shown that Congress uses increased tax receipts to increase government programs; not to pay down deficits. History also shows that increasing tax rates does not raise tax revenues in the long run.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Hold....Hold.....Hold
BY: Armstrong Williams
Hold. Hold. Hold....
The Republican Party and common sense thinking people in this country must maintain their core message. The core message is that the Federal Government has an unsustainable spending problem resulting in crippling deficits and an overbearing national debt that is a drag on America’s economy. To eliminate the deficit, government spending must be cut. Since entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is nearly 60% of the budget and growing significantly faster than national income, entitlement spending must be reduced. Increased taxes are not a viable option because history has shown that Congress uses increased tax receipts to increase government programs; not to pay down deficits. History also shows that increasing tax rates does not raise tax revenues in the long run.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/19/11
Obama's Economic trickery
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Economic trickery
The only economic metric that matters to most “Main Street” Americans is jobs. Unfortunately, the news on this front is getting progressively worst. Unemployment continues to remain stubbornly high at over 9.1%. The percentage of Americans working is 58.1%. This is the lowest percentage of Americans working since 1983 and Americans living in poverty is at an all time high of 15%.
Traditional Keynesian fiscal stimulus tools used by the Obama administration to stimulate the economy in 2009 and 2010 have been an unequivocal failure. Taxpayers paid in excess of $800 billion for this failed stimulus venture. As a result of this failure and the current political environment, these fiscal spending tools are not now available for stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Americans will not be duped into wasting more money on another failed stimulus package by calling for $1.5 trillion in new revenue as part of a plan to find more than $3 trillion in budget savings over the next 10 years. Obama's call for $450 billion in new stimulus dollars is just another trick on the public that will fail miserably.
The Federal Reserve Bank has also used traditional Keynesian monetary policy to stimulate the economy. Quantitative Easing (“QE”) I and QE ll have also failed to stimulate sustained growth in the economy. Given the status of current interest rates and the excess liquidity in the economy, it is unlikely that a new QE lll will work. Interest rates are at record lows. Reducing interest rates further is not practical. Even Fed President Geithner has ruled out QE lll.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's Economic trickery
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Economic trickery
The only economic metric that matters to most “Main Street” Americans is jobs. Unfortunately, the news on this front is getting progressively worst. Unemployment continues to remain stubbornly high at over 9.1%. The percentage of Americans working is 58.1%. This is the lowest percentage of Americans working since 1983 and Americans living in poverty is at an all time high of 15%.
Traditional Keynesian fiscal stimulus tools used by the Obama administration to stimulate the economy in 2009 and 2010 have been an unequivocal failure. Taxpayers paid in excess of $800 billion for this failed stimulus venture. As a result of this failure and the current political environment, these fiscal spending tools are not now available for stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Americans will not be duped into wasting more money on another failed stimulus package by calling for $1.5 trillion in new revenue as part of a plan to find more than $3 trillion in budget savings over the next 10 years. Obama's call for $450 billion in new stimulus dollars is just another trick on the public that will fail miserably.
The Federal Reserve Bank has also used traditional Keynesian monetary policy to stimulate the economy. Quantitative Easing (“QE”) I and QE ll have also failed to stimulate sustained growth in the economy. Given the status of current interest rates and the excess liquidity in the economy, it is unlikely that a new QE lll will work. Interest rates are at record lows. Reducing interest rates further is not practical. Even Fed President Geithner has ruled out QE lll.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/15/11
What Won't Work for House Democrats in 2012
Lagos, Nigeria - The upset loss earlier this week in a special election to replace disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner - followed by a sure-win for Republicans out West in Nevada – does not bode well for congressional Democrats moving into 2012.
Sure, we’ll hear the usual banter that these special elections rarely serve as reliable bellwethers for national elections. Heck, I even said as much about the open Republican seat in New York26 earlier this year.
But this situation seems different. Not only are the stakes higher, and the presidential race draws nearer. Those factors alone should cause the national Democratic party to worry. But also, it signals to me a key plank in the Democrats’ attack platform is woefully overestimated by the Party, or it just plain won’t work anymore.
Of course, I’m referring to the Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget and how Democrats excoriated the House Republican for his courageous (and right) observations regarding the future of Medicare. Mr. Ryan was even so thoughtful as to offer some constructive thoughts on how to save the program. I find it odd that Democrats chose to ignore that “minor” detail. If someone were so politically bent to destroy a program as they allege, then why would the perpetrator think through a solution to keep that same program solvent?
At any rate, Democrats believed they had a magic elixir to help them win back the House in 2012, or at least make a respectable show of it.
They certainly tried the tactics in NY9 and NV2, throwing everything they could at the candidates to make the case stick. But it didn’t work.
GOP Party officials told me this morning they feel as though they can weather these attacks in pretty much any district moving into next year, especially in a New York seat where Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one in party registration. Granted, this race was more about the infidelities of Mr. Weiner, and Republicans can only rest so much on their laurels.
But it’s a positive note when demagoguing an issue will only get a candidate so far. Especially during a time when both parties should be serious regarding our nation’s debt. To play seniors versus defense issues in an attempt to score points is tired and old.
Let’s hope both sides learn a few lessons as we gear up for 2012.
What Won't Work for House Democrats in 2012
Lagos, Nigeria - The upset loss earlier this week in a special election to replace disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner - followed by a sure-win for Republicans out West in Nevada – does not bode well for congressional Democrats moving into 2012.
Sure, we’ll hear the usual banter that these special elections rarely serve as reliable bellwethers for national elections. Heck, I even said as much about the open Republican seat in New York26 earlier this year.
But this situation seems different. Not only are the stakes higher, and the presidential race draws nearer. Those factors alone should cause the national Democratic party to worry. But also, it signals to me a key plank in the Democrats’ attack platform is woefully overestimated by the Party, or it just plain won’t work anymore.
Of course, I’m referring to the Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget and how Democrats excoriated the House Republican for his courageous (and right) observations regarding the future of Medicare. Mr. Ryan was even so thoughtful as to offer some constructive thoughts on how to save the program. I find it odd that Democrats chose to ignore that “minor” detail. If someone were so politically bent to destroy a program as they allege, then why would the perpetrator think through a solution to keep that same program solvent?
At any rate, Democrats believed they had a magic elixir to help them win back the House in 2012, or at least make a respectable show of it.
They certainly tried the tactics in NY9 and NV2, throwing everything they could at the candidates to make the case stick. But it didn’t work.
GOP Party officials told me this morning they feel as though they can weather these attacks in pretty much any district moving into next year, especially in a New York seat where Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one in party registration. Granted, this race was more about the infidelities of Mr. Weiner, and Republicans can only rest so much on their laurels.
But it’s a positive note when demagoguing an issue will only get a candidate so far. Especially during a time when both parties should be serious regarding our nation’s debt. To play seniors versus defense issues in an attempt to score points is tired and old.
Let’s hope both sides learn a few lessons as we gear up for 2012.
09/14/11
Revisiting 9-11 on Foreign Land
This week from my hotel Room in Lagos, Nigeria for the first time in almost 10 years I watched The Towers fall. I listened to the tales of widows, friends, and comrades as they recounted that day. I saw footage I’d never seen of firefighters running into the towers as others staggered out, and once again remembered the virtues of courage, sacrifice, and what it truly means to be a hero. And I was overwhelmed with emotions. Just as hard as I had that day, maybe even more so because of what we’ve been through and where we are as a nation 10 years later.
It is always difficult, if not impossible, to vanquish fear and emotion and look at such an event rationally in the immediate aftermath. It is easy now to realize the mistakes our leaders made, but the 10th anniversary has allowed me to absolve some of those sins. It doesn’t necessarily justify all the actions of the past 10 years by both the Bush and Obama administrations, but it puts them in context.
As president, your number one goal should be to protect the American people. People that believe Bush didn’t feel the pain of those 2,977 deaths, or the deaths of the Soldiers he put in harms way in the War on Terror is deluding themselves. The same as those that think Pres. Obama doesn’t care about the troops that have died in the past 3 years are nimwits. Pres. Obama has expanded the war into Pakistan, strengthened the Patriot Act, and kept Guantanamo open because he cares, and he never wants anything like 9/11 to happen again.
We must realize that no person or group can destroy our country as long as we perceive and heed FDR’s warning- “the only thing to fear is fear itself.”
Revisiting 9-11 on Foreign Land
This week from my hotel Room in Lagos, Nigeria for the first time in almost 10 years I watched The Towers fall. I listened to the tales of widows, friends, and comrades as they recounted that day. I saw footage I’d never seen of firefighters running into the towers as others staggered out, and once again remembered the virtues of courage, sacrifice, and what it truly means to be a hero. And I was overwhelmed with emotions. Just as hard as I had that day, maybe even more so because of what we’ve been through and where we are as a nation 10 years later.
It is always difficult, if not impossible, to vanquish fear and emotion and look at such an event rationally in the immediate aftermath. It is easy now to realize the mistakes our leaders made, but the 10th anniversary has allowed me to absolve some of those sins. It doesn’t necessarily justify all the actions of the past 10 years by both the Bush and Obama administrations, but it puts them in context.
As president, your number one goal should be to protect the American people. People that believe Bush didn’t feel the pain of those 2,977 deaths, or the deaths of the Soldiers he put in harms way in the War on Terror is deluding themselves. The same as those that think Pres. Obama doesn’t care about the troops that have died in the past 3 years are nimwits. Pres. Obama has expanded the war into Pakistan, strengthened the Patriot Act, and kept Guantanamo open because he cares, and he never wants anything like 9/11 to happen again.
We must realize that no person or group can destroy our country as long as we perceive and heed FDR’s warning- “the only thing to fear is fear itself.”
09/09/11
Obama's New Mantra "Pass The Bill"
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's New Mantra "Pass The Bill"
President Obama proposed many things that should have been done earlier- tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for businesses, and money for infrastructure projects. In many ways I like his proposals, but then I can’t help but remember that he promised to rebuild our infrastructure and schools 3 years ago when he asked for, and received roughly $800 billion for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We still haven’t seen much good from that law, other than payoffs to failed businesses like Solyndra and a dead economy. Also, while I like the extension of the 4.2% payroll tax rate, I can’t help but fear that cutting it to 3.1%, as he proposed, will only hasten the Social Security time bomb we all know will soon blow. Lastly, he learned from his past mistake by not offering any pie-in-the-sky number guarantee of the unemployment rate if this bill passes; however, he seems to be making the same mistake he did with the health care bill in that he offers no real specifics and hopes that it all works out after the bill is passed. For the sake of America, I hope whatever the final bill is, that it works, but having seen this movie before, count me skeptical.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's New Mantra "Pass The Bill"
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's New Mantra "Pass The Bill"
President Obama proposed many things that should have been done earlier- tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for businesses, and money for infrastructure projects. In many ways I like his proposals, but then I can’t help but remember that he promised to rebuild our infrastructure and schools 3 years ago when he asked for, and received roughly $800 billion for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We still haven’t seen much good from that law, other than payoffs to failed businesses like Solyndra and a dead economy. Also, while I like the extension of the 4.2% payroll tax rate, I can’t help but fear that cutting it to 3.1%, as he proposed, will only hasten the Social Security time bomb we all know will soon blow. Lastly, he learned from his past mistake by not offering any pie-in-the-sky number guarantee of the unemployment rate if this bill passes; however, he seems to be making the same mistake he did with the health care bill in that he offers no real specifics and hopes that it all works out after the bill is passed. For the sake of America, I hope whatever the final bill is, that it works, but having seen this movie before, count me skeptical.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/08/11
GOP Debate observations
BY: Armstrong Williams
GOP Debate observations
One thing that was apparent during last night's GOP presidential debate is that each of the candidates has a much better grasp of economic issues than our President. There were some who distinguished themselves with well-thought out answers and solutions. Mitt Romney, Gov. Perry and former Speaker New Gingrich were among the best to lay out well reasoned plans that not only offered constructive solutions, but revealed they know some of the intractable problems we as a nation face as well.
There were others who extinguished any enthusiasm that might have been otherwise present by simply trotting out tired sound bites. This schtick from the likes of Bachmann and Ron Paul is getting old, and I believe the typical Republican primary voter will see through the gauze of the rhetoric and start to tune those folks out.
Herman Cain continued to make a strong showing with his usual and logical self, but let’s get serious – as serious as some in the pundit world want to take him, he is not posting real numbers and support behind his candidacy.
As interesting as the candidates were, those who posed the questions were even more interesting because it was apparent that they were considerably more interested in stoking malcontent than impassioned debate. I don’t know how we remove the “reality TV” acts from these serious events, but it must at least begin to subside.
All in all, it was an extremely informative debate and Americans considering the 2012 elections are more educated about the GOP field of candidates.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
GOP Debate observations
BY: Armstrong Williams
GOP Debate observations
One thing that was apparent during last night's GOP presidential debate is that each of the candidates has a much better grasp of economic issues than our President. There were some who distinguished themselves with well-thought out answers and solutions. Mitt Romney, Gov. Perry and former Speaker New Gingrich were among the best to lay out well reasoned plans that not only offered constructive solutions, but revealed they know some of the intractable problems we as a nation face as well.
There were others who extinguished any enthusiasm that might have been otherwise present by simply trotting out tired sound bites. This schtick from the likes of Bachmann and Ron Paul is getting old, and I believe the typical Republican primary voter will see through the gauze of the rhetoric and start to tune those folks out.
Herman Cain continued to make a strong showing with his usual and logical self, but let’s get serious – as serious as some in the pundit world want to take him, he is not posting real numbers and support behind his candidacy.
As interesting as the candidates were, those who posed the questions were even more interesting because it was apparent that they were considerably more interested in stoking malcontent than impassioned debate. I don’t know how we remove the “reality TV” acts from these serious events, but it must at least begin to subside.
All in all, it was an extremely informative debate and Americans considering the 2012 elections are more educated about the GOP field of candidates.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/07/11
Obama's speech---what I hope to hear
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama’s speech – what I hope to hear
President Obama’s much anticipated speech on his jobs proposal this week will no doubt remind Americans why 1 out of every 10 of them is unemployed. He’ll wax and wane in his usual professorial manner over the tug and pull of supply and demand economics.
Let’s not forget that he will also feature some of his 2012 campaign lines – phrases on how we can’t return to the “failed policies of the past”…which someone in the White House feels that will continue to salve the wounds of Americans by blaming Bush.
What I hope to hear is an admission from the President. I would like, just once, to hear him acknowledge that government cannot create one job that is sustainable, profitable, and in the private sector. It’s very good at employing people, mind you. Just look at the tens of millions of federal employees who sucked off the federal largesse, especially during the burgeoning stimulus months.
But are any of those jobs sustainable, and does one dollar spent on a federal job outweigh and outlast one dollar spent creating a job in the private sector? Unequivocally, that answer is no. Simple logic defies anything to the contrary.
If I want to create a federal job, I must first borrow approximately 65 cents of every dollar from say, China, to fund that job. Not to mention the agency that employs the public worker will not pay federal income taxes the way a private sector employer would. And on the rarest of occasions, that building will not pay real estate taxes due to legacy purchases decades old, especially in Washington, DC.
So, please, Mr. President, enter into that august room on Thursday and admit the best jobs that last and yield the most benefit are the ones government does NOT create. Set the right conditions with regulatory and monetary policies, then get out of the way.
It won’t be easy. Corporations are hoarding cash. Why? They fear the government and its heavy-handedness. They fear bail-outs for otherwise inefficient casualties of economic Darwinism. And they fear the uncertainty of a tax code run amok.
So assuage those fears. Americans need to hear from someone who sounds more like he holds an MBA than a PhD. Let’s hope this president can give us that this week.
A little more business acumen in our White House can only help this economy. Heck, he’s tried everything else…
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's speech---what I hope to hear
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama’s speech – what I hope to hear
President Obama’s much anticipated speech on his jobs proposal this week will no doubt remind Americans why 1 out of every 10 of them is unemployed. He’ll wax and wane in his usual professorial manner over the tug and pull of supply and demand economics.
Let’s not forget that he will also feature some of his 2012 campaign lines – phrases on how we can’t return to the “failed policies of the past”…which someone in the White House feels that will continue to salve the wounds of Americans by blaming Bush.
What I hope to hear is an admission from the President. I would like, just once, to hear him acknowledge that government cannot create one job that is sustainable, profitable, and in the private sector. It’s very good at employing people, mind you. Just look at the tens of millions of federal employees who sucked off the federal largesse, especially during the burgeoning stimulus months.
But are any of those jobs sustainable, and does one dollar spent on a federal job outweigh and outlast one dollar spent creating a job in the private sector? Unequivocally, that answer is no. Simple logic defies anything to the contrary.
If I want to create a federal job, I must first borrow approximately 65 cents of every dollar from say, China, to fund that job. Not to mention the agency that employs the public worker will not pay federal income taxes the way a private sector employer would. And on the rarest of occasions, that building will not pay real estate taxes due to legacy purchases decades old, especially in Washington, DC.
So, please, Mr. President, enter into that august room on Thursday and admit the best jobs that last and yield the most benefit are the ones government does NOT create. Set the right conditions with regulatory and monetary policies, then get out of the way.
It won’t be easy. Corporations are hoarding cash. Why? They fear the government and its heavy-handedness. They fear bail-outs for otherwise inefficient casualties of economic Darwinism. And they fear the uncertainty of a tax code run amok.
So assuage those fears. Americans need to hear from someone who sounds more like he holds an MBA than a PhD. Let’s hope this president can give us that this week.
A little more business acumen in our White House can only help this economy. Heck, he’s tried everything else…
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/06/11
Who is responsible for the current financial crisis?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Who is responsible for the current financial crisis?
The financial community is not the sole cause of the current crisis. It did what Congress wanted it to do i.e. make risky loans to home owners who would not otherwise get a loan in the unregulated mortgage market. American consumers were encouraged to buy homes whether they could afford them or not. Homeowners were also under the mistaken belief that home ownership was an investment and not a housing expense. The annual costs of home ownership with mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance can be over 10% of the value of a home. That means a home has to appreciate more than 10% annually in order for a home to be a good investment.
These housing policies significantly contributed to driving up the prices of residential real estate over the past 20 years. They also contributed to overleveraged homeowners and more risky mortgage loans held by banks and investors. However it was the regulation of financial institutions which contributed to the bust of the housing bubble and caused the financial crisis we have today.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Who is responsible for the current financial crisis?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Who is responsible for the current financial crisis?
The financial community is not the sole cause of the current crisis. It did what Congress wanted it to do i.e. make risky loans to home owners who would not otherwise get a loan in the unregulated mortgage market. American consumers were encouraged to buy homes whether they could afford them or not. Homeowners were also under the mistaken belief that home ownership was an investment and not a housing expense. The annual costs of home ownership with mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance can be over 10% of the value of a home. That means a home has to appreciate more than 10% annually in order for a home to be a good investment.
These housing policies significantly contributed to driving up the prices of residential real estate over the past 20 years. They also contributed to overleveraged homeowners and more risky mortgage loans held by banks and investors. However it was the regulation of financial institutions which contributed to the bust of the housing bubble and caused the financial crisis we have today.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/01/11
Another missed opportunity at détente
-
BY: Armstrong Williams
Another missed opportunity at détente
There they go again. Both Republicans and the White House are shirking what remains of their constitutional duties to represent the will of the people and actually come to agreement on the toughest issues facing this nation, and now they’re squabbling over when the President will give yet another speech? While it appears they may have worked this out and let the President have his day in the sun, it’s another example of the sheer dysfunctional nature of our current leaders.
Set aside for the moment the fact that all this President does is SPEAK. There are no actions coming from either him or his so called economic team. He went around the country on a bus to do what – listen to people tell him what he already knew – that they’re out of a job?!?
Speaker John Boehner again missed a golden opportunity to ease tensions with the White House, prove that he is the bigger man in these tenuous discussions, and set the table for what everyone knows will be a difficult season of negotiations as the so-called Super Committee convenes.
So Obama wants to give a prime time address. Let him! What political damage can he possibly inflict, Mr. Speaker? It’s not as if your pollsters are telling you his popularity will meteorically rise. If past is prologue, this will be another dud of a speech.
Remember the last joint session? When the President gave some (lame) speech on how health care will pull this economy out of recession and save the country? Well, it didn’t happen.
The biggest jolt Obama’s ratings have had this year is when we got Osama Bin Laden. Would anyone have wished that didn’t happen just to keep Obama down?
Give me a break. When is someone on Capitol Hill going to start acting like an adult and force this President to either engage on real deficit reduction, economy growing, or just shut up?
Thank the good Lord the House Republicans didn’t try to salvage the GOP presidential debates as a legitimate reason for postponing Obama’s address. If anything, frankly I wish the candidates would be MORE engaged on these matters. Flex some presidential heft for a change and push yourself out there on how we should address these problems. Or here’s an idea – at least lay out some principles that both sides should bear in mind when negotiating. Or try to be the Mediator-in-Chief early by saying they ought to get in a room and stay there until a decision is reached.
And by the way, if you’re going to offer a reason on why the leader of the country and the free world can’t address a joint session of Congress, please don’t blame security. What a lame excuse.
We have some big weeks ahead of us, Congress. Let’s keep the amateur hour to a minimum for a change…
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Another missed opportunity at détente
-
BY: Armstrong Williams
Another missed opportunity at détente
There they go again. Both Republicans and the White House are shirking what remains of their constitutional duties to represent the will of the people and actually come to agreement on the toughest issues facing this nation, and now they’re squabbling over when the President will give yet another speech? While it appears they may have worked this out and let the President have his day in the sun, it’s another example of the sheer dysfunctional nature of our current leaders.
Set aside for the moment the fact that all this President does is SPEAK. There are no actions coming from either him or his so called economic team. He went around the country on a bus to do what – listen to people tell him what he already knew – that they’re out of a job?!?
Speaker John Boehner again missed a golden opportunity to ease tensions with the White House, prove that he is the bigger man in these tenuous discussions, and set the table for what everyone knows will be a difficult season of negotiations as the so-called Super Committee convenes.
So Obama wants to give a prime time address. Let him! What political damage can he possibly inflict, Mr. Speaker? It’s not as if your pollsters are telling you his popularity will meteorically rise. If past is prologue, this will be another dud of a speech.
Remember the last joint session? When the President gave some (lame) speech on how health care will pull this economy out of recession and save the country? Well, it didn’t happen.
The biggest jolt Obama’s ratings have had this year is when we got Osama Bin Laden. Would anyone have wished that didn’t happen just to keep Obama down?
Give me a break. When is someone on Capitol Hill going to start acting like an adult and force this President to either engage on real deficit reduction, economy growing, or just shut up?
Thank the good Lord the House Republicans didn’t try to salvage the GOP presidential debates as a legitimate reason for postponing Obama’s address. If anything, frankly I wish the candidates would be MORE engaged on these matters. Flex some presidential heft for a change and push yourself out there on how we should address these problems. Or here’s an idea – at least lay out some principles that both sides should bear in mind when negotiating. Or try to be the Mediator-in-Chief early by saying they ought to get in a room and stay there until a decision is reached.
And by the way, if you’re going to offer a reason on why the leader of the country and the free world can’t address a joint session of Congress, please don’t blame security. What a lame excuse.
We have some big weeks ahead of us, Congress. Let’s keep the amateur hour to a minimum for a change…
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/31/11
Denial of Individual freedom and Liberties
BY: Armstrong Williams
Denial of Individual freedom and Liberties
The federal government has used the guise of Civil Rights to make a grab at American rights. They have used Civil Rights to greatly expand federal powers including the Interstate Commerce Laws, privacy restrictions, and economic control over business. This has placed minorities into a position where mainstream America see the protection of minority rights as hand in hand with the denial of their own individual freedom and Liberties.
In no way am I asserting that the denial of basic rights to American Blacks was appropriate. However, some of the mechanisms by which those rights were delivered, opened the door for concentrated private interest operating through the institution of government to steal American freedom and wealth.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Denial of Individual freedom and Liberties
BY: Armstrong Williams
Denial of Individual freedom and Liberties
The federal government has used the guise of Civil Rights to make a grab at American rights. They have used Civil Rights to greatly expand federal powers including the Interstate Commerce Laws, privacy restrictions, and economic control over business. This has placed minorities into a position where mainstream America see the protection of minority rights as hand in hand with the denial of their own individual freedom and Liberties.
In no way am I asserting that the denial of basic rights to American Blacks was appropriate. However, some of the mechanisms by which those rights were delivered, opened the door for concentrated private interest operating through the institution of government to steal American freedom and wealth.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/29/11
The poorer get poorer and the rich get richer
The poorer get poorer and the rich get richer
By: Armstrong Williams
August 29, 2011
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood minorities today is not
racial or ethnic. In fact, the minority I'm referring to comes with
people of every race, color, creed and religion - the wealthy. Make
no mistake about it. Building wealth is one of the most difficult
things someone can do, which is why so few people do it. How few?
Wealth estimates derived from 1998 Federal estate tax return data
show that about 6.5 million individuals in the United States had
gross assets of $625,000 or more and represented about 3.4 percent of
the U.S. adult population. As a group, they owned more than $11.1
trillion in total assets or 32.6 percent of the total U.S. personal
asset holdings. That's 3.4 percent of the population representing
32.6 percent of the country's wealth!
The wealthy are a true minority in the world and are often criticized and ridiculed for
their success in spite of the fact that everyone, given the choice, would
rather try it rich than continue being poor. I don't know where it
originated, but the cliché "the poor get poorer and the rich get
richer" has been in use for some time, implying that the poor will
never rise out of poverty. Is this true? Why do people stay mired in
poverty while others can pass on generational wealth?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The poorer get poorer and the rich get richer
The poorer get poorer and the rich get richer
By: Armstrong Williams
August 29, 2011
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood minorities today is not
racial or ethnic. In fact, the minority I'm referring to comes with
people of every race, color, creed and religion - the wealthy. Make
no mistake about it. Building wealth is one of the most difficult
things someone can do, which is why so few people do it. How few?
Wealth estimates derived from 1998 Federal estate tax return data
show that about 6.5 million individuals in the United States had
gross assets of $625,000 or more and represented about 3.4 percent of
the U.S. adult population. As a group, they owned more than $11.1
trillion in total assets or 32.6 percent of the total U.S. personal
asset holdings. That's 3.4 percent of the population representing
32.6 percent of the country's wealth!
The wealthy are a true minority in the world and are often criticized and ridiculed for
their success in spite of the fact that everyone, given the choice, would
rather try it rich than continue being poor. I don't know where it
originated, but the cliché "the poor get poorer and the rich get
richer" has been in use for some time, implying that the poor will
never rise out of poverty. Is this true? Why do people stay mired in
poverty while others can pass on generational wealth?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/26/11
We can handle the truth
BY: Armstrong Williams
We can handle the Truth
The American people are just plain tired of the lies at this point. No amount of Fed goosing the economy is going to bring back the consumer without more jobs. It’s time to realize that the overall economy has decoupled from the stock market. Despite what the companies look like – flush with cash and impressive balance sheets, one is hard pressed to find major industries with actual demand growth. It’s even rarer to find industries that are hiring people. Most of the newfound fitness in corporate America has come from cutting the fat, and laying people off. But corporate belts have reached the last loophole. They’re as tight as they can get without cutting off their own circulation.
Let’s just call this what it is. It’s not a ‘Great Recession’ anymore. This is a classic depression – a state of the economy when individuals and corporations have to sell their long term assets to fund current necessities. Let’s do away with all the double-speak, and false confidence-inducing rhetoric (stimulus, quantitative easing, low headline inflation, jobless recovery, and all that) and come out and level with the American people. Come on. They already know, and they just want you to say it. Surely there are a few good men in Washington who can handle the truth.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
We can handle the truth
BY: Armstrong Williams
We can handle the Truth
The American people are just plain tired of the lies at this point. No amount of Fed goosing the economy is going to bring back the consumer without more jobs. It’s time to realize that the overall economy has decoupled from the stock market. Despite what the companies look like – flush with cash and impressive balance sheets, one is hard pressed to find major industries with actual demand growth. It’s even rarer to find industries that are hiring people. Most of the newfound fitness in corporate America has come from cutting the fat, and laying people off. But corporate belts have reached the last loophole. They’re as tight as they can get without cutting off their own circulation.
Let’s just call this what it is. It’s not a ‘Great Recession’ anymore. This is a classic depression – a state of the economy when individuals and corporations have to sell their long term assets to fund current necessities. Let’s do away with all the double-speak, and false confidence-inducing rhetoric (stimulus, quantitative easing, low headline inflation, jobless recovery, and all that) and come out and level with the American people. Come on. They already know, and they just want you to say it. Surely there are a few good men in Washington who can handle the truth.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/25/11
"When you fail to plan, you plan to fail"
BY: Armstrong Williams
"When you fail to plan, you plan to fail"
The biggest mistake people make in terms of financial management is that they live only in the here and now, and discount their future needs. Bad move when it comes to your finances. You have to take responsibility now. Make a strict budget and stick to it. Don’t get caught in a cycle of credit debt that prevents you from saving for the future. Every person can and should start planning for the future today. Sadly, many people postpone planning for retirement. Either they don’t want to take time and effort away from their present activities, or they assume that they lack the financial abilities to be truly successful. Neither reason is valid. Really, it comes down to daily financial management.
You have to prioritize your financial expenses. Instead of taking out loans to buy a larger home or a flashier car, make it a point to live below your means. Stop spending foolishly on weddings and budget that money for future unexpected financial challenges. Never go in credit card debt for today’s needs. Make sure you have some financial padding to cover emergencies such as illness, or temporary unemployment. Most importantly, set aside 12% of your earnings for the future. Then make sure you grow that retirement savings by diversifying your risks, and investing with a sound long term strategy. That’s the surest way to join the ranks of America’s millionaires. Of course, you’ll never see that common sense bit of advice on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But it is the best way to enjoy better lives down the road.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
"When you fail to plan, you plan to fail"
BY: Armstrong Williams
"When you fail to plan, you plan to fail"
The biggest mistake people make in terms of financial management is that they live only in the here and now, and discount their future needs. Bad move when it comes to your finances. You have to take responsibility now. Make a strict budget and stick to it. Don’t get caught in a cycle of credit debt that prevents you from saving for the future. Every person can and should start planning for the future today. Sadly, many people postpone planning for retirement. Either they don’t want to take time and effort away from their present activities, or they assume that they lack the financial abilities to be truly successful. Neither reason is valid. Really, it comes down to daily financial management.
You have to prioritize your financial expenses. Instead of taking out loans to buy a larger home or a flashier car, make it a point to live below your means. Stop spending foolishly on weddings and budget that money for future unexpected financial challenges. Never go in credit card debt for today’s needs. Make sure you have some financial padding to cover emergencies such as illness, or temporary unemployment. Most importantly, set aside 12% of your earnings for the future. Then make sure you grow that retirement savings by diversifying your risks, and investing with a sound long term strategy. That’s the surest way to join the ranks of America’s millionaires. Of course, you’ll never see that common sense bit of advice on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But it is the best way to enjoy better lives down the road.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/24/11
Calling for Leadership
BY: Armstrong Williams
Calling for Leadership
The fire of popular discontentment that has consumed the Middle East and is rapidly spreading in Europe may well leap across the oceans to America. The conditions are ripe for conflagration -- the tinder is dry, and the powder keg is close at hand. The consequences of the recent government budget cuts have yet to hit home for the average American, but it will soon. And, compounding already high unemployment and declining social benefits, the American people are suffering from political and business leadership that is woefully out of touch with the masses. To wit President Obama’s massive spending on national health insurance instead of focusing on jobs; Wall Street’s arrogant insistence on keeping its’ tax allowances for luxury expenditures while the rest of the country scrambles to survive; the frightening inability of both parties in Congress to look beyond anything but their own reelection and sectarian interests; the downgrade of American debt by the ratings agencies, and the rapid debasement of individual savings caused by massive Fed money printing.
Although these problems are overwhelming they are not insurmountable with good Moral Leadership.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Calling for Leadership
BY: Armstrong Williams
Calling for Leadership
The fire of popular discontentment that has consumed the Middle East and is rapidly spreading in Europe may well leap across the oceans to America. The conditions are ripe for conflagration -- the tinder is dry, and the powder keg is close at hand. The consequences of the recent government budget cuts have yet to hit home for the average American, but it will soon. And, compounding already high unemployment and declining social benefits, the American people are suffering from political and business leadership that is woefully out of touch with the masses. To wit President Obama’s massive spending on national health insurance instead of focusing on jobs; Wall Street’s arrogant insistence on keeping its’ tax allowances for luxury expenditures while the rest of the country scrambles to survive; the frightening inability of both parties in Congress to look beyond anything but their own reelection and sectarian interests; the downgrade of American debt by the ratings agencies, and the rapid debasement of individual savings caused by massive Fed money printing.
Although these problems are overwhelming they are not insurmountable with good Moral Leadership.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/23/11
The stalled economy
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Stalled Economy
Let us recap: When the stimulus packaged was passed by Congress , President Obama assured Americans that this huge unfunded spending proposal was necessary to keep unemployment from rising and would restore growth to the recessionary economy. On July 11, 2009 President Obama said the stimulus package “worked as intended...” “The recovery plan was not designed to work over four months. It is designed to work over two years (my emphasis)…" Unfortunately this is not how the stimulus package was sold to the American people. In his January 24th 2009 radio address the President said the purpose of the stimulus plan is “to immediately (my emphasis) jumpstart job creation as well as long-term economic growth.” Immediately is not two years. In fairness to Obama, he also told the American people that “this is not just a short-term program to boost employment. It’s one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure.” In other words, the real purpose of the stimulus package was to substantially increase government spending using economic stimulus and job recovery as a smoke screen to sell the American people. Unfortunately, at the time, mainstream media was too intoxicated with Obama mania to point out the real purpose of the stimulus package to the American people.
At this point, very few economists and businessmen see light at the end of the recessionary tunnel. When the $78720Billion package was passed by Congress in February 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.1%. If the purpose of the stimulus package was to keep employment from increasing beyond 8.1% and to stimulate economic growth, it has so far failed. Since February 2009, the unemployment rate increased to 9.5% and is expected to exceed 10% by the end of 2011. US Gross Domestic Product is expected to have declined about 1-2% in the 2nd quarter after declining 5.7% in the 1st quarter. Clearly, the fiscal policies and the proposed agenda of the Obama administration have not yet helped mitigate the recession. However, if the purpose was to substantially increase government spending, it has succeeded.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The stalled economy
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Stalled Economy
Let us recap: When the stimulus packaged was passed by Congress , President Obama assured Americans that this huge unfunded spending proposal was necessary to keep unemployment from rising and would restore growth to the recessionary economy. On July 11, 2009 President Obama said the stimulus package “worked as intended...” “The recovery plan was not designed to work over four months. It is designed to work over two years (my emphasis)…" Unfortunately this is not how the stimulus package was sold to the American people. In his January 24th 2009 radio address the President said the purpose of the stimulus plan is “to immediately (my emphasis) jumpstart job creation as well as long-term economic growth.” Immediately is not two years. In fairness to Obama, he also told the American people that “this is not just a short-term program to boost employment. It’s one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure.” In other words, the real purpose of the stimulus package was to substantially increase government spending using economic stimulus and job recovery as a smoke screen to sell the American people. Unfortunately, at the time, mainstream media was too intoxicated with Obama mania to point out the real purpose of the stimulus package to the American people.
At this point, very few economists and businessmen see light at the end of the recessionary tunnel. When the $78720Billion package was passed by Congress in February 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.1%. If the purpose of the stimulus package was to keep employment from increasing beyond 8.1% and to stimulate economic growth, it has so far failed. Since February 2009, the unemployment rate increased to 9.5% and is expected to exceed 10% by the end of 2011. US Gross Domestic Product is expected to have declined about 1-2% in the 2nd quarter after declining 5.7% in the 1st quarter. Clearly, the fiscal policies and the proposed agenda of the Obama administration have not yet helped mitigate the recession. However, if the purpose was to substantially increase government spending, it has succeeded.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/22/11
Crises produce times of political detente
BY: Armstrong Williams
Crises produce times of political detente
Historically, great crises produce times of political détente in Washington. The Social Security crisis of the early 80s. The deep recessions and subsequent Kemp-Roth reforms of 1981. The September 11th terrorist attacks. Those are but three examples of when both parties came together to enact some difficult but landmark policies. And in the wake of those tough fights where both sides gave a little, there was an era of comity. Oh it didn’t last for long, but it was there. It was a time when legislators were reminded of why they came to Washington in the first place. They reflected on their great stations in history, and how the threads of their own stories would weave into the fabric and future of this nation.
www.rightsidewire.com
Crises produce times of political detente
BY: Armstrong Williams
Crises produce times of political detente
Historically, great crises produce times of political détente in Washington. The Social Security crisis of the early 80s. The deep recessions and subsequent Kemp-Roth reforms of 1981. The September 11th terrorist attacks. Those are but three examples of when both parties came together to enact some difficult but landmark policies. And in the wake of those tough fights where both sides gave a little, there was an era of comity. Oh it didn’t last for long, but it was there. It was a time when legislators were reminded of why they came to Washington in the first place. They reflected on their great stations in history, and how the threads of their own stories would weave into the fabric and future of this nation.
www.rightsidewire.com
08/17/11
Will they return and show real leadership?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will they return and show real leadership?
Whew, aren’t we glad that is over…for now.
It’s been a few weeks since lawmakers took this country to the precipice of financial ruin, seemingly reveled in their fleeting power to do so, and then gingerly backed us all away. I can’t help but think they actually enjoyed the ride. Lord knows we watched every minute unfold in excruciating detail. And at every turn, lawmakers were not laboring in sweats, up at all hours of the night. No, they golfed with each other, sauntered over to the West Wing and sat around while press pools took pictures.
Then they had the audacity to troll out to the microphones, after presumably making sound, principled arguments for why we couldn’t go the other party’s direction, and proceed to rip their opponents’ heads off in the media.
How many times did we see such shenanigans played out? On both sides?
Then in the final minutes, cooler heads prevailed. The president looked presidential (finally). The Speaker and congressional leaders came together and cut a deal to raise the debt limit. Only they didn’t strike a “grand bargain.” In classic congressional gamesmanship, they kicked the can down the road. Sure, tough decisions were made, but not the toughest. Not the ones that would set us on a path out of default. They agreed to come back in a few months and finish the hard work.
Will they and can they do the hard work and show real leadership when they return after Labor Day?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Will they return and show real leadership?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will they return and show real leadership?
Whew, aren’t we glad that is over…for now.
It’s been a few weeks since lawmakers took this country to the precipice of financial ruin, seemingly reveled in their fleeting power to do so, and then gingerly backed us all away. I can’t help but think they actually enjoyed the ride. Lord knows we watched every minute unfold in excruciating detail. And at every turn, lawmakers were not laboring in sweats, up at all hours of the night. No, they golfed with each other, sauntered over to the West Wing and sat around while press pools took pictures.
Then they had the audacity to troll out to the microphones, after presumably making sound, principled arguments for why we couldn’t go the other party’s direction, and proceed to rip their opponents’ heads off in the media.
How many times did we see such shenanigans played out? On both sides?
Then in the final minutes, cooler heads prevailed. The president looked presidential (finally). The Speaker and congressional leaders came together and cut a deal to raise the debt limit. Only they didn’t strike a “grand bargain.” In classic congressional gamesmanship, they kicked the can down the road. Sure, tough decisions were made, but not the toughest. Not the ones that would set us on a path out of default. They agreed to come back in a few months and finish the hard work.
Will they and can they do the hard work and show real leadership when they return after Labor Day?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/16/11
Global warming is irrevelant
BY: Armstrong Williams
Global warming is irrelevant
Readers, Readers, Readers: I'm agonizing and debating my thoughts, slightly. What I have argued and debated in the past is that industrial activity - anthropogenic activity - has consequences, e.g. the putting of large amounts of carbon based materials into the environment. Whether that causes "global warming" I don't know and I submit can't be proven given the paucity of the data base - how can you prove an underlying climatic cycle that may be hundreds or thousands of years long in periodicity with just about 100 years of so of truly detailed and reliable data? And, once you understand that base cycle you still have to prove that there is a causal connection - not a spurious correlation - between any observed deviation and the base cycle. So, no...I don't agree that there is a demonstrable/proveable "anthropogenic component of global warming." What there is, however, is a change in the chemistry of the world's oceans due to its service as a carbon sink for the planet. I truly don't know if that's changed the weather, or, if so, how and how much it has done so. Those that say they know are engaging in faith-based statements, not science as I was taught it. In fact, to make a stronger statement, it is pretty much infeasible to say anything "scientifically" about cosmology - the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe - as it is a single-run system. Remember, a science experiment is demonstrable, repeatable and measurable. How do you do that with the origin of the universe? That's why things like the big bang THEORY are just that.....theories. And things like gravity and aspects of thermodynamics can be termed laws. We can run experiments in gravity and thermodynamics - repeatable and measurable ones - and when we observe things that are invariant, we can call them laws: law of gravity, first and second laws of thermodynamics etc.
Now, given you now know what I really think, whether it is connected with global warming or not, carbon-based pollution is just that...pollution. I'm anti-pollution, so I would support reasonable, commensurate steps to combat carbon-based pollution. And, yes, in addition to being pro-tree, I am also pro-children. In fact, I'm so "pro-children" that I think they shouldn't be arbitrarily destroyed in their mothers' wombs, but that's a different argument.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Global warming is irrevelant
BY: Armstrong Williams
Global warming is irrelevant
Readers, Readers, Readers: I'm agonizing and debating my thoughts, slightly. What I have argued and debated in the past is that industrial activity - anthropogenic activity - has consequences, e.g. the putting of large amounts of carbon based materials into the environment. Whether that causes "global warming" I don't know and I submit can't be proven given the paucity of the data base - how can you prove an underlying climatic cycle that may be hundreds or thousands of years long in periodicity with just about 100 years of so of truly detailed and reliable data? And, once you understand that base cycle you still have to prove that there is a causal connection - not a spurious correlation - between any observed deviation and the base cycle. So, no...I don't agree that there is a demonstrable/proveable "anthropogenic component of global warming." What there is, however, is a change in the chemistry of the world's oceans due to its service as a carbon sink for the planet. I truly don't know if that's changed the weather, or, if so, how and how much it has done so. Those that say they know are engaging in faith-based statements, not science as I was taught it. In fact, to make a stronger statement, it is pretty much infeasible to say anything "scientifically" about cosmology - the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe - as it is a single-run system. Remember, a science experiment is demonstrable, repeatable and measurable. How do you do that with the origin of the universe? That's why things like the big bang THEORY are just that.....theories. And things like gravity and aspects of thermodynamics can be termed laws. We can run experiments in gravity and thermodynamics - repeatable and measurable ones - and when we observe things that are invariant, we can call them laws: law of gravity, first and second laws of thermodynamics etc.
Now, given you now know what I really think, whether it is connected with global warming or not, carbon-based pollution is just that...pollution. I'm anti-pollution, so I would support reasonable, commensurate steps to combat carbon-based pollution. And, yes, in addition to being pro-tree, I am also pro-children. In fact, I'm so "pro-children" that I think they shouldn't be arbitrarily destroyed in their mothers' wombs, but that's a different argument.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/15/11
Social unrest, justified and unjustified
BY: Armstrong Williams
Social unrest, justified and unjustified.
The fire of popular discontentment that has consumed the Middle East and is rapidly spreading in Europe may well leap across the oceans to America. The conditions are ripe, the tinder is dry, and the powder keg is close at hand. The consequences of the government recent budget cuts have yet to hit home for the average American. But compounding already high unemployment and declining social benefits, the American people are suffering from a political and business leadership that is woefully out of touch with the masses. To wit President Obama’s massive spending on national health insurance instead of focusing on jobs; Wall Street’s arrogant insistence on keeping its’ tax allowances for luxury expenditures while the rest of the country scrambles to survive; the frightening inability of both parties in Congress to look beyond anything but their own reelection and sectarian interests; the downgrade of American debt by the ratings agencies, and the rapid debasement of the U.S. currency by massive Fed lending.
Let us not be as clueless as the leaders of Britain and the Middle East. Why is it so obvious to us that the repressive regimes in Tunisia and Egypt had outlived their time, and clueless to the fact that those same influences are forcing change in our society?
It is crucial that the under privilege people in this nation recognize that the opportunities for financial success still exist and that no one is depriving them of those desires, unlike many of the other nations of the world. They should not be confused and must recognize that the American dream, which is a foundation of our nation is alive and thriving.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Social unrest, justified and unjustified
BY: Armstrong Williams
Social unrest, justified and unjustified.
The fire of popular discontentment that has consumed the Middle East and is rapidly spreading in Europe may well leap across the oceans to America. The conditions are ripe, the tinder is dry, and the powder keg is close at hand. The consequences of the government recent budget cuts have yet to hit home for the average American. But compounding already high unemployment and declining social benefits, the American people are suffering from a political and business leadership that is woefully out of touch with the masses. To wit President Obama’s massive spending on national health insurance instead of focusing on jobs; Wall Street’s arrogant insistence on keeping its’ tax allowances for luxury expenditures while the rest of the country scrambles to survive; the frightening inability of both parties in Congress to look beyond anything but their own reelection and sectarian interests; the downgrade of American debt by the ratings agencies, and the rapid debasement of the U.S. currency by massive Fed lending.
Let us not be as clueless as the leaders of Britain and the Middle East. Why is it so obvious to us that the repressive regimes in Tunisia and Egypt had outlived their time, and clueless to the fact that those same influences are forcing change in our society?
It is crucial that the under privilege people in this nation recognize that the opportunities for financial success still exist and that no one is depriving them of those desires, unlike many of the other nations of the world. They should not be confused and must recognize that the American dream, which is a foundation of our nation is alive and thriving.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/04/11
Putting In Work
Putting In Work:
By Armstrong Williams
Now that the debt ceiling charade is over (for now) and the politicians have smugly retreated to their lavish homes and offices (Abandoning the FAA in the process), the average American is faced with the stark reality. How are we going to get back to work to rebuild the wealth that was lost over the past few years?
Let’s clear the air first. No matter what Washington promises about creating jobs, it can’t deliver. That would be like Dorothy and her friends expecting the Wizard of Oz to grant them some brains, heart and courage along with a ticket back to Kansas. It just won’t happen. Look at what has happened in America thus far. Despite the massive, debt-fueled bailout of the big banks and automakers, banks haven’t started lending again and employment remains anemic. While the perverse logic of Washington and Wall Street might tell you that incurring massive additional debt will lead to growth, main-street is not so naive. The average consumer and business owner has refused to take on additional debt. Consumers are paying down credit cards and declining new offers. Businesses are exchanging debt for equity at a growing pace. This deleveraging process is likely to continue for some time, and the American consumer is not likely to be the work horse of the international economy in the future. Getting rid of debt and excess spending is a good thing for our country.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Putting In Work
Putting In Work:
By Armstrong Williams
Now that the debt ceiling charade is over (for now) and the politicians have smugly retreated to their lavish homes and offices (Abandoning the FAA in the process), the average American is faced with the stark reality. How are we going to get back to work to rebuild the wealth that was lost over the past few years?
Let’s clear the air first. No matter what Washington promises about creating jobs, it can’t deliver. That would be like Dorothy and her friends expecting the Wizard of Oz to grant them some brains, heart and courage along with a ticket back to Kansas. It just won’t happen. Look at what has happened in America thus far. Despite the massive, debt-fueled bailout of the big banks and automakers, banks haven’t started lending again and employment remains anemic. While the perverse logic of Washington and Wall Street might tell you that incurring massive additional debt will lead to growth, main-street is not so naive. The average consumer and business owner has refused to take on additional debt. Consumers are paying down credit cards and declining new offers. Businesses are exchanging debt for equity at a growing pace. This deleveraging process is likely to continue for some time, and the American consumer is not likely to be the work horse of the international economy in the future. Getting rid of debt and excess spending is a good thing for our country.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/02/11
The other things
BY: Armstrong Williams
The other things:
I can't but think that the "original sin" in getting us to where we are now (on the brink of the Today's Aug 2 limitation on borrowing - it is NOT a default date as there would have been plenty of money to pay the Treasuries that are due [couple trillion in receipts and a few hundred billion in debt service] - the real issue is that without further borrowing, it is the OTHER things the USG does that it won't have the money to do) is this: Why didn't the POTUS use the vast power of writing the budget to set his priorities in this coming fight. I think this is a FUNDAMENTAL mistake on his part. Had he sent a serious document to the Congress, they would've had to contend with it. As it was, he sent something so execrable that it got not a single vote, R or D, losing 97-0. This was not just a tactical error, it was an abdication of his real duty to propose serious legislation. It boggles my mind that a president wouldn't do that. In fact, one of the problems with this whole process is that we've ignored 'regular order' - you know, proposing a bill, referral to committee, hearings, markups, then vote out of committee and to the floor for debate/vote. We used to CONSIDER legislation, now we argue about really important things: TARP, Obamacare, now the debt limit, until a vote is jammed through (less the world come to an end). No debate worthy of the name, no regular order, and NO deliberation. It is a terrible way to make policy. In fact, it reduces policy to the political. That is a shame, regardless where you stand on the political spectrum.
But, the point of this little missive was to point out where we started off the tracks: no credible budget submission by the administration. I believe the likeliest explanation is that BHO was determined to make the R's detail their preferred cuts to entitlements (all the better to demagogue with) - he's done this, but he never submitted a real proposal (as the head of the CBO said: "we don't score speeches"). I should also point out that the only proposals that have been actually submitted as legislation and voted on are from the R's: the Ryan budget, and the cut-cap-balance. The latter only lost for the lack of four votes switching in the senate. I would also point out that both Switzerland and Germany have balanced budget provisions in their basic laws, so this is not a Neanderthal proposal. And deficits can be run and taxes raised under the proposal but they require super majorities (2/3, I'd prefer only 3/5 but they didn't ask me).
Why are we repeating the mistake of GHWB? What good is it to give this administration more money to play with? Or, what good does it do to propose raising taxes on anyone in challenged economic times? This first step Debt ceiling measure which easily passed the House yesterday - and it is only a first step - has to be about spending reductions. Then we get to tax reform and entitlement reform for the long run in turn. In fact, that is what we MUST do now. We simply don't have time for anything else. We'll see the Senate finalize extending the debt limit for the short term today while tax/entitlement reform/further spending cuts are worked. There aren't the votes for anything else. Of course, we can always miscalculate. And, BHO has shown nothing if not the ability to miscalculate throughout this one: foregoing the chance to send a real budget; thinking he could 'stare down' or otherwise intimidate R's into tax rate increases, etc.
We'll see. What should have taken several days to accomplish in both chambers of congress, actually dragged on for several months at the expense of we the people. This is what they call high drama and the eleventh hour deal which is sealed just before the clock strikes midnight. Shame, Shame, Shame. When will American's finally awaken to the fact that both sides are one and the same.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The other things
BY: Armstrong Williams
The other things:
I can't but think that the "original sin" in getting us to where we are now (on the brink of the Today's Aug 2 limitation on borrowing - it is NOT a default date as there would have been plenty of money to pay the Treasuries that are due [couple trillion in receipts and a few hundred billion in debt service] - the real issue is that without further borrowing, it is the OTHER things the USG does that it won't have the money to do) is this: Why didn't the POTUS use the vast power of writing the budget to set his priorities in this coming fight. I think this is a FUNDAMENTAL mistake on his part. Had he sent a serious document to the Congress, they would've had to contend with it. As it was, he sent something so execrable that it got not a single vote, R or D, losing 97-0. This was not just a tactical error, it was an abdication of his real duty to propose serious legislation. It boggles my mind that a president wouldn't do that. In fact, one of the problems with this whole process is that we've ignored 'regular order' - you know, proposing a bill, referral to committee, hearings, markups, then vote out of committee and to the floor for debate/vote. We used to CONSIDER legislation, now we argue about really important things: TARP, Obamacare, now the debt limit, until a vote is jammed through (less the world come to an end). No debate worthy of the name, no regular order, and NO deliberation. It is a terrible way to make policy. In fact, it reduces policy to the political. That is a shame, regardless where you stand on the political spectrum.
But, the point of this little missive was to point out where we started off the tracks: no credible budget submission by the administration. I believe the likeliest explanation is that BHO was determined to make the R's detail their preferred cuts to entitlements (all the better to demagogue with) - he's done this, but he never submitted a real proposal (as the head of the CBO said: "we don't score speeches"). I should also point out that the only proposals that have been actually submitted as legislation and voted on are from the R's: the Ryan budget, and the cut-cap-balance. The latter only lost for the lack of four votes switching in the senate. I would also point out that both Switzerland and Germany have balanced budget provisions in their basic laws, so this is not a Neanderthal proposal. And deficits can be run and taxes raised under the proposal but they require super majorities (2/3, I'd prefer only 3/5 but they didn't ask me).
Why are we repeating the mistake of GHWB? What good is it to give this administration more money to play with? Or, what good does it do to propose raising taxes on anyone in challenged economic times? This first step Debt ceiling measure which easily passed the House yesterday - and it is only a first step - has to be about spending reductions. Then we get to tax reform and entitlement reform for the long run in turn. In fact, that is what we MUST do now. We simply don't have time for anything else. We'll see the Senate finalize extending the debt limit for the short term today while tax/entitlement reform/further spending cuts are worked. There aren't the votes for anything else. Of course, we can always miscalculate. And, BHO has shown nothing if not the ability to miscalculate throughout this one: foregoing the chance to send a real budget; thinking he could 'stare down' or otherwise intimidate R's into tax rate increases, etc.
We'll see. What should have taken several days to accomplish in both chambers of congress, actually dragged on for several months at the expense of we the people. This is what they call high drama and the eleventh hour deal which is sealed just before the clock strikes midnight. Shame, Shame, Shame. When will American's finally awaken to the fact that both sides are one and the same.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
08/01/11
Sins of the father
BY: Armstrong Williams
Sins of the father
Once again, the civic leaders inside this city leave a mark that’s just as soon forgotten. This time, Marion Christopher Barry, the son of Washington’s former mayor, Marion Barry, was indicted on possession of drugs and PCP.
Insert your favorite joke here about the apple not falling too far from the tree or whatever euphemism you care to use.
Apparently, Marion Jr. was dealing the same substances his father was notorious for while running this city. And when the 5-0 came knocking, Junior jumped out his window and fled. At least he was smarter than the old man to have an apartment where a jump wouldn’t kill him. It was only a matter, of time, however, before he returned to his apartment and was arrested.
This is sad, folks. Just sad. But I guess we all have to step back and ask, “What did we expect?”
In 1990, Barry the Elder was deep into his third term as mayor of Washington. But that ride came to an abrupt end as he was caught in an FBI sting operation that filmed the public official smoking crack cocaine and blaming everyone but himself for his actions.
Unfortunately episodes and recurrences like the Barrys’ happen every day in America. The sins of the father spill over onto the son. Why? They learn this behavior. There is no authority figure in the home to set what’s right from wrong for the children.
We know children, they are led by example, and when the only example they have to follow is that of a criminal deviant, deviancy soon follows.
WARNING: shameless plug about to occur!! This is exactly one of the issues I discuss in my new book, Reawakening Virtues (available in your favorite bookstore or online at Amazon.com). How can society ever hope to better itself when parents don’t wake up, stand up, and shape up to be more active participants in how their children are raised.
When parents do more in the home, society as a whole benefits. There’s no better social program than a good home. No, good homes don’t always exist, but so long as parents carelessly shirk their duties to raise their children in good, honorable, and morally-sound directions, we’ll see more Marion Barry’s in court and prison.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Sins of the father
BY: Armstrong Williams
Sins of the father
Once again, the civic leaders inside this city leave a mark that’s just as soon forgotten. This time, Marion Christopher Barry, the son of Washington’s former mayor, Marion Barry, was indicted on possession of drugs and PCP.
Insert your favorite joke here about the apple not falling too far from the tree or whatever euphemism you care to use.
Apparently, Marion Jr. was dealing the same substances his father was notorious for while running this city. And when the 5-0 came knocking, Junior jumped out his window and fled. At least he was smarter than the old man to have an apartment where a jump wouldn’t kill him. It was only a matter, of time, however, before he returned to his apartment and was arrested.
This is sad, folks. Just sad. But I guess we all have to step back and ask, “What did we expect?”
In 1990, Barry the Elder was deep into his third term as mayor of Washington. But that ride came to an abrupt end as he was caught in an FBI sting operation that filmed the public official smoking crack cocaine and blaming everyone but himself for his actions.
Unfortunately episodes and recurrences like the Barrys’ happen every day in America. The sins of the father spill over onto the son. Why? They learn this behavior. There is no authority figure in the home to set what’s right from wrong for the children.
We know children, they are led by example, and when the only example they have to follow is that of a criminal deviant, deviancy soon follows.
WARNING: shameless plug about to occur!! This is exactly one of the issues I discuss in my new book, Reawakening Virtues (available in your favorite bookstore or online at Amazon.com). How can society ever hope to better itself when parents don’t wake up, stand up, and shape up to be more active participants in how their children are raised.
When parents do more in the home, society as a whole benefits. There’s no better social program than a good home. No, good homes don’t always exist, but so long as parents carelessly shirk their duties to raise their children in good, honorable, and morally-sound directions, we’ll see more Marion Barry’s in court and prison.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/29/11
The path to wealth building
BY: Armstrong Williams
The path to wealth building
The fastest way to build wealth is to associate with the right people. Likewise, the fastest way to the poorhouse is to associate with the wrong people or try to achieve wealth independently. You cannot get rich on your own. If you develop relationships with successful individuals, you will greatly enhance your opportunities for financial stability. Finding a mentor who can advise and counsel you about your personal situation is a great way to learn the ins and outs of the financial world. Mentors not only provide positive reinforcement and a vast amount of real life knowledge, but they help provide connections, business opportunities, and potential partnerships. Even if these relationships don’t prove to be financial booms, they allow you to expand your network and improve your business and communications skills. Finally, examine your social scene and beware of those who are negative, jealous, and consumed with envy and are hurting your chances to succeed and realize your true entrepreneurial potential.
Like anything else, building wealth takes a lot of hard work, dedication, and focus. If you truly want to experience financial stability, then you absolutely must be willing to sacrifice and spend the necessary time to achieve your goals. Besides creating a strong work ethic, you must cultivate your creative side and continually challenge yourself to be innovative and thinking outside the box. Leaving your comfort zone is a key aspect of improving innovation. You must be willing to try new things, experience different customs, and participate in unusual situations so that your breadth of knowledge grows wider. The more creative you become, the more your hard work will pay off.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The path to wealth building
BY: Armstrong Williams
The path to wealth building
The fastest way to build wealth is to associate with the right people. Likewise, the fastest way to the poorhouse is to associate with the wrong people or try to achieve wealth independently. You cannot get rich on your own. If you develop relationships with successful individuals, you will greatly enhance your opportunities for financial stability. Finding a mentor who can advise and counsel you about your personal situation is a great way to learn the ins and outs of the financial world. Mentors not only provide positive reinforcement and a vast amount of real life knowledge, but they help provide connections, business opportunities, and potential partnerships. Even if these relationships don’t prove to be financial booms, they allow you to expand your network and improve your business and communications skills. Finally, examine your social scene and beware of those who are negative, jealous, and consumed with envy and are hurting your chances to succeed and realize your true entrepreneurial potential.
Like anything else, building wealth takes a lot of hard work, dedication, and focus. If you truly want to experience financial stability, then you absolutely must be willing to sacrifice and spend the necessary time to achieve your goals. Besides creating a strong work ethic, you must cultivate your creative side and continually challenge yourself to be innovative and thinking outside the box. Leaving your comfort zone is a key aspect of improving innovation. You must be willing to try new things, experience different customs, and participate in unusual situations so that your breadth of knowledge grows wider. The more creative you become, the more your hard work will pay off.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/28/11
Billionaire Assets
BY: Armstrong Williams
Billionaire Assets
Money itself is inert, and like an idea, it has no value unless it is actively employed or exchanged to get work accomplished. And just like an idea can be good or bad, money can be used constructively or destructively.
When money is used constructively, money creates or buys an asset. An asset is something that creates income, can appreciate in value, and sometimes allows for tax advantages like a piece of real estate or a business. I would also add that the best assets to have are those that make you a return on your investment (i.e. puts money back in your pocket). When money is used destructively or irresponsibly, it creates a liability. A liability is something that depreciates in value, increases your expenses, or in accounting terms that means takes money out of your pocket. Credit card debt, also called consumer debt, is the best and most extreme example of a liability because you continue to pay for something that provides you no benefit. Cars, for example, are another liability because they decrease in value over time and you pay insurance and maintenance. Unlike the credit card debt, they do provide the benefit of transportation.
Building wealth is all about acquiring assets with assets. (A job is not an asset because you do not own it and you have no equity from it you can pass on to someone else like you can with a business or real estate). A person is an asset (or a liability!) and that’s why companies have human resource divisions—to locate and place their assets. What determines if people are assets (or liabilities) are two things everyone has: a body and a mind. From the neck down a person’s labor is worth about $20/hr. So what is a person’s value from the neck up? Billions of dollars. Thought process is the only thing separating a janitor from a professor or a ditch digger from a billionaire. How do we think about how we spend our time and money?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Billionaire Assets
BY: Armstrong Williams
Billionaire Assets
Money itself is inert, and like an idea, it has no value unless it is actively employed or exchanged to get work accomplished. And just like an idea can be good or bad, money can be used constructively or destructively.
When money is used constructively, money creates or buys an asset. An asset is something that creates income, can appreciate in value, and sometimes allows for tax advantages like a piece of real estate or a business. I would also add that the best assets to have are those that make you a return on your investment (i.e. puts money back in your pocket). When money is used destructively or irresponsibly, it creates a liability. A liability is something that depreciates in value, increases your expenses, or in accounting terms that means takes money out of your pocket. Credit card debt, also called consumer debt, is the best and most extreme example of a liability because you continue to pay for something that provides you no benefit. Cars, for example, are another liability because they decrease in value over time and you pay insurance and maintenance. Unlike the credit card debt, they do provide the benefit of transportation.
Building wealth is all about acquiring assets with assets. (A job is not an asset because you do not own it and you have no equity from it you can pass on to someone else like you can with a business or real estate). A person is an asset (or a liability!) and that’s why companies have human resource divisions—to locate and place their assets. What determines if people are assets (or liabilities) are two things everyone has: a body and a mind. From the neck down a person’s labor is worth about $20/hr. So what is a person’s value from the neck up? Billions of dollars. Thought process is the only thing separating a janitor from a professor or a ditch digger from a billionaire. How do we think about how we spend our time and money?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/27/11
The will of the people
The will of the people
By Armstrong Williams - 07/27/11 08:53 AM ET
The president's speech Monday night was typical of his entire presidency; he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of fundamental economics and leadership.
Once again he implicated President Bush as the cause of all our economic problems. Once again he demonized the rich without acknowledging the fact that the leader of his own party, Harry Reid, put forth a plan that includes no increase in taxes on anyone. This is because Reid recognizes that the additional revenues that would be generated by increasing taxes on the rich wouldn't come close to solving the problem.
Calls for such increases are gimmicks to stoke the fires of class warfare and to garner more political support for himself. Obama obviously thinks that we are extraordinarily simplistic and don't have the ability to open our eyes and truly understand this economic crisis. He believes if he repeats something enough, many will begin to believe that it is fact. I believe that he will be shocked to discover that we the people are not as naive as he is.
Or perhaps I am wrong; perhaps the American people are naïve; perhaps if he repeats himself enough times, then what he says really will be taken as fact. The possibility is frightening. Can our country survive another term under President Obama? Will Obama follow the fate of Bush I? Can he truly be serious about raising taxes in this struggling economy ? Are many in this nation, and his blind followers, really unable to see the painstakingly clear economic ineptitude exemplified by our president? There are so many questions but so few answers.
Maybe an egregious and continuing failure in the presidency is what it will take for the American people to reawaken to the fact that this is our country and the government works for us! The future of this nation should not be at their whim, or held hostage to silly budget negotiations. The future of this nation is, and should be, the will of the people!
The will of the people
The will of the people
By Armstrong Williams - 07/27/11 08:53 AM ET
The president's speech Monday night was typical of his entire presidency; he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of fundamental economics and leadership.
Once again he implicated President Bush as the cause of all our economic problems. Once again he demonized the rich without acknowledging the fact that the leader of his own party, Harry Reid, put forth a plan that includes no increase in taxes on anyone. This is because Reid recognizes that the additional revenues that would be generated by increasing taxes on the rich wouldn't come close to solving the problem.
Calls for such increases are gimmicks to stoke the fires of class warfare and to garner more political support for himself. Obama obviously thinks that we are extraordinarily simplistic and don't have the ability to open our eyes and truly understand this economic crisis. He believes if he repeats something enough, many will begin to believe that it is fact. I believe that he will be shocked to discover that we the people are not as naive as he is.
Or perhaps I am wrong; perhaps the American people are naïve; perhaps if he repeats himself enough times, then what he says really will be taken as fact. The possibility is frightening. Can our country survive another term under President Obama? Will Obama follow the fate of Bush I? Can he truly be serious about raising taxes in this struggling economy ? Are many in this nation, and his blind followers, really unable to see the painstakingly clear economic ineptitude exemplified by our president? There are so many questions but so few answers.
Maybe an egregious and continuing failure in the presidency is what it will take for the American people to reawaken to the fact that this is our country and the government works for us! The future of this nation should not be at their whim, or held hostage to silly budget negotiations. The future of this nation is, and should be, the will of the people!
07/26/11
America's Deepening Immorality
America’s deepening immorality
By Armstrong Williams - 07/26/11 08:51 AM ET
An utterly riveting cable TV show called “Love Crimes of Kabul” follows the stories of Afghan women who have been imprisoned for breaking strict Sharia law governing sex outside of marriage. Their crimes would be hardly recognizable in the United States: adultery, fornication, prostitution and lewd behavior have become pretty much the norm here.
In one fascinating episode, a young woman has become pregnant while unmarried. Her parents turn her in to the authorities in disgrace. Her father laments that each time he goes out in public he shields his face out of shame. The neighborhood gossip is unbearable, cries the mother. Her lover is also charged and awaits trial in a neighboring jail.
As the episode develops, the parents attempt to negotiate a quick wedding. If they get married before the trial, perhaps the judge will be more lenient — prison sentences for moral crimes range from two to 15 years in Afghanistan. The situation presents a hardship for both families. The young man comes from a poor family and has no job or dowry to offer. The young woman’s family laments that if she does not get married she faces the prospect of raising her child in prison — and when she gets out she would have no viable options for marriage (in Afghanistan, virginity is a prized asset). After a series of negotiations conducted by the young man’s uncle, the handcuffed couple gets married in family court just before they are set to face trial.
The judge hears the case. He reviews the evidence — including a confession by the young woman, a medical test confirming her pregnancy and eyewitness accounts from a neighbor who caught them in the act. He concludes that they are guilty. However, he notes, the strength of the family unit is a fundamental value in Islam. He considers the fact that they are now married, and urges them to return home to raise their family in earnest. He sentences them to time served. The newlyweds are elated. The families are happy because their honor has been restored.
Let’s pan to America circa 2011. A young unmarried woman has a child out of wedlock. Nothing happens. The father abandons her and the baby girl. He is not held accountable. The young lady is poor, has trouble raising the child alone, and therefore neglects her. The toddler goes missing. A massive search ensues. The young woman goes out and parties like a rock star. Eventually the toddler’s decaying corpse is found in the woods with duct tape covering her mouth, discarded like a piece of trash. A media circus ensues. The woman is charged with murder. It gets even more sordid. Her winning defense is that she lied about the "accidental" death of her child because of the trauma of sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her own father. She is acquitted by a jury of her peers.
Which outcome would you rather have? A dead child or a strong young family supported by the community?
Comments (17)
America's Deepening Immorality
America’s deepening immorality
By Armstrong Williams - 07/26/11 08:51 AM ET
An utterly riveting cable TV show called “Love Crimes of Kabul” follows the stories of Afghan women who have been imprisoned for breaking strict Sharia law governing sex outside of marriage. Their crimes would be hardly recognizable in the United States: adultery, fornication, prostitution and lewd behavior have become pretty much the norm here.
In one fascinating episode, a young woman has become pregnant while unmarried. Her parents turn her in to the authorities in disgrace. Her father laments that each time he goes out in public he shields his face out of shame. The neighborhood gossip is unbearable, cries the mother. Her lover is also charged and awaits trial in a neighboring jail.
As the episode develops, the parents attempt to negotiate a quick wedding. If they get married before the trial, perhaps the judge will be more lenient — prison sentences for moral crimes range from two to 15 years in Afghanistan. The situation presents a hardship for both families. The young man comes from a poor family and has no job or dowry to offer. The young woman’s family laments that if she does not get married she faces the prospect of raising her child in prison — and when she gets out she would have no viable options for marriage (in Afghanistan, virginity is a prized asset). After a series of negotiations conducted by the young man’s uncle, the handcuffed couple gets married in family court just before they are set to face trial.
The judge hears the case. He reviews the evidence — including a confession by the young woman, a medical test confirming her pregnancy and eyewitness accounts from a neighbor who caught them in the act. He concludes that they are guilty. However, he notes, the strength of the family unit is a fundamental value in Islam. He considers the fact that they are now married, and urges them to return home to raise their family in earnest. He sentences them to time served. The newlyweds are elated. The families are happy because their honor has been restored.
Let’s pan to America circa 2011. A young unmarried woman has a child out of wedlock. Nothing happens. The father abandons her and the baby girl. He is not held accountable. The young lady is poor, has trouble raising the child alone, and therefore neglects her. The toddler goes missing. A massive search ensues. The young woman goes out and parties like a rock star. Eventually the toddler’s decaying corpse is found in the woods with duct tape covering her mouth, discarded like a piece of trash. A media circus ensues. The woman is charged with murder. It gets even more sordid. Her winning defense is that she lied about the "accidental" death of her child because of the trauma of sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her own father. She is acquitted by a jury of her peers.
Which outcome would you rather have? A dead child or a strong young family supported by the community?
Comments (17)
07/25/11
A terrible gamble
A terrible gamble
By Armstrong Williams - 07/25/11 08:34 AM ET
If you’ve been living in the United States during the past three months and you're not aware of this “debt crisis” everyone inside the Beltway is talking about, then you’re living under a rock.
The sad truth is, the rest of the world knows about it as well, they’re watching, and let’s just say they’re even more scared than we are on these shores. The reason? The U.S. dollar acts as the reserve currency for hosts of commodities traded every second of every day around the world. Further, the dollar also acts as the “pegged” currency from which many more goods and services are linked, most notably oil.
And for anyone waking up yesterday in London, they would have read this headline in the The Sunday Times: “WASHINGTON PLAYS POKER WITH WORLD ECONOMY.” The editorial from which that headline came goes on to say, “It would be unthinkable now were it not for a dangerous stand-off between the White House and Congress over the country’s debt. … With this humiliating and destabilising threat hanging over them, one would expect politicians in Washington would be rushing to strike a deal. Far from it. They are engaged in a game of political brinkmanship. The U.S. economy is in danger of looking alarmingly dysfunctional.”
Dysfunctional, ladies and gentlemen. And after the weekend’s events, I have to say I’m not sure what sort of poker game House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is trying to play, let alone win.
I’m on a roll with this “poker” analogy, so let’s keep it going. Both the White House and congressional Republicans are holding measly hands, say, a jack and 10 off-suit. The rest of their hand is full of meaningless low cards, and they’re essentially drawing dead. They’ve both gone all in, and at best, they will split the pot.
Yet here we find ourselves barely 10 days from “Debt-ageddon” and it seems both sides are trying to out-bluff and out-maneuver the other. For what? What would it accomplish? Are these politicians so hell-bent on beating the other side that they have forgotten why they’re working round the clock — to save the financial health of the country?
Let’s be honest, both sides are to blame here, so they should stop jockeying for more political points, because it will do neither any good.
Of course, if the Speaker keeps up this “exit strategy” where he leaves seemingly every other day, then Americans may decide at whose feet they would lay responsibility. Even a recent Fox News poll said Americans would blame congressional Republicans, not the president, if the U.S. were to default on its loan obligations. That’s a Fox poll, folks. That should scare Republicans, but more importantly, it should tell them that, even if they are right on the mission here (which they are), they’re doing a terrible job of sharing that with the American people.
Either way, this is a terrible gamble to make. I’d just as soon see both sides fold and start the talks fresh than risk going right up until the deadline with no deal. Every day they dawdle, the world’s financial markets squirm at such political brinksmanship.
Comments (5)
A terrible gamble
A terrible gamble
By Armstrong Williams - 07/25/11 08:34 AM ET
If you’ve been living in the United States during the past three months and you're not aware of this “debt crisis” everyone inside the Beltway is talking about, then you’re living under a rock.
The sad truth is, the rest of the world knows about it as well, they’re watching, and let’s just say they’re even more scared than we are on these shores. The reason? The U.S. dollar acts as the reserve currency for hosts of commodities traded every second of every day around the world. Further, the dollar also acts as the “pegged” currency from which many more goods and services are linked, most notably oil.
And for anyone waking up yesterday in London, they would have read this headline in the The Sunday Times: “WASHINGTON PLAYS POKER WITH WORLD ECONOMY.” The editorial from which that headline came goes on to say, “It would be unthinkable now were it not for a dangerous stand-off between the White House and Congress over the country’s debt. … With this humiliating and destabilising threat hanging over them, one would expect politicians in Washington would be rushing to strike a deal. Far from it. They are engaged in a game of political brinkmanship. The U.S. economy is in danger of looking alarmingly dysfunctional.”
Dysfunctional, ladies and gentlemen. And after the weekend’s events, I have to say I’m not sure what sort of poker game House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is trying to play, let alone win.
I’m on a roll with this “poker” analogy, so let’s keep it going. Both the White House and congressional Republicans are holding measly hands, say, a jack and 10 off-suit. The rest of their hand is full of meaningless low cards, and they’re essentially drawing dead. They’ve both gone all in, and at best, they will split the pot.
Yet here we find ourselves barely 10 days from “Debt-ageddon” and it seems both sides are trying to out-bluff and out-maneuver the other. For what? What would it accomplish? Are these politicians so hell-bent on beating the other side that they have forgotten why they’re working round the clock — to save the financial health of the country?
Let’s be honest, both sides are to blame here, so they should stop jockeying for more political points, because it will do neither any good.
Of course, if the Speaker keeps up this “exit strategy” where he leaves seemingly every other day, then Americans may decide at whose feet they would lay responsibility. Even a recent Fox News poll said Americans would blame congressional Republicans, not the president, if the U.S. were to default on its loan obligations. That’s a Fox poll, folks. That should scare Republicans, but more importantly, it should tell them that, even if they are right on the mission here (which they are), they’re doing a terrible job of sharing that with the American people.
Either way, this is a terrible gamble to make. I’d just as soon see both sides fold and start the talks fresh than risk going right up until the deadline with no deal. Every day they dawdle, the world’s financial markets squirm at such political brinksmanship.
Comments (5)
07/22/11
A dumb move
A dumb move
By Armstrong Williams - 07/22/11 08:49 AM ET
As Washington, Wall Street and virtually every other major institution in this country remained engrossed this week in the ongoing debt-ceiling negotiations, another federal feat occurred that received very little fanfare even though it has broad implications for our country.
I’m referring to the landing of NASA’s final mission of the shuttle Atlantis following its last 13-day mission.
That’s right, folks, after yesterday, there will not be another human spaceflight for at least four to five years, according to industry experts.
You see, someone at the White House had the bright idea that the federal government shouldn’t be in the manned exploration of space business anymore, but rather the private sector should be.
I know what you’re thinking — this is Armstrong Williams arguing for government to do something over the private sector? In this instance, I think it’s smart for the feds to remain intimately involved in how we as Americans explore, understand and ultimately dominate the final frontier.
The talk now is for human spaceflight to be run primarily by private-sector interests, yet bankrolled by NASA. Terrific, now the space agency will transition from recruiting and training the best scientists in the world into acting as government regulators.
And therein lies the problem — this is one area that has not been tested and approved. Notwithstanding the fact that this economy is teetering on the brink of another recession, can we really expect private enterprise to step up when, if anything, entrepreneurs and innovators of all stripes are hedging their bets?
And what of the major talent in science and technology NASA loses by shifting to this new role as overseer? Will companies eagerly move to recruit that talent before a major brain drain occurs?
I just fear a move of this magnitude should have been debated and deliberated more by Congress and other experts. Humans are just beginning to understand the marvels of this universe. Many of the answers to future problems, I believe, do not lie on this planet.
Don’t we limit our potential as Americans if we’re forced to hitch rides into space with the Russians or the Chinese? And if the private sector does in fact keep pace with technological advances, will its aims be equally altruistic, or will the next seat to Mars go to the highest bidder, as opposed to the smartest physicist?
Too many questions and not enough answers make the grounding of our human spaceflight program a very dumb move.
A dumb move
A dumb move
By Armstrong Williams - 07/22/11 08:49 AM ET
As Washington, Wall Street and virtually every other major institution in this country remained engrossed this week in the ongoing debt-ceiling negotiations, another federal feat occurred that received very little fanfare even though it has broad implications for our country.
I’m referring to the landing of NASA’s final mission of the shuttle Atlantis following its last 13-day mission.
That’s right, folks, after yesterday, there will not be another human spaceflight for at least four to five years, according to industry experts.
You see, someone at the White House had the bright idea that the federal government shouldn’t be in the manned exploration of space business anymore, but rather the private sector should be.
I know what you’re thinking — this is Armstrong Williams arguing for government to do something over the private sector? In this instance, I think it’s smart for the feds to remain intimately involved in how we as Americans explore, understand and ultimately dominate the final frontier.
The talk now is for human spaceflight to be run primarily by private-sector interests, yet bankrolled by NASA. Terrific, now the space agency will transition from recruiting and training the best scientists in the world into acting as government regulators.
And therein lies the problem — this is one area that has not been tested and approved. Notwithstanding the fact that this economy is teetering on the brink of another recession, can we really expect private enterprise to step up when, if anything, entrepreneurs and innovators of all stripes are hedging their bets?
And what of the major talent in science and technology NASA loses by shifting to this new role as overseer? Will companies eagerly move to recruit that talent before a major brain drain occurs?
I just fear a move of this magnitude should have been debated and deliberated more by Congress and other experts. Humans are just beginning to understand the marvels of this universe. Many of the answers to future problems, I believe, do not lie on this planet.
Don’t we limit our potential as Americans if we’re forced to hitch rides into space with the Russians or the Chinese? And if the private sector does in fact keep pace with technological advances, will its aims be equally altruistic, or will the next seat to Mars go to the highest bidder, as opposed to the smartest physicist?
Too many questions and not enough answers make the grounding of our human spaceflight program a very dumb move.
07/22/11
America's Deepening Immorality
America’s Deepening Immorality
By Armstrong Williams
An utterly riveting cable TV show called the “Love Crimes of Kabul” follows the stories of Afghan women who have been imprisoned for breaking strict Sharia law governing sex outside of marriage. Their crimes would be hardly recognizable in the United States: adultery, fornication, prostitution and lewd behavior have become pretty much the norm here.
In one fascinating episode, a young woman has become pregnant while unmarried. Her parents turn her into the authorities in disgrace. Her father laments that each time he goes out in public he shields his face out of shame. The neighborhood gossip is unbearable, cries the mother. Her lover is also charged and awaits trial in a neighboring jail.
As the episode develops, the parents attempt to negotiate a quick wedding. If they get married before the trial, perhaps the judge will be more lenient – prison sentences for moral crimes range from 2-15 years in Afghanistan. The situation presents a hardship for both families. The young man comes from a poor family and has no job or dowry to offer. The young woman’s family laments that if she does not get married she faces the prospect of raising her child in prison -- and when she gets out she would have no viable options for marriage (in Afghanistan, virginity is a prized asset). After a series of negotiations conducted by the young man’s uncle, the handcuffed couple gets married in family court just before they are set to face trial.
The judge hears the case. He reviews the evidence – including a confession by the young woman, a medical test confirming her pregnancy, and eyewitness accounts from a neighbor who caught them in the act. He concludes that they are guilty. However, he notes, the strength of the family unit is a fundamental value in Islam. He considers the fact that they are now married, and urges them to return home to raise their family in earnest. He sentences them to time served. The newlyweds are elated. The families are happy because their honor has been restored.
Let’s pan to America circa 2011. A young unmarried woman has a child out of wedlock. Nothing happens. The father abandons her and the baby girl. He is not held accountable. The young lady is poor, has trouble raising the child alone, and therefore neglects her. The toddler goes missing. A massive search ensues. The young woman goes out and parties like a rock star. Eventually the toddler’s decaying corpse is found in the woods with duct tape covering her mouth, discarded like a piece of trash. A media circus ensues. The woman is charged with murder. It gets even more sordid. Her winning defense is that she lied about the ‘accidental’ death of her child because of the trauma of sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her own father. She is acquitted by a jury of her peers.
Which outcome would you rather have? A dead child or a strong young family supported by the community?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
America's Deepening Immorality
America’s Deepening Immorality
By Armstrong Williams
An utterly riveting cable TV show called the “Love Crimes of Kabul” follows the stories of Afghan women who have been imprisoned for breaking strict Sharia law governing sex outside of marriage. Their crimes would be hardly recognizable in the United States: adultery, fornication, prostitution and lewd behavior have become pretty much the norm here.
In one fascinating episode, a young woman has become pregnant while unmarried. Her parents turn her into the authorities in disgrace. Her father laments that each time he goes out in public he shields his face out of shame. The neighborhood gossip is unbearable, cries the mother. Her lover is also charged and awaits trial in a neighboring jail.
As the episode develops, the parents attempt to negotiate a quick wedding. If they get married before the trial, perhaps the judge will be more lenient – prison sentences for moral crimes range from 2-15 years in Afghanistan. The situation presents a hardship for both families. The young man comes from a poor family and has no job or dowry to offer. The young woman’s family laments that if she does not get married she faces the prospect of raising her child in prison -- and when she gets out she would have no viable options for marriage (in Afghanistan, virginity is a prized asset). After a series of negotiations conducted by the young man’s uncle, the handcuffed couple gets married in family court just before they are set to face trial.
The judge hears the case. He reviews the evidence – including a confession by the young woman, a medical test confirming her pregnancy, and eyewitness accounts from a neighbor who caught them in the act. He concludes that they are guilty. However, he notes, the strength of the family unit is a fundamental value in Islam. He considers the fact that they are now married, and urges them to return home to raise their family in earnest. He sentences them to time served. The newlyweds are elated. The families are happy because their honor has been restored.
Let’s pan to America circa 2011. A young unmarried woman has a child out of wedlock. Nothing happens. The father abandons her and the baby girl. He is not held accountable. The young lady is poor, has trouble raising the child alone, and therefore neglects her. The toddler goes missing. A massive search ensues. The young woman goes out and parties like a rock star. Eventually the toddler’s decaying corpse is found in the woods with duct tape covering her mouth, discarded like a piece of trash. A media circus ensues. The woman is charged with murder. It gets even more sordid. Her winning defense is that she lied about the ‘accidental’ death of her child because of the trauma of sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her own father. She is acquitted by a jury of her peers.
Which outcome would you rather have? A dead child or a strong young family supported by the community?
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/21/11
Rational Exuberance
Rational Exuberance:
By Armstrong Williams
We have to face the fact that tough times lie ahead. But just because we all might have to tighten our belts, does not mean we should fall pray to a gloomy outlook. In times of struggle, we must take comfort in the certainty that the economy will once again rebound, and times of plenty must eventually return.
An economy is life writ large. It is a word that conveys sum individuals’ hopes, desires, ambitions, triumphs and frustrations. At any given time, these individual trajectories are going in all directions. As one company goes bankrupt, throwing thousands of people out of work, a leveraged-buyout firm finds it can buy the leftover assets at a fire sale price. It cobbles together the bones of defunct companies and breathes life into them, giving rise to new opportunities for employment and shareholder wealth.
The falling dollar has, for some, signaled a falling sky, a dimming horizon. But for others, the dollar’s decline has given rise to a whole new world of opportunity. As the value of the U.S. dollar falls, imported goods become more expensive, and domestic industries, long thought dead, spring life again. Look at companies like American Apparel, one of the few U.S. clothing retailers that rely on domestic manufacturing. The U.S. textile industry, a dominant international force a hundred years ago, fell prey to cheap manufacturing in Asia and other foreign countries. Today, most of our clothing is made abroad. But companies like American Apparel, who manufactures their clothing domestically at a Los Angeles, California facility, finds their businesses flourishing amid a diminished import market.
The bright side of high fuel costs and a weak dollar is that is makes it more difficult for foreign imports to displace American products. In fact, because of the weak dollar, American assets are particularly attractive abroad.
During times of struggle, whether individually or collectively, we would do well to look ahead to the coming bounty and prepare for it. We should not get so consumed by our hardships that we fail to see the good that can become of them – or rather what we make of them. This is a time for rational exuberance. We know we will get through this, and when we do, we, as a nation will be fitter, stronger and better adapted to the realities of this brave new world. It is just a matter of time.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Rational Exuberance
Rational Exuberance:
By Armstrong Williams
We have to face the fact that tough times lie ahead. But just because we all might have to tighten our belts, does not mean we should fall pray to a gloomy outlook. In times of struggle, we must take comfort in the certainty that the economy will once again rebound, and times of plenty must eventually return.
An economy is life writ large. It is a word that conveys sum individuals’ hopes, desires, ambitions, triumphs and frustrations. At any given time, these individual trajectories are going in all directions. As one company goes bankrupt, throwing thousands of people out of work, a leveraged-buyout firm finds it can buy the leftover assets at a fire sale price. It cobbles together the bones of defunct companies and breathes life into them, giving rise to new opportunities for employment and shareholder wealth.
The falling dollar has, for some, signaled a falling sky, a dimming horizon. But for others, the dollar’s decline has given rise to a whole new world of opportunity. As the value of the U.S. dollar falls, imported goods become more expensive, and domestic industries, long thought dead, spring life again. Look at companies like American Apparel, one of the few U.S. clothing retailers that rely on domestic manufacturing. The U.S. textile industry, a dominant international force a hundred years ago, fell prey to cheap manufacturing in Asia and other foreign countries. Today, most of our clothing is made abroad. But companies like American Apparel, who manufactures their clothing domestically at a Los Angeles, California facility, finds their businesses flourishing amid a diminished import market.
The bright side of high fuel costs and a weak dollar is that is makes it more difficult for foreign imports to displace American products. In fact, because of the weak dollar, American assets are particularly attractive abroad.
During times of struggle, whether individually or collectively, we would do well to look ahead to the coming bounty and prepare for it. We should not get so consumed by our hardships that we fail to see the good that can become of them – or rather what we make of them. This is a time for rational exuberance. We know we will get through this, and when we do, we, as a nation will be fitter, stronger and better adapted to the realities of this brave new world. It is just a matter of time.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/20/11
We are in desperate need of Superior Leadership
BY: Armstrong Williams
We are in desperate need of Superior Leadership:
There is another dilemma facing politicians regarding the debt ceiling. If the debt ceiling is not increased, the US government will have to make drastic cuts in spending. This will have a negative impact in the short-term on both the economy and the AAA credit rating of US debt by the rating agencies. According to a recent WSJ/NBC poll, 55% of Americans believe that not raising the debt ceiling will create serious problems. Unfortunately, if the debt ceiling is increased without a major restructuring of the government’s budget leading to a balanced budget, the deficits and national debt will continue to grow. This will also have a negative impact on the long-term prospects for the economy and the government’s credit rating. Furthermore, it will push the deficit and debt crisis into the future where it will be even more painful to solve.
In the debate on raising the debt ceiling above the current level of $14.3 trillion, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a winning political strategy. Both parties agree that the current and projected deficit is too large. The best solution to balancing the budget and reducing the national debt depends on one’s political philosophy. If you are a conservative, you want to cut spending, including entitlement spending, and reduce marginal tax rates. Let private sector growth generate increased individual income and increased tax revenues. If you are a liberal, you want to keep government big, increase entitlements and finance it all with other people’s money, i.e. increased taxes on the rich. While that path may not grow the income of the country as fast as the conservative philosophy, liberals believe that Americans will be better off because elected politicians, not the free market, will “fairly” allocate and redistribute America’s income according to their political goals.
Fortunately for the Republicans’ election prospects in 2012, but unfortunately for America, on President Obama’s watch the economic recovery has been a disaster. The only thing that matters to most Americans right now is jobs and economic well-being. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the labor participation rate was 64.8% compared to 64.1% in June 2011, and the unemployment rate was 8% versus 9.2% today. Voters are much less concerned about political philosophy than their actual economic well-being. Consequently the political debate over the debt ceiling is a sideshow for most Americans. The political class needs to accept the fact that neither side will be able to emerge with a clear victory from the debt ceiling debate, which is merely one battle in a much larger ideological conflict.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
We are in desperate need of Superior Leadership
BY: Armstrong Williams
We are in desperate need of Superior Leadership:
There is another dilemma facing politicians regarding the debt ceiling. If the debt ceiling is not increased, the US government will have to make drastic cuts in spending. This will have a negative impact in the short-term on both the economy and the AAA credit rating of US debt by the rating agencies. According to a recent WSJ/NBC poll, 55% of Americans believe that not raising the debt ceiling will create serious problems. Unfortunately, if the debt ceiling is increased without a major restructuring of the government’s budget leading to a balanced budget, the deficits and national debt will continue to grow. This will also have a negative impact on the long-term prospects for the economy and the government’s credit rating. Furthermore, it will push the deficit and debt crisis into the future where it will be even more painful to solve.
In the debate on raising the debt ceiling above the current level of $14.3 trillion, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a winning political strategy. Both parties agree that the current and projected deficit is too large. The best solution to balancing the budget and reducing the national debt depends on one’s political philosophy. If you are a conservative, you want to cut spending, including entitlement spending, and reduce marginal tax rates. Let private sector growth generate increased individual income and increased tax revenues. If you are a liberal, you want to keep government big, increase entitlements and finance it all with other people’s money, i.e. increased taxes on the rich. While that path may not grow the income of the country as fast as the conservative philosophy, liberals believe that Americans will be better off because elected politicians, not the free market, will “fairly” allocate and redistribute America’s income according to their political goals.
Fortunately for the Republicans’ election prospects in 2012, but unfortunately for America, on President Obama’s watch the economic recovery has been a disaster. The only thing that matters to most Americans right now is jobs and economic well-being. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the labor participation rate was 64.8% compared to 64.1% in June 2011, and the unemployment rate was 8% versus 9.2% today. Voters are much less concerned about political philosophy than their actual economic well-being. Consequently the political debate over the debt ceiling is a sideshow for most Americans. The political class needs to accept the fact that neither side will be able to emerge with a clear victory from the debt ceiling debate, which is merely one battle in a much larger ideological conflict.
Read Armstrong Williams, author of the brand new book Reawakening Virtues, content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/19/11
Our nation's future is at stake !
BY: Armstrong Williams
Our nation's future is at stake !
The Congress now faces a choice. It must choose between the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. One or the other is certain. If House and Senate members take the easy way out of these debt talks, they and this nation will come to regret those actions. Regret defined here is an emotional and intelligent dislike for personal past behaviors. And that is clearly what they, and we, will face if we don’t turn this corner toward fiscal austerity.
The pain of regret will leave its scar for years. Even if we extend the debt ceiling in some artificial or short-term way, regret will still haunt us. For it will mean that policymakers weren’t prepared to make the difficult and lasting decisions to avoid such calamities in the future. That is why this debate embodies so many other policy discussions. Think about it – future negotiations over taxes, entitlements, new programs, old programs – they will all hinge on how this Congress emerges from these discussions. Will both sides agree that enough is enough, and put an end to the credit card mentality that has gripped this government?
The pain of discipline is equally unpleasant. I won’t mince words. It will not be easy or free of deep afflictions. We passed that threshold decades ago. Discipline means the tough decisions were made in the name of long-term dividends. We will surely benefit if Congress can get a grip on its spending habits. More importantly, our economy will breathe a little easier and run more smoothly without the crushing saddle of debt.
Yes, folks, it’s time to remind policymakers and every American that these debt negotiations will bring pain the likes of which we have not seen as a prosperous nation. But the first step toward economic recovery is first acknowledging the inevitable.
The stakes are getting higher. These next few days are critical.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Our nation's future is at stake !
BY: Armstrong Williams
Our nation's future is at stake !
The Congress now faces a choice. It must choose between the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. One or the other is certain. If House and Senate members take the easy way out of these debt talks, they and this nation will come to regret those actions. Regret defined here is an emotional and intelligent dislike for personal past behaviors. And that is clearly what they, and we, will face if we don’t turn this corner toward fiscal austerity.
The pain of regret will leave its scar for years. Even if we extend the debt ceiling in some artificial or short-term way, regret will still haunt us. For it will mean that policymakers weren’t prepared to make the difficult and lasting decisions to avoid such calamities in the future. That is why this debate embodies so many other policy discussions. Think about it – future negotiations over taxes, entitlements, new programs, old programs – they will all hinge on how this Congress emerges from these discussions. Will both sides agree that enough is enough, and put an end to the credit card mentality that has gripped this government?
The pain of discipline is equally unpleasant. I won’t mince words. It will not be easy or free of deep afflictions. We passed that threshold decades ago. Discipline means the tough decisions were made in the name of long-term dividends. We will surely benefit if Congress can get a grip on its spending habits. More importantly, our economy will breathe a little easier and run more smoothly without the crushing saddle of debt.
Yes, folks, it’s time to remind policymakers and every American that these debt negotiations will bring pain the likes of which we have not seen as a prosperous nation. But the first step toward economic recovery is first acknowledging the inevitable.
The stakes are getting higher. These next few days are critical.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/18/11
McConnell plan a red herring
BY: Armstrong Williams
McConnell plan a red herring
The Hill reporters Erik Wasson and Alex Bolton each had a unique perspective on the debt talks coming out of the weekend with regards to Senator Mitch McConnell’s “plan B.” This of course is the fallback plan that would give President Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling on his own, with a few caveats and demands along the way.
The more I study this, the more I agree with those Wasson interviewed regarding the outcome. Nothing good, neither politically nor policy-wise, can come of this effort.
Yes, the plan would raise the debt ceiling, but at what cost?
First of all, I fear McConnell’s motivations for granting this authority to the White House are less than noble. If pressed, I think McConnell himself would agree he’s trying to score political points on this and help his Republican counterparts in the House.
But this fallback plan has no long-term intentions or goals. Like most initiatives coming out of both the House and Senate, it merely kicks the can down the road, all while “sending a message.” We don’t need any more of those types of negotiations.
I’m glad the likes of Sen. Marco Rubio told The Hill’s Bolton, “The problem isn’t the debt ceiling, it’s the debt.” Truer words have never been spoken.
If the rank-and-file on both sides of the dome get this, how come the leadership does not?
Just look at Senate Majority Leader Reid. He’s been going along with the McConnell fallback option. That alone should tell you something’s not right. It’s clear he’s willing to give the President an increase at all costs, which is another reason to oppose this effort.
The lesson heading into this week is still the same one from weeks prior – there is no “quick fix” and it certainly won’t be easy.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
McConnell plan a red herring
BY: Armstrong Williams
McConnell plan a red herring
The Hill reporters Erik Wasson and Alex Bolton each had a unique perspective on the debt talks coming out of the weekend with regards to Senator Mitch McConnell’s “plan B.” This of course is the fallback plan that would give President Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling on his own, with a few caveats and demands along the way.
The more I study this, the more I agree with those Wasson interviewed regarding the outcome. Nothing good, neither politically nor policy-wise, can come of this effort.
Yes, the plan would raise the debt ceiling, but at what cost?
First of all, I fear McConnell’s motivations for granting this authority to the White House are less than noble. If pressed, I think McConnell himself would agree he’s trying to score political points on this and help his Republican counterparts in the House.
But this fallback plan has no long-term intentions or goals. Like most initiatives coming out of both the House and Senate, it merely kicks the can down the road, all while “sending a message.” We don’t need any more of those types of negotiations.
I’m glad the likes of Sen. Marco Rubio told The Hill’s Bolton, “The problem isn’t the debt ceiling, it’s the debt.” Truer words have never been spoken.
If the rank-and-file on both sides of the dome get this, how come the leadership does not?
Just look at Senate Majority Leader Reid. He’s been going along with the McConnell fallback option. That alone should tell you something’s not right. It’s clear he’s willing to give the President an increase at all costs, which is another reason to oppose this effort.
The lesson heading into this week is still the same one from weeks prior – there is no “quick fix” and it certainly won’t be easy.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/14/11
Wall Street Weighs in on Debt Talks
BY: Armstrong Williams
Wall Street Weighs in on Debt Talks
Well folks, if you didn’t think it was crunch time for lawmakers in Washington, it’s clear now. Talk is cheap. That’s not me saying it. That’s one of the big three credit agencies, Moody’s Investor Service, which threatened yesterday after the markets closed that the U.S. risked losing its top-notch credit rating if it couldn’t fix the debt mess.
Some Democrats would see that announcement as proof positive that Republicans are playing with fire here and they should abandon their childish antics to force President Obama to deep spending cuts.
What nonsense.
If the Republicans were to allow the limit on the debt ceiling to be raised, it would give the country what, a two-year reprieve? We need long-term reform and austerity, not short-term political fixes that get us through the next election. That’s how we get in trouble every few years.
What Moody’s announcement does tell me is that gridlock in Washington is not isolated only to the Federal City. That rhetoric and lack of action means something to real-world people out trying to move products, goods and services in a global economy.
Both parties are responsible for this mess. And the sooner lawmakers on both sides stop running to their favorite cable studios after every meeting at the White House to blast the other side with cheap insults, the sooner we can address some serious issues.
I’ve learned one thing this month that should continue to teach future leaders lessons for decades – we can’t afford to have politicians who sit around and do nothing and expect to get reelected. It’s no longer enough to “wait till November” to let elections decide who the winner and loser are in the prior cycle.
Voters should pay close attention to this impasse. Billions of dollars and perhaps trillions more in lost economic activity hang in the balance. Unlike Ireland, Spain, Greece and other countries who either have or come eerily close to default, the U.S. can actually DO SOMETHING about its current fiscal straits. And that does not mean a quick vote to raise the debt ceiling. In effect, all we would be doing is taking out another credit card. We don’t do that at home when we’re tens of thousands in debt. Why should our federal government do the same when we’re trillions in the hole?
The stakes are getting higher. These next few days are critical.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Wall Street Weighs in on Debt Talks
BY: Armstrong Williams
Wall Street Weighs in on Debt Talks
Well folks, if you didn’t think it was crunch time for lawmakers in Washington, it’s clear now. Talk is cheap. That’s not me saying it. That’s one of the big three credit agencies, Moody’s Investor Service, which threatened yesterday after the markets closed that the U.S. risked losing its top-notch credit rating if it couldn’t fix the debt mess.
Some Democrats would see that announcement as proof positive that Republicans are playing with fire here and they should abandon their childish antics to force President Obama to deep spending cuts.
What nonsense.
If the Republicans were to allow the limit on the debt ceiling to be raised, it would give the country what, a two-year reprieve? We need long-term reform and austerity, not short-term political fixes that get us through the next election. That’s how we get in trouble every few years.
What Moody’s announcement does tell me is that gridlock in Washington is not isolated only to the Federal City. That rhetoric and lack of action means something to real-world people out trying to move products, goods and services in a global economy.
Both parties are responsible for this mess. And the sooner lawmakers on both sides stop running to their favorite cable studios after every meeting at the White House to blast the other side with cheap insults, the sooner we can address some serious issues.
I’ve learned one thing this month that should continue to teach future leaders lessons for decades – we can’t afford to have politicians who sit around and do nothing and expect to get reelected. It’s no longer enough to “wait till November” to let elections decide who the winner and loser are in the prior cycle.
Voters should pay close attention to this impasse. Billions of dollars and perhaps trillions more in lost economic activity hang in the balance. Unlike Ireland, Spain, Greece and other countries who either have or come eerily close to default, the U.S. can actually DO SOMETHING about its current fiscal straits. And that does not mean a quick vote to raise the debt ceiling. In effect, all we would be doing is taking out another credit card. We don’t do that at home when we’re tens of thousands in debt. Why should our federal government do the same when we’re trillions in the hole?
The stakes are getting higher. These next few days are critical.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/12/11
Symbolic Independence
BY: Armstrong Williams
Symbolic Independence
South Sudan is a sparsely populated and largely undeveloped land full of lush savanna, jungle and the famous Sud – a vast collection of swamps that form the source of the Nile River in Sudan. Until now, these largely dispersed and independent tribal groups have been joined together in hopes of defeating a common enemy. But it remains to be seen whether they can actually form a strong enough national identity to garner the political and economic capacity they will need to survive as an independent nation. Especially now, any decline in national unity or collective purpose will weaken the new South Sudan considerably. The disparate groups will especially need such unity if they are to effectively negotiate the oil pipeline stranglehold currently enjoyed by the North.
At the end of the day, the logic of two Sudans is hard to fathom. They share so many natural networks; rivers, animal and human migration patterns, and natural resources. The best scenario that could arise from this new period of separation is that each side truly appreciates how much they depend upon the other. The stakes are high for economic cooperation, especially around oil exports, which form the largest share of each economy. South Sudan can neither produce nor export without help from the North. Northern Sudan’s trading prowess and port access is useless without products to sell and distribute.
The optimal scenario is that the two countries would eventually develop a pragmatic approach to matters of mutual concern. But for now, good fences will have to suffice. For the South that means a resolution of the border demarcation in Abyei, the contested, oil rich region around the North South border. For the North, it means that the South must largely stay out of the internecine conflicts in Darfur and Southern Kordufan – something that will be difficult for Southerners given the strong ethnic ties, and the support they enjoyed from those regions during the independence struggle.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Symbolic Independence
BY: Armstrong Williams
Symbolic Independence
South Sudan is a sparsely populated and largely undeveloped land full of lush savanna, jungle and the famous Sud – a vast collection of swamps that form the source of the Nile River in Sudan. Until now, these largely dispersed and independent tribal groups have been joined together in hopes of defeating a common enemy. But it remains to be seen whether they can actually form a strong enough national identity to garner the political and economic capacity they will need to survive as an independent nation. Especially now, any decline in national unity or collective purpose will weaken the new South Sudan considerably. The disparate groups will especially need such unity if they are to effectively negotiate the oil pipeline stranglehold currently enjoyed by the North.
At the end of the day, the logic of two Sudans is hard to fathom. They share so many natural networks; rivers, animal and human migration patterns, and natural resources. The best scenario that could arise from this new period of separation is that each side truly appreciates how much they depend upon the other. The stakes are high for economic cooperation, especially around oil exports, which form the largest share of each economy. South Sudan can neither produce nor export without help from the North. Northern Sudan’s trading prowess and port access is useless without products to sell and distribute.
The optimal scenario is that the two countries would eventually develop a pragmatic approach to matters of mutual concern. But for now, good fences will have to suffice. For the South that means a resolution of the border demarcation in Abyei, the contested, oil rich region around the North South border. For the North, it means that the South must largely stay out of the internecine conflicts in Darfur and Southern Kordufan – something that will be difficult for Southerners given the strong ethnic ties, and the support they enjoyed from those regions during the independence struggle.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/12/11
A role for Sen. McConnell to play
BY: Armstrong Williams
A role for Sen. McConnell to play
I’ll probably get some angry mail for this, but I’m a little disappointed in the Senate Republican leader lately. By any sober assessment, he’s really been sitting on the sidelines of the current debt ceiling negotiations. Rumor was a few weeks ago, House and Senate GOP staff were swapping mixed signals between the two leaders’ offices over what deals would be acceptable to the other chamber.
It’s hard enough to negotiate with Democrats. I can’t imagine first figuring out what Sen. McConnell needs to have in order to move forward with his support.
I’d like to see the Minority Leader take a more forceful role in the talks in the coming weeks. The press corps is certainly willing to give him an audience whenever he speaks. But simply appearing on FOX News Sunday shows doesn’t quite rise to the level that others such as Speaker Boehner and President Obama have elevated themselves to.
A lot hangs in the balance. Many believe the Senate is on the verge of switching to Republican control. Yet if McConnell can’t seem to create a unified voice coming out of his party, that could seriously hamper his electoral chances come next November.
I get it – the Senate is full of 100 individual, often lone voices. But all the more reason for McConnell to try and coordinate as many as he can now. The potential fallout if he does not is evident. You can bet Democrats will skewer Senate Republicans if Sen. Reid starts forcing the rank-and-file to take difficult votes.
I don’t like the way this is shaping up in the Senate. There is less of a Tea Party influence, and more of a good old-fashioned missed opportunity on the part of the Kentucky Senator.
Watch in the coming weeks if McConnell steps up more. He certainly possesses the political gravitas and respect of his colleagues. Now it’s time to see him off the sidelines and into the “game” a bit more on these debt discussions.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A role for Sen. McConnell to play
BY: Armstrong Williams
A role for Sen. McConnell to play
I’ll probably get some angry mail for this, but I’m a little disappointed in the Senate Republican leader lately. By any sober assessment, he’s really been sitting on the sidelines of the current debt ceiling negotiations. Rumor was a few weeks ago, House and Senate GOP staff were swapping mixed signals between the two leaders’ offices over what deals would be acceptable to the other chamber.
It’s hard enough to negotiate with Democrats. I can’t imagine first figuring out what Sen. McConnell needs to have in order to move forward with his support.
I’d like to see the Minority Leader take a more forceful role in the talks in the coming weeks. The press corps is certainly willing to give him an audience whenever he speaks. But simply appearing on FOX News Sunday shows doesn’t quite rise to the level that others such as Speaker Boehner and President Obama have elevated themselves to.
A lot hangs in the balance. Many believe the Senate is on the verge of switching to Republican control. Yet if McConnell can’t seem to create a unified voice coming out of his party, that could seriously hamper his electoral chances come next November.
I get it – the Senate is full of 100 individual, often lone voices. But all the more reason for McConnell to try and coordinate as many as he can now. The potential fallout if he does not is evident. You can bet Democrats will skewer Senate Republicans if Sen. Reid starts forcing the rank-and-file to take difficult votes.
I don’t like the way this is shaping up in the Senate. There is less of a Tea Party influence, and more of a good old-fashioned missed opportunity on the part of the Kentucky Senator.
Watch in the coming weeks if McConnell steps up more. He certainly possesses the political gravitas and respect of his colleagues. Now it’s time to see him off the sidelines and into the “game” a bit more on these debt discussions.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/11/11
Stay the course on debt negotiations
BY: Armstrong Williams
Stay the course on debt negotiations
You best settle in folks, because the ongoing debate surrounding the debt ceiling talks between the White House and House Republicans is just starting to get good. Detect a sense of optimism in my writing? You should.
I’m not as optimistic about an impending deal as I am excited over this entire process; IF (and that’s a big “If”) this continues on a current path of both sides doing some real soul-searching on what they can and can’t live without.
We must stay the course. As someone said early yesterday morning, “In Washington, the obvious has become the impossible.” The federal government is no closer to avoiding default on its loans, which makes these negotiations all the more imperative.
We are getting a firsthand view of the difficult issues both parties are facing when it comes to compromise. Neither side will win on this issue. And perhaps the sooner both the President and Speaker Boehner realize that, the quicker we can reach a resolution.
Both parties will be able to go into the November elections claiming victory and the ability to criticize the other party for items and options they put on the table. That’s okay.
What a seminal moment in our nation’s history I feel we are watching here. No, it’s not pretty, but we are seeing the branches of government butting heads and fighting with each other for the good of the country. What would be the absolute worst thing at this time is if both sides felt they had a better option of just walking away from the process and taking their chances next November.
We’ve seen that movie too many times, Mr. and Mrs. America. We cannot afford to wait for another meaningless “mandate of the people” that invariably gets misinterpreted by either winning party.
No, now is the time to stay the course on these negotiations. Small setbacks and walking away episodes are fine, so long as both return, with clear minds, and a fresh perspective on how to fix what has been broken for decades.
We are just in the beginning stages of what will be a long era of fiscal austerity. I applaud both parties in the House and Senate (less the White House, but that’s a topic for a future column) for seeing the legacy-setting moves they are making here today. Policymakers will not fix these ailments in one budget cycle. It’s refreshing to see some long-term thinking on the part of Washington.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Stay the course on debt negotiations
BY: Armstrong Williams
Stay the course on debt negotiations
You best settle in folks, because the ongoing debate surrounding the debt ceiling talks between the White House and House Republicans is just starting to get good. Detect a sense of optimism in my writing? You should.
I’m not as optimistic about an impending deal as I am excited over this entire process; IF (and that’s a big “If”) this continues on a current path of both sides doing some real soul-searching on what they can and can’t live without.
We must stay the course. As someone said early yesterday morning, “In Washington, the obvious has become the impossible.” The federal government is no closer to avoiding default on its loans, which makes these negotiations all the more imperative.
We are getting a firsthand view of the difficult issues both parties are facing when it comes to compromise. Neither side will win on this issue. And perhaps the sooner both the President and Speaker Boehner realize that, the quicker we can reach a resolution.
Both parties will be able to go into the November elections claiming victory and the ability to criticize the other party for items and options they put on the table. That’s okay.
What a seminal moment in our nation’s history I feel we are watching here. No, it’s not pretty, but we are seeing the branches of government butting heads and fighting with each other for the good of the country. What would be the absolute worst thing at this time is if both sides felt they had a better option of just walking away from the process and taking their chances next November.
We’ve seen that movie too many times, Mr. and Mrs. America. We cannot afford to wait for another meaningless “mandate of the people” that invariably gets misinterpreted by either winning party.
No, now is the time to stay the course on these negotiations. Small setbacks and walking away episodes are fine, so long as both return, with clear minds, and a fresh perspective on how to fix what has been broken for decades.
We are just in the beginning stages of what will be a long era of fiscal austerity. I applaud both parties in the House and Senate (less the White House, but that’s a topic for a future column) for seeing the legacy-setting moves they are making here today. Policymakers will not fix these ailments in one budget cycle. It’s refreshing to see some long-term thinking on the part of Washington.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/08/11
For one to win, another must lose
BY: Armstrong Williams
For one to win, another must lose.
My parents taught us to respect money, but not to worship it or allow it to possess you. They taught us how to build enduring wealth through an unbreakable value system based on principles and uncompromising virtues. Attaining wealth without faith, compassion, integrity and concern for bringing others along, can lead to emptiness and despair.
The national lottery, "Survivor," "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Big Brother," etc., have become staples of our cultural consciousness. These shows and events - and their promise of instant fortune - nourish our secret desires for power and respect. The common thread: all of these game shows carry the suggestion of an alternative, an escape from the daily drudgery of work. They promise that with a million dollars, all of our problems and anxieties will disappear.
The message probably has a special resonance in America where citizens have been weaned on the myth that fortune awaits them. Lacking a sense of genuine cultural history, Americans have been bound together by a common belief in credit. Capitalism is our motherland and our cultural heritage was forged in the post-Civil War boom, when shrewd men took advantage of the Industrial Revolution to secure vast fortunes. From their success, sprang the notion that in America, a better life awaited. This rags to riches theme formed a powerful folklore; one that linked capitalism with the beautiful possibilities of life. The capitalist system is built upon the notion that the friction of workers competing against one another benefits the consumer and thus the economy. The classic definition of capitalism is that for one to win, another must lose.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
For one to win, another must lose
BY: Armstrong Williams
For one to win, another must lose.
My parents taught us to respect money, but not to worship it or allow it to possess you. They taught us how to build enduring wealth through an unbreakable value system based on principles and uncompromising virtues. Attaining wealth without faith, compassion, integrity and concern for bringing others along, can lead to emptiness and despair.
The national lottery, "Survivor," "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Big Brother," etc., have become staples of our cultural consciousness. These shows and events - and their promise of instant fortune - nourish our secret desires for power and respect. The common thread: all of these game shows carry the suggestion of an alternative, an escape from the daily drudgery of work. They promise that with a million dollars, all of our problems and anxieties will disappear.
The message probably has a special resonance in America where citizens have been weaned on the myth that fortune awaits them. Lacking a sense of genuine cultural history, Americans have been bound together by a common belief in credit. Capitalism is our motherland and our cultural heritage was forged in the post-Civil War boom, when shrewd men took advantage of the Industrial Revolution to secure vast fortunes. From their success, sprang the notion that in America, a better life awaited. This rags to riches theme formed a powerful folklore; one that linked capitalism with the beautiful possibilities of life. The capitalist system is built upon the notion that the friction of workers competing against one another benefits the consumer and thus the economy. The classic definition of capitalism is that for one to win, another must lose.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/07/11
TSA Lack of Respect
BY: Armstrong Williams
TSA Lack of Respect
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~Lord Acton 1887
Have you traveled by air recently? Have you been one of the many lucky enough to be groped by the TSA? Every week there is a report of some TSA agents at some airport in, what I still like to believe, our great nation clearly overstepping boundaries, and every subsequent report is worse than the last.
There is one story that has gotten a lot of publicity recently and rightly so. Apparently a 95-year-old Lukemia patient on her way to an assisted living facility required further screening because there was something "wet" in her diaper. Something wet? In a diaper!? Heaven's No!!
Many of the agents employed at Home Land Security airports are not people of great accomplishment, and are not the most intellectually sophisticated people in our society. Yet when given a badge and some authority they allow the power to intoxicate them in believing they can mistreat and humiliate people at their whim. Unfortunately there seems to be no oversight of this behavior and, in fact, some of the supervisors also engage in this deplorable behavior. While it is true that we need to be vigilant against terrorist activity this should not be done at the expense of the freedom and dignity of our citizenry. We should devote as much attention to being respectful to the constituents of our great nation as we do to protecting it.
After all, the TSA goes through this dog and pony show to make us feel safe, but how safe can we feel when there exists the possibility that we've paid several hundred dollars only to be molested and publicly humiliated by the very same people responsible for our flight safety. Or even worse you could have been the parent forced to watch as your crying 6 year old daughter had her nether regions searched by a government agent fulfilling their duty. Disgusting.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
TSA Lack of Respect
BY: Armstrong Williams
TSA Lack of Respect
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~Lord Acton 1887
Have you traveled by air recently? Have you been one of the many lucky enough to be groped by the TSA? Every week there is a report of some TSA agents at some airport in, what I still like to believe, our great nation clearly overstepping boundaries, and every subsequent report is worse than the last.
There is one story that has gotten a lot of publicity recently and rightly so. Apparently a 95-year-old Lukemia patient on her way to an assisted living facility required further screening because there was something "wet" in her diaper. Something wet? In a diaper!? Heaven's No!!
Many of the agents employed at Home Land Security airports are not people of great accomplishment, and are not the most intellectually sophisticated people in our society. Yet when given a badge and some authority they allow the power to intoxicate them in believing they can mistreat and humiliate people at their whim. Unfortunately there seems to be no oversight of this behavior and, in fact, some of the supervisors also engage in this deplorable behavior. While it is true that we need to be vigilant against terrorist activity this should not be done at the expense of the freedom and dignity of our citizenry. We should devote as much attention to being respectful to the constituents of our great nation as we do to protecting it.
After all, the TSA goes through this dog and pony show to make us feel safe, but how safe can we feel when there exists the possibility that we've paid several hundred dollars only to be molested and publicly humiliated by the very same people responsible for our flight safety. Or even worse you could have been the parent forced to watch as your crying 6 year old daughter had her nether regions searched by a government agent fulfilling their duty. Disgusting.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/06/11
Casey Anthony
BY: Armstrong Williams
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE OF MIND
Casey Anthony.
Do we yet have another OJ Simpson like case in which someone who is obviously guilty walks free to the dismay of so many?
The little that we do know as fact is confounding at best. The mother does not report her child missing for a month, that in and of itself is unimaginable. When it finally is reported she relates that the child was abducted by a house keeper that does not exist and then it somehow became her wealthy boyfriend that abducted the child until it became clear that he did not exist. Let us not forget the duct tape found around the baby. How do you explain that in the context of an accidental death? And since when do we put duct tape on our babies? Placing all these facts together stretches the limits of credulity to think this woman is innocent, which is why her lawyers wouldn't allow her to testify. Casey Anthony's hands were obviously unclean, and they were hiding it, but then again that is what they were paid for. The jury had, but did not exercise, an option of returning a conviction less than first degree murder. No justice for the child, and the mother must live the rest of her life with her conscience never at peace.
Yes, the judicial system worked. She faced her accuser and, by a jury of her peers, Casey Anthony was acquitted. But is that enough? Should we as a society just go about our normal lives in the wake of such tragedy? But if we should not, then who among us should stand up and say, “Something’s not right here”?
We live in a world full of gray, I get that. Casey Anthony murders her two year old daughter-by accidental drowning or whatever fantasy you may choose to assign to the unquestionable death of this innocent life- and is found not guilty. Only in America.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Casey Anthony
BY: Armstrong Williams
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE OF MIND
Casey Anthony.
Do we yet have another OJ Simpson like case in which someone who is obviously guilty walks free to the dismay of so many?
The little that we do know as fact is confounding at best. The mother does not report her child missing for a month, that in and of itself is unimaginable. When it finally is reported she relates that the child was abducted by a house keeper that does not exist and then it somehow became her wealthy boyfriend that abducted the child until it became clear that he did not exist. Let us not forget the duct tape found around the baby. How do you explain that in the context of an accidental death? And since when do we put duct tape on our babies? Placing all these facts together stretches the limits of credulity to think this woman is innocent, which is why her lawyers wouldn't allow her to testify. Casey Anthony's hands were obviously unclean, and they were hiding it, but then again that is what they were paid for. The jury had, but did not exercise, an option of returning a conviction less than first degree murder. No justice for the child, and the mother must live the rest of her life with her conscience never at peace.
Yes, the judicial system worked. She faced her accuser and, by a jury of her peers, Casey Anthony was acquitted. But is that enough? Should we as a society just go about our normal lives in the wake of such tragedy? But if we should not, then who among us should stand up and say, “Something’s not right here”?
We live in a world full of gray, I get that. Casey Anthony murders her two year old daughter-by accidental drowning or whatever fantasy you may choose to assign to the unquestionable death of this innocent life- and is found not guilty. Only in America.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/05/11
Enslaved on Independence Day
BY: Armstrong Williams
Enslaved on Independence Day
Every day we as humans are poised to learn lessons, or at least be reminded of them. This week, those lessons should be even more profound as we celebrate our nation’s independence.
It’s funny but sad at how so few Americans truly know what our Founding Fathers faced those centuries ago. As the most powerful army in the world was assembling on the shores of the New World with more soldiers than even our largest cities, these men were assembling in a hall to pen a manifesto of freedom.
At the end of the Declaration, they dedicated their lives, their entire property and their honor to this cause – this commitment to a principle that all persons should live free. Yes, they were willing to give everything for freedom. What sacrifice. What willingness to see a dream so noble come true with so much on the line.
That lesson should be heeded for our nation’s lawmakers today as we move into the final days of this debt ceiling debate. What are they willing to sacrifice beyond their own proximate goal to get reelected? Sure, they say they are speaking on behalf of their constituents, but are they really?
Isn’t it the case that what Americans want most – more than anything else – is the ability to live as free as they can? To live and work and leave a better life for their children? How can that be when our government is doing all it can to ensure our children are enslaved in oceans of debt?
It’s evident to me that freedom is embodied in every last American and what many communicate to me on my radio show and in the thousands of emails and letters I receive. They don’t want to be led. No, these voters and individuals want leaders in Washington to carry out the will of the people. There’s a big difference there. To be led is to say that we are lemmings – less than fully intelligent and waiting for the sage wisdom of those in Washington to lead us to some promised land of Federal largesse. Not so.
What Americans really want is a group of lawmakers with a transcendent principle of freedom constantly acting as the lens through which all policy is viewed. If something enables or inspires individual liberty and freedom (and doesn’t impose some obligation on our fellow man), then they should pursue such policies. That is the will of most Americans, and they want lawmakers to enact that will – not mindlessly lead them where we all don’t want to go.
Let’s think about that as we celebrate our independence this glorious week .
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Enslaved on Independence Day
BY: Armstrong Williams
Enslaved on Independence Day
Every day we as humans are poised to learn lessons, or at least be reminded of them. This week, those lessons should be even more profound as we celebrate our nation’s independence.
It’s funny but sad at how so few Americans truly know what our Founding Fathers faced those centuries ago. As the most powerful army in the world was assembling on the shores of the New World with more soldiers than even our largest cities, these men were assembling in a hall to pen a manifesto of freedom.
At the end of the Declaration, they dedicated their lives, their entire property and their honor to this cause – this commitment to a principle that all persons should live free. Yes, they were willing to give everything for freedom. What sacrifice. What willingness to see a dream so noble come true with so much on the line.
That lesson should be heeded for our nation’s lawmakers today as we move into the final days of this debt ceiling debate. What are they willing to sacrifice beyond their own proximate goal to get reelected? Sure, they say they are speaking on behalf of their constituents, but are they really?
Isn’t it the case that what Americans want most – more than anything else – is the ability to live as free as they can? To live and work and leave a better life for their children? How can that be when our government is doing all it can to ensure our children are enslaved in oceans of debt?
It’s evident to me that freedom is embodied in every last American and what many communicate to me on my radio show and in the thousands of emails and letters I receive. They don’t want to be led. No, these voters and individuals want leaders in Washington to carry out the will of the people. There’s a big difference there. To be led is to say that we are lemmings – less than fully intelligent and waiting for the sage wisdom of those in Washington to lead us to some promised land of Federal largesse. Not so.
What Americans really want is a group of lawmakers with a transcendent principle of freedom constantly acting as the lens through which all policy is viewed. If something enables or inspires individual liberty and freedom (and doesn’t impose some obligation on our fellow man), then they should pursue such policies. That is the will of most Americans, and they want lawmakers to enact that will – not mindlessly lead them where we all don’t want to go.
Let’s think about that as we celebrate our independence this glorious week .
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
07/01/11
An opening for Pelosi
BY: Armstrong Williams
An opening for Pelosi
She doesn’t know it yet, but the week following the July 4th Congressional recess, Rep. Nancy Pelosi has an opportunity to step up on behalf of her party and lead the House, at least, out of its current gridlock over the debt limit debate.
What prompts me to say such a thing is that all eyes are now focused on the President, Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. That combo alone should cause someone of her great pride and sense of leadership to want to get in the mix.
But set egos aside for a moment, because that’s what ultimately trips up the players in this town. No, the former House Speaker can and should insert herself into the mix by extending an olive branch to the man who bested her and her party and offer to assist House Republicans with a way out of this current stalemate.
There are many plus sides to this tactic. Pelosi knows House Rs could easily roll her and the Democrats in the chamber. She also knows she’s less than two dozen seats from reclaiming the majority. And despite what she told reporters a few weeks ago that her party is in the minority, they don’t have to lead, I believe she could leverage her position for a long-term good.
Think about it, Republicans hold a tenuous grasp on the majority to begin with. Democrats also have now secured their election-year cudgel with which they will bash House Republicans (Medicare). But she has nothing to offer the voters come next November. No new plan or even a good reason why voters should send her party back to Washington in 2012 with the majority.
If she negotiates a deal with Republicans, she can prove to the country that her party is the one interested in solutions and compromise. That Democrats are no longer the party of “No” and they can not only protect vital programs such as Medicare, they’re also in touch with the harsh realities facing this country.
What else does she have to stand on if she disregards this window of opportunity? Nothing. Even the White House is quietly questioning her strength outside of her fundraising prowess. And if President Obama is reelected to another term, the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will be forced to deal with the current leadership vacuum in the House. Democrats simply cannot do the things for the country Obama wants to do with the stale, same old guard in control.
Something to think about in the coming weeks.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
An opening for Pelosi
BY: Armstrong Williams
An opening for Pelosi
She doesn’t know it yet, but the week following the July 4th Congressional recess, Rep. Nancy Pelosi has an opportunity to step up on behalf of her party and lead the House, at least, out of its current gridlock over the debt limit debate.
What prompts me to say such a thing is that all eyes are now focused on the President, Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. That combo alone should cause someone of her great pride and sense of leadership to want to get in the mix.
But set egos aside for a moment, because that’s what ultimately trips up the players in this town. No, the former House Speaker can and should insert herself into the mix by extending an olive branch to the man who bested her and her party and offer to assist House Republicans with a way out of this current stalemate.
There are many plus sides to this tactic. Pelosi knows House Rs could easily roll her and the Democrats in the chamber. She also knows she’s less than two dozen seats from reclaiming the majority. And despite what she told reporters a few weeks ago that her party is in the minority, they don’t have to lead, I believe she could leverage her position for a long-term good.
Think about it, Republicans hold a tenuous grasp on the majority to begin with. Democrats also have now secured their election-year cudgel with which they will bash House Republicans (Medicare). But she has nothing to offer the voters come next November. No new plan or even a good reason why voters should send her party back to Washington in 2012 with the majority.
If she negotiates a deal with Republicans, she can prove to the country that her party is the one interested in solutions and compromise. That Democrats are no longer the party of “No” and they can not only protect vital programs such as Medicare, they’re also in touch with the harsh realities facing this country.
What else does she have to stand on if she disregards this window of opportunity? Nothing. Even the White House is quietly questioning her strength outside of her fundraising prowess. And if President Obama is reelected to another term, the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will be forced to deal with the current leadership vacuum in the House. Democrats simply cannot do the things for the country Obama wants to do with the stale, same old guard in control.
Something to think about in the coming weeks.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/30/11
Myth of Hiring Unemployed Workers
Congress is considering a tax credit or reduction in employer social security payments to stimulate hiring of unemployed workers. Unfortunately the proponents of these programs show a fundamental lack of understanding of why companies increase employment. Jobs are a by-product of increased sales and revenues. Capitalist companies do not hire workers merely to employ a larger work force. This may happen in socialist economies but certainly not capitalist economies. In a modern capitalist economy, employees are expensive, require management and cannot be easily laid off in the event of incompetence or loss of business. Companies only increase employment because they have additional business that needs to be processed. No business hiresadditional labor because tax credits make it 10% cheaper. It hires additional labor only as the last alternative to servicing its current and expected business. Furthermore, if the company has additional business, then it will hire additional employees regardless of the 10% tax credit. Therefore the tax credit is an inefficient way to increase employment and waste of taxpayer money.
Myth of Hiring Unemployed Workers
Congress is considering a tax credit or reduction in employer social security payments to stimulate hiring of unemployed workers. Unfortunately the proponents of these programs show a fundamental lack of understanding of why companies increase employment. Jobs are a by-product of increased sales and revenues. Capitalist companies do not hire workers merely to employ a larger work force. This may happen in socialist economies but certainly not capitalist economies. In a modern capitalist economy, employees are expensive, require management and cannot be easily laid off in the event of incompetence or loss of business. Companies only increase employment because they have additional business that needs to be processed. No business hiresadditional labor because tax credits make it 10% cheaper. It hires additional labor only as the last alternative to servicing its current and expected business. Furthermore, if the company has additional business, then it will hire additional employees regardless of the 10% tax credit. Therefore the tax credit is an inefficient way to increase employment and waste of taxpayer money.
06/29/11
TSA's Lack of Respect
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~Lord Acton 1887
Have you traveled by air recently? Have you been one of the many lucky enough to be groped by the TSA? Every week there is a report of some TSA agents at some airport in, what I still like to believe, our great nation clearly overstepping boundaries, and every subsequent report is worse than the last.
There is one story that has gotten a lot of publicity recently and rightly so. Apparently a 95-year-old Lukemia patient on her way to an assisted living facility required further screening because there was something "wet" in her diaper. Something wet? In a diaper!? Heaven's No!!
Many of the agents employed at Home Land Security airports are not people of great accomplishment, and are not the most intellectually sophisticated people in our society. Yet when given a badge and some authority they allow the power to intoxicate them in believing they can mistreat and humiliate people at their whim. Unfortunately there seems to be no oversight of this behavior and, in fact, some of the supervisors also engage in this deplorable behavior. While it is true that we need to be vigilant against terrorist activity this should not be done at the expense of the freedom and dignity of our citizenry. We should devote as much attention to being respectful to the constituents of our great nation as we do to protecting it.
After all, the TSA goes through this dog and pony show to make us feel safe, but how safe can we feel when there exists the possibility that we've paid several hundred dollars only to be molested and publicly humiliated by the very same people responsible for our flight safety. Or even worse you could have been the parent forced to watch as your crying 6 year old daughter had her nether regions searched by a government agent fulfilling their duty. Disgusting.
TSA's Lack of Respect
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~Lord Acton 1887
Have you traveled by air recently? Have you been one of the many lucky enough to be groped by the TSA? Every week there is a report of some TSA agents at some airport in, what I still like to believe, our great nation clearly overstepping boundaries, and every subsequent report is worse than the last.
There is one story that has gotten a lot of publicity recently and rightly so. Apparently a 95-year-old Lukemia patient on her way to an assisted living facility required further screening because there was something "wet" in her diaper. Something wet? In a diaper!? Heaven's No!!
Many of the agents employed at Home Land Security airports are not people of great accomplishment, and are not the most intellectually sophisticated people in our society. Yet when given a badge and some authority they allow the power to intoxicate them in believing they can mistreat and humiliate people at their whim. Unfortunately there seems to be no oversight of this behavior and, in fact, some of the supervisors also engage in this deplorable behavior. While it is true that we need to be vigilant against terrorist activity this should not be done at the expense of the freedom and dignity of our citizenry. We should devote as much attention to being respectful to the constituents of our great nation as we do to protecting it.
After all, the TSA goes through this dog and pony show to make us feel safe, but how safe can we feel when there exists the possibility that we've paid several hundred dollars only to be molested and publicly humiliated by the very same people responsible for our flight safety. Or even worse you could have been the parent forced to watch as your crying 6 year old daughter had her nether regions searched by a government agent fulfilling their duty. Disgusting.
06/28/11
There are no sacred cows.
BY: Armstrong Williams
There are no sacred cows
When it comes to executing the decisions that matter, that truly impacts this country for generations to come, three set of people come to mind: those who don’t know what’s happening, those who watch what’s happening, and those who make things happen.
I won’t attempt to draw parallels between the three known political factions with the “doers” versus those who dawdle, for all bear some responsibility of seemingly waiting for something good to happen to them through no actions of their own. But let’s single out that specific category of “those who do” and determine what exactly it will take to turn any member of either party into genuine catalysts for change.
I’ve studied the debt ceiling debate and the impending crisis surrounding it for months now, and a very important characteristics come to mind on what is needed to address and solve this intractable problem.
A critical element to resolving any impasse dealing with spending the people’s money is compromise. As often as the term is tossed about, very few policymakers are willing to practice it, at least not when it comes to debt reduction. Notice how I did not use the word “consensus.” Long viewed as the preferred term of lawmakers because it suggested that both sides moved to the middle of a particular piece of legislation without surrendering one’s key agenda. Today, that can no longer be the case.
We need true sacrifice if the country is to return to fiscal balance. Taken further, that means both sides must acquiesce to significant, painful cuts. There can be no other way. The softer, easier alternatives of the past are just that – in the past. We can’t auction off the Post Office, shutter the Education Department or end federal funding of the NEA to pay for the piles of debt both parties have amassed through the generations.
Cuts, and deep ones at that, must be on the table and proffered by both sides. There are no sacred cows. Every day, Americans understand this truism more and more. They see it in the hard realities of no jobs being created, private investments and innovation being stifled because of federal spending “crowding out” such enterprising pursuits. The federal leviathan is slowly constricting our economy. The voters now understand that. It’s time those they elected did as well, and made some hard choices to address all of our concerns.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
There are no sacred cows.
BY: Armstrong Williams
There are no sacred cows
When it comes to executing the decisions that matter, that truly impacts this country for generations to come, three set of people come to mind: those who don’t know what’s happening, those who watch what’s happening, and those who make things happen.
I won’t attempt to draw parallels between the three known political factions with the “doers” versus those who dawdle, for all bear some responsibility of seemingly waiting for something good to happen to them through no actions of their own. But let’s single out that specific category of “those who do” and determine what exactly it will take to turn any member of either party into genuine catalysts for change.
I’ve studied the debt ceiling debate and the impending crisis surrounding it for months now, and a very important characteristics come to mind on what is needed to address and solve this intractable problem.
A critical element to resolving any impasse dealing with spending the people’s money is compromise. As often as the term is tossed about, very few policymakers are willing to practice it, at least not when it comes to debt reduction. Notice how I did not use the word “consensus.” Long viewed as the preferred term of lawmakers because it suggested that both sides moved to the middle of a particular piece of legislation without surrendering one’s key agenda. Today, that can no longer be the case.
We need true sacrifice if the country is to return to fiscal balance. Taken further, that means both sides must acquiesce to significant, painful cuts. There can be no other way. The softer, easier alternatives of the past are just that – in the past. We can’t auction off the Post Office, shutter the Education Department or end federal funding of the NEA to pay for the piles of debt both parties have amassed through the generations.
Cuts, and deep ones at that, must be on the table and proffered by both sides. There are no sacred cows. Every day, Americans understand this truism more and more. They see it in the hard realities of no jobs being created, private investments and innovation being stifled because of federal spending “crowding out” such enterprising pursuits. The federal leviathan is slowly constricting our economy. The voters now understand that. It’s time those they elected did as well, and made some hard choices to address all of our concerns.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/27/11
Why Newt Should Step Down
Another week has passed and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is still in the race for the GOP nomination. Why that is the case is beyond me.
Let’s face it, the only one who believes Newt has a chance is Newt himself, and as time and history have both proved, that’s not enough. In fact, that’s a sure sign the guy needs to drop out of the presidential race.
The entire Republican field has lapped him. They’re pushing hard in Iowa, New Hampshire, even in South Carolina and Florida. They’re making the nation’s former top lawmaker look sort of silly in his views on policies he once knew like the back of his hand (can someone say Medicare?).
C’mon, when you’ve lost your policy compass, your entire fundraising team, and you’d rather go on a two-week cruise in the middle of the presidential season, then it’s time to hang up your spurs and go back to running a health care think tank.
But Newt said over the weekend he’s raring to go. In fact, the loss of his staff was not a setback, but rather a situation that now allows him to feel “liberated.” What many would see as a string of bad luck and a reflection of a weak candidate, Gingrich instead see it as an opportunity to “focus on big solutions” as he told FOX News over the weekend and not match the pattern of Washington insider consultants.
Give me a break. Why is everything with the Speaker a major shift in the forces of the universe – all working together for his good? The fact that his entire team disintegrated in front of him is not a plus. It’s a minus. Only Al Gore or John Edwards would view such twists and abandonment as “liberating.”
Ok, so he wants to put a good spin on the fact that his campaign is unraveling. But therein lies a good lesson in life for Newt to learn – when it’s time to throw in the towel. There are still plenty of good money-making years left in his life, as a consultant.
Give up the White House quixotic pursuit, Mr. Speaker. You are better off, and the country as well, if you return to espousing big, Republican, conservative ideas and letting the pros of this generation run the White House’s current occupant out of a job next year.
Why Newt Should Step Down
Another week has passed and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is still in the race for the GOP nomination. Why that is the case is beyond me.
Let’s face it, the only one who believes Newt has a chance is Newt himself, and as time and history have both proved, that’s not enough. In fact, that’s a sure sign the guy needs to drop out of the presidential race.
The entire Republican field has lapped him. They’re pushing hard in Iowa, New Hampshire, even in South Carolina and Florida. They’re making the nation’s former top lawmaker look sort of silly in his views on policies he once knew like the back of his hand (can someone say Medicare?).
C’mon, when you’ve lost your policy compass, your entire fundraising team, and you’d rather go on a two-week cruise in the middle of the presidential season, then it’s time to hang up your spurs and go back to running a health care think tank.
But Newt said over the weekend he’s raring to go. In fact, the loss of his staff was not a setback, but rather a situation that now allows him to feel “liberated.” What many would see as a string of bad luck and a reflection of a weak candidate, Gingrich instead see it as an opportunity to “focus on big solutions” as he told FOX News over the weekend and not match the pattern of Washington insider consultants.
Give me a break. Why is everything with the Speaker a major shift in the forces of the universe – all working together for his good? The fact that his entire team disintegrated in front of him is not a plus. It’s a minus. Only Al Gore or John Edwards would view such twists and abandonment as “liberating.”
Ok, so he wants to put a good spin on the fact that his campaign is unraveling. But therein lies a good lesson in life for Newt to learn – when it’s time to throw in the towel. There are still plenty of good money-making years left in his life, as a consultant.
Give up the White House quixotic pursuit, Mr. Speaker. You are better off, and the country as well, if you return to espousing big, Republican, conservative ideas and letting the pros of this generation run the White House’s current occupant out of a job next year.
06/24/11
Time to call the Democrats' bluff on debt deal
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to call the Democrats’ bluff on debt deal
Vice President Joe Biden’s bicameral, bipartisan talks went into the ditch early yesterday when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl – the top Republicans in the negotiations – walked out over a deal that would ultimately involve Republicans agreeing to tax hikes.
A lot of progress had been made heretofore, and Republicans sort of knew when the question would come around to tax hikes to help eat into the nation’s massive debt, it would be gut check time. Republicans have a great argument – this is absolutely the worse time to be raising taxes, on anyone. If you don’t believe there is a ripple effect, just ask the White House why it decided to release millions of gallons of crude from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves. They know that even the slightest bit of relief at any consumer outlet – the pump, the grocery store, even from the Tax Man – has to be a good thing.
So Democrats know they’re playing with a new Third Rail of American politics – tax hikes. And it looks like they don’t want to be electrocuted.
By the same token, we must get a deal. We must begin to eat away at this country’s debt.
So here’s what I propose. We all know the Democrats aren’t truly serious about cutting spending, especially not on their Holy Grails of Social Security and Medicare, even though that’s where the most revenue can and should come.
So call their bluffs. Republicans should go ahead and say they are open to revenue raisers of some sort, but ONLY to the point that the amount of cuts is in direct proportion to the amount that spending ultimately contributed to the national debt. In other words, if the debt totals were the result of eight parts spending, and one part tax relief of the past, then suspend for the time being the fact that tax cuts actually SPUR the economy and mandate one thing: Democrats must agree they will cut eight dollars in spending from the debt for every one dollar they seek to raise in taxes.
I personally believe the ratio is more like 15:1 or even 35:1, but that’s not the point.
There’s no way Democrats will agree to such a deal, so call their bluff on the tax hikes. Because if Republicans don’t, they’ll be susceptible to charges such as the one Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made today that the GOP isn’t really serious about trimming the debt – a classic (yet lame) line used often in this town.
Republicans win either way – we either step closer to ending this constricting debt or Democrats end up looking like fools because they can’t kick the spending addiction they’ve come to love through the decades.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Time to call the Democrats' bluff on debt deal
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to call the Democrats’ bluff on debt deal
Vice President Joe Biden’s bicameral, bipartisan talks went into the ditch early yesterday when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl – the top Republicans in the negotiations – walked out over a deal that would ultimately involve Republicans agreeing to tax hikes.
A lot of progress had been made heretofore, and Republicans sort of knew when the question would come around to tax hikes to help eat into the nation’s massive debt, it would be gut check time. Republicans have a great argument – this is absolutely the worse time to be raising taxes, on anyone. If you don’t believe there is a ripple effect, just ask the White House why it decided to release millions of gallons of crude from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves. They know that even the slightest bit of relief at any consumer outlet – the pump, the grocery store, even from the Tax Man – has to be a good thing.
So Democrats know they’re playing with a new Third Rail of American politics – tax hikes. And it looks like they don’t want to be electrocuted.
By the same token, we must get a deal. We must begin to eat away at this country’s debt.
So here’s what I propose. We all know the Democrats aren’t truly serious about cutting spending, especially not on their Holy Grails of Social Security and Medicare, even though that’s where the most revenue can and should come.
So call their bluffs. Republicans should go ahead and say they are open to revenue raisers of some sort, but ONLY to the point that the amount of cuts is in direct proportion to the amount that spending ultimately contributed to the national debt. In other words, if the debt totals were the result of eight parts spending, and one part tax relief of the past, then suspend for the time being the fact that tax cuts actually SPUR the economy and mandate one thing: Democrats must agree they will cut eight dollars in spending from the debt for every one dollar they seek to raise in taxes.
I personally believe the ratio is more like 15:1 or even 35:1, but that’s not the point.
There’s no way Democrats will agree to such a deal, so call their bluff on the tax hikes. Because if Republicans don’t, they’ll be susceptible to charges such as the one Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made today that the GOP isn’t really serious about trimming the debt – a classic (yet lame) line used often in this town.
Republicans win either way – we either step closer to ending this constricting debt or Democrats end up looking like fools because they can’t kick the spending addiction they’ve come to love through the decades.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/23/11
Behavior-action-must rule the day
BY: Armstrong Williams
Behavior-action-must rule the day
It’s tempting to simplify and view Washington DC as the lair of three different types of people – Democrats, Republicans, and now the ever-growing Tea Party faithful. Pundits and political scientists are prone to slide the actors of this political drama into these three columns. When you know where one sits, it’s easier to understand where they will stand on the issues of the day.
Yet when it comes to executing the decisions that matter, that will truly impact this country for generations to come, another set of three come to mind: those who don’t know what’s happening, those who watch what’s happening, and those who make things happen.
I won’t attempt to draw parallels between the three known political factions with the “doers” versus those who dawdle, for all bear some responsibility of seemingly waiting for something good to happen to them through no actions of their own.
It is in this instance where lawmakers must examine themselves and prove they are worthy. The pursuit of self-esteem must yield to self-control. We live today in a society where emotion precedes behavior. If lawmakers feel good about a path they are taking, they’re more apt to choose it. Such an outcome will not and cannot occur with the debt. Behavior – action – must rule the day. And those actions of austerity must continue whether a lawmaker feels good about it or not.
America is waiting for its next class of political heroes. And I sense those who step forward and answer the call will be remembered less as Republican or Democrat, and more as those who chose to stop watching the process and started transforming the process.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Behavior-action-must rule the day
BY: Armstrong Williams
Behavior-action-must rule the day
It’s tempting to simplify and view Washington DC as the lair of three different types of people – Democrats, Republicans, and now the ever-growing Tea Party faithful. Pundits and political scientists are prone to slide the actors of this political drama into these three columns. When you know where one sits, it’s easier to understand where they will stand on the issues of the day.
Yet when it comes to executing the decisions that matter, that will truly impact this country for generations to come, another set of three come to mind: those who don’t know what’s happening, those who watch what’s happening, and those who make things happen.
I won’t attempt to draw parallels between the three known political factions with the “doers” versus those who dawdle, for all bear some responsibility of seemingly waiting for something good to happen to them through no actions of their own.
It is in this instance where lawmakers must examine themselves and prove they are worthy. The pursuit of self-esteem must yield to self-control. We live today in a society where emotion precedes behavior. If lawmakers feel good about a path they are taking, they’re more apt to choose it. Such an outcome will not and cannot occur with the debt. Behavior – action – must rule the day. And those actions of austerity must continue whether a lawmaker feels good about it or not.
America is waiting for its next class of political heroes. And I sense those who step forward and answer the call will be remembered less as Republican or Democrat, and more as those who chose to stop watching the process and started transforming the process.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/22/11
Obama's Constitutional Crisis?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Constitutional Crisis ?
Why is our President trying to create a constitutional crisis over the war powers act. Under the war powers act the President can engage in hostile activities for 90 days or he needs congressional approval. It is clear that US is engaged in hostile activities in Libya, when it sends drones to bomb Khadaffi forces and Military targets. It may be less clear when we're spending ten million dollars daily to support the NATO alliance in its aggression against Khadaffi. Nevertheless, a large segment of the GOP and the Democratic Party would have supported Obama's position in Libya if he had chosen to go before Congress. By choosing to ignore the war powers act, the President has set the stage for a constitutional crisis between his right to commit US forces and Congress prerogative to declare War.
Why is our president setting up a confrontation with Congress over Libya?
The principle reason the constitution gives Congress the final authority on war is because the American people must be united in any hostile activities and our forefather's were concerned about President's who would set us on a collision coarse without the approval of we the people.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's Constitutional Crisis?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Constitutional Crisis ?
Why is our President trying to create a constitutional crisis over the war powers act. Under the war powers act the President can engage in hostile activities for 90 days or he needs congressional approval. It is clear that US is engaged in hostile activities in Libya, when it sends drones to bomb Khadaffi forces and Military targets. It may be less clear when we're spending ten million dollars daily to support the NATO alliance in its aggression against Khadaffi. Nevertheless, a large segment of the GOP and the Democratic Party would have supported Obama's position in Libya if he had chosen to go before Congress. By choosing to ignore the war powers act, the President has set the stage for a constitutional crisis between his right to commit US forces and Congress prerogative to declare War.
Why is our president setting up a confrontation with Congress over Libya?
The principle reason the constitution gives Congress the final authority on war is because the American people must be united in any hostile activities and our forefather's were concerned about President's who would set us on a collision coarse without the approval of we the people.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/21/11
Reelection is the arch-enemy of courage
BY: Armstrong Williams
Reelection is the arch-enemy of courage
One thing is certain, the American people are growing tired of those who offer excuses for their inactivity. Earlier this month, a Washington Post poll asked which party Americans trust the most to address the country’s largest problems. A record 20 percent of Americans indicated they put their faith in “neither” party, the highest percentage in over three decades. One in five doesn’t trust either party to set aside its partisanship long enough to tackle the big issues. Think about that; not abortion, or farm credits or even welfare. We’re talking about the ability of our country to meet its financial obligations, and 20 percent of Americans would rather see the milkman take an honest stab at it. Hence the need for “doers”, those who are willing to check their party labels at the door, and, consequences be damned, they’re going to do what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents.
Keep in mind that courage without the first element – compromise – is folly. It’s not enough to get tough with the issues, one must be willing to not only go after someone else’s ox, they must be willing to place their own on the altar of fiscal discipline.
Reelection is the arch-enemy of courage. The two cannot coexist peacefully in this debt reduction climate. At the very least, policymakers must rearrange their priorities to the point where getting elected to office is not the first and last thoughts that dictate the positions they take. It’s happening now with the collection of House Republican freshmen, and it will only fester as voters grow weary of gridlock.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Reelection is the arch-enemy of courage
BY: Armstrong Williams
Reelection is the arch-enemy of courage
One thing is certain, the American people are growing tired of those who offer excuses for their inactivity. Earlier this month, a Washington Post poll asked which party Americans trust the most to address the country’s largest problems. A record 20 percent of Americans indicated they put their faith in “neither” party, the highest percentage in over three decades. One in five doesn’t trust either party to set aside its partisanship long enough to tackle the big issues. Think about that; not abortion, or farm credits or even welfare. We’re talking about the ability of our country to meet its financial obligations, and 20 percent of Americans would rather see the milkman take an honest stab at it. Hence the need for “doers”, those who are willing to check their party labels at the door, and, consequences be damned, they’re going to do what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents.
Keep in mind that courage without the first element – compromise – is folly. It’s not enough to get tough with the issues, one must be willing to not only go after someone else’s ox, they must be willing to place their own on the altar of fiscal discipline.
Reelection is the arch-enemy of courage. The two cannot coexist peacefully in this debt reduction climate. At the very least, policymakers must rearrange their priorities to the point where getting elected to office is not the first and last thoughts that dictate the positions they take. It’s happening now with the collection of House Republican freshmen, and it will only fester as voters grow weary of gridlock.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/20/11
Run Rick, Run !
BY: Armstrong Williams
Run Rick, Run!
There were a lot of interesting speeches and political talk coming out of this year’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans this past weekend, but the one everyone seems to keep mentioning is Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
The Lone Star State chief executive proved he knows a thing or two about states’ rights, the 10th Amendment, and the confiscatory nature of the federal government. Tea Party faithful will like that. Yet the governor has also shown that he can execute. During some lean years around the country where unemployment hovers in the high 9s, Texas posted a May unemployment of a steady 8 percent. Prior to the Great Recession, Texas counted itself as one of the strongest job creators in the private sector, many of whom laid that credit at Perry’s feet.
So it’s no surprise the Texas governor would immediately vault to the top of the GOP nominating ranks if he were to decide to run. But isn’t that expected? It’s also no surprise that the party faithful are less than enchanted with the current crop of candidates, and one more contender of Perry’s background and charisma would certainly shake up the field. It would also test the mettle of Romney and Pawlenty, something the entire process should welcome, for it only makes them more formidable against a strong Democrat opponent.
Perhaps Perry’s strongest trait is his chief executive status of a large, diverse state. Certainly Bush 43 got a bump by virtue of the fact that he heralded from the Republic of Texas. Then there’s the fact he’s a governor, and voters historically like the notion of governors going on to run for president.
Perry’s liabilities are equally clear. He’s from Texas. Americans are still hung over from the Bush era. I’m not sure they’re ready for another candidate who comes closest to mirroring a Bush. Perry is also coming in late to this dance. Some will argue there is still plenty of time, and given Perry’s fundraising prowess, perhaps that’s accurate. But presidential races are growing more and more formulaic through the cycles. As one veteran recently told me, presidential wannabes need to plan as though they are always running, then opt to withdraw. They can’t exactly plan as though they’re not running, only to change their mind and opt in. That latter scenario describes Perry’s “don’t make me do it” situation.
So “run Rick, run.” It’s anybody’s nomination at this point.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Run Rick, Run !
BY: Armstrong Williams
Run Rick, Run!
There were a lot of interesting speeches and political talk coming out of this year’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans this past weekend, but the one everyone seems to keep mentioning is Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
The Lone Star State chief executive proved he knows a thing or two about states’ rights, the 10th Amendment, and the confiscatory nature of the federal government. Tea Party faithful will like that. Yet the governor has also shown that he can execute. During some lean years around the country where unemployment hovers in the high 9s, Texas posted a May unemployment of a steady 8 percent. Prior to the Great Recession, Texas counted itself as one of the strongest job creators in the private sector, many of whom laid that credit at Perry’s feet.
So it’s no surprise the Texas governor would immediately vault to the top of the GOP nominating ranks if he were to decide to run. But isn’t that expected? It’s also no surprise that the party faithful are less than enchanted with the current crop of candidates, and one more contender of Perry’s background and charisma would certainly shake up the field. It would also test the mettle of Romney and Pawlenty, something the entire process should welcome, for it only makes them more formidable against a strong Democrat opponent.
Perhaps Perry’s strongest trait is his chief executive status of a large, diverse state. Certainly Bush 43 got a bump by virtue of the fact that he heralded from the Republic of Texas. Then there’s the fact he’s a governor, and voters historically like the notion of governors going on to run for president.
Perry’s liabilities are equally clear. He’s from Texas. Americans are still hung over from the Bush era. I’m not sure they’re ready for another candidate who comes closest to mirroring a Bush. Perry is also coming in late to this dance. Some will argue there is still plenty of time, and given Perry’s fundraising prowess, perhaps that’s accurate. But presidential races are growing more and more formulaic through the cycles. As one veteran recently told me, presidential wannabes need to plan as though they are always running, then opt to withdraw. They can’t exactly plan as though they’re not running, only to change their mind and opt in. That latter scenario describes Perry’s “don’t make me do it” situation.
So “run Rick, run.” It’s anybody’s nomination at this point.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/17/11
Enduring Lessons of my Father
BY: Armstrong Williams
Enduring Lessons of my Father
Like most parents, my father expected a lot of his 10 children (eight boys and two girls) and he pushed them - by encouragement and the occasional lash - to fulfill their potential. I remember the strong grip of his hands as he taught me how to throw. Just as I remember, with perfect vividness, the strength of his arms as he hugged me after I won the 1976 high school oratory contest, or the abundance of joy in his face as I received my college diploma. More importantly, though, my father was there when I didn't meet his expectations. He taught us the personal satisfaction of doing a job well, but he never abandoned us when we fell short of our aspirations. Beyond the father/son cliches of practicing sports together, dad was always there. It is amazing what men can achieve when their father's believe in them.
My father's idea of manhood was bound up in a deeply spiritual mandate to fulfill one's potential. The values that he taught me - personal responsibility, economic independence, thrift, the importance of having a strong work ethic, the joy of learning, ambition and perseverance - I now realize are essential ingredients to success When we embrace these timeless values, the walls between us fall and other differences - skin color, background and politics - become inconsequential. We see that we all want an essential joy for our families and ourselves. There is more uniting us than there is dividing us.
My father understood that faith and family values were the foundation that helped us navigate our lives. Those same beliefs are what motivate my siblings and I as we go about our lives. Every day we try to model our conduct on the example that my father set. We thank him for teaching us right from wrong and instilling in us the values that have kept us searching and striving to stay on the right side of our Creator.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Enduring Lessons of my Father
BY: Armstrong Williams
Enduring Lessons of my Father
Like most parents, my father expected a lot of his 10 children (eight boys and two girls) and he pushed them - by encouragement and the occasional lash - to fulfill their potential. I remember the strong grip of his hands as he taught me how to throw. Just as I remember, with perfect vividness, the strength of his arms as he hugged me after I won the 1976 high school oratory contest, or the abundance of joy in his face as I received my college diploma. More importantly, though, my father was there when I didn't meet his expectations. He taught us the personal satisfaction of doing a job well, but he never abandoned us when we fell short of our aspirations. Beyond the father/son cliches of practicing sports together, dad was always there. It is amazing what men can achieve when their father's believe in them.
My father's idea of manhood was bound up in a deeply spiritual mandate to fulfill one's potential. The values that he taught me - personal responsibility, economic independence, thrift, the importance of having a strong work ethic, the joy of learning, ambition and perseverance - I now realize are essential ingredients to success When we embrace these timeless values, the walls between us fall and other differences - skin color, background and politics - become inconsequential. We see that we all want an essential joy for our families and ourselves. There is more uniting us than there is dividing us.
My father understood that faith and family values were the foundation that helped us navigate our lives. Those same beliefs are what motivate my siblings and I as we go about our lives. Every day we try to model our conduct on the example that my father set. We thank him for teaching us right from wrong and instilling in us the values that have kept us searching and striving to stay on the right side of our Creator.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/16/11
The President and Puerto Rico
BY: Armstrong Williams
The President and Puerto Rico
President Obama gave a speech earlier this week in Puerto Rico. What’s significant about that visit wasn’t the speech, or some new stance on the issue that has been the one consistent question on the part of the Commonwealth – statehood - rather, it was the fact the President chose to visit the place at all.
Not since John Kennedy was president in 1961 has a sitting Chief Executive visited the island. That’s almost 50 years since the leader of that territory – the President to all Americans – visited in some official capacity.
I find that amazing and sad at the same time. It’s sad because this nation needs to feel like a country again – the “united” in United States has frankly exited stage right. We are too consumed with our own individual identities, self-worth, and self-absorption that we have lost all track of what makes us distinctly American and, more importantly, how we share that kindred spirit with each other.
So kudos to the President for this move. While it wasn’t bold in any foreign or domestic policy sense, it does say a lot about this Administration’s desire to reach out to all in the land. Sure, there were political motivations. But are the Republicans more upset at the White House trying to secure a strong Puerto Rican demographic in Florida – a key swing state – or are they mad they didn’t think to send one of Obama’s GOP predecessors there first? Hello George W. Bush…
Suspend the political calculus for a moment and see this visit for what it was – an important check-in by the Commander-in-Chief on a spot of land that is very important to us as a nation.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The President and Puerto Rico
BY: Armstrong Williams
The President and Puerto Rico
President Obama gave a speech earlier this week in Puerto Rico. What’s significant about that visit wasn’t the speech, or some new stance on the issue that has been the one consistent question on the part of the Commonwealth – statehood - rather, it was the fact the President chose to visit the place at all.
Not since John Kennedy was president in 1961 has a sitting Chief Executive visited the island. That’s almost 50 years since the leader of that territory – the President to all Americans – visited in some official capacity.
I find that amazing and sad at the same time. It’s sad because this nation needs to feel like a country again – the “united” in United States has frankly exited stage right. We are too consumed with our own individual identities, self-worth, and self-absorption that we have lost all track of what makes us distinctly American and, more importantly, how we share that kindred spirit with each other.
So kudos to the President for this move. While it wasn’t bold in any foreign or domestic policy sense, it does say a lot about this Administration’s desire to reach out to all in the land. Sure, there were political motivations. But are the Republicans more upset at the White House trying to secure a strong Puerto Rican demographic in Florida – a key swing state – or are they mad they didn’t think to send one of Obama’s GOP predecessors there first? Hello George W. Bush…
Suspend the political calculus for a moment and see this visit for what it was – an important check-in by the Commander-in-Chief on a spot of land that is very important to us as a nation.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/15/11
Fair & Logical Taxation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fair & Logical Taxation
Is it hard to understand why the GOP isn't advocating a major overhaul of our tax structure? Our tax code is so complex that no one, regardless of how compulsive they are, can comply with every aspect of it. Which means that is possible for anyone to be cited for a tax violation at the will of the government. Now it is true that our financial crisis requires an enhanced revenue stream for the government but it is idiocy to attempt to achieve this by higher taxes. There is a much more logical way to achieve enhanced revenue and not destroy the economy in the process, we must reform the system and make it fair and equitable for everyone including the rich who are also we the people. The first step is closing loop holes, which simply allow manipulation and corruption, and second is lowering tax rates to a level that is reasonable for everyone. These measures would include significant simplification of the tax code which, as a bonus, reduces the risk to every tax payer of being cited for an infraction. Since raising taxes consistently results in revenue decreases for the government and lowering taxes consistently increase revenue, a combination of lowering tax rates and closing tax loop holes should result in a windfall for our government while at the same time raising the spirit of the people.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Fair & Logical Taxation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fair & Logical Taxation
Is it hard to understand why the GOP isn't advocating a major overhaul of our tax structure? Our tax code is so complex that no one, regardless of how compulsive they are, can comply with every aspect of it. Which means that is possible for anyone to be cited for a tax violation at the will of the government. Now it is true that our financial crisis requires an enhanced revenue stream for the government but it is idiocy to attempt to achieve this by higher taxes. There is a much more logical way to achieve enhanced revenue and not destroy the economy in the process, we must reform the system and make it fair and equitable for everyone including the rich who are also we the people. The first step is closing loop holes, which simply allow manipulation and corruption, and second is lowering tax rates to a level that is reasonable for everyone. These measures would include significant simplification of the tax code which, as a bonus, reduces the risk to every tax payer of being cited for an infraction. Since raising taxes consistently results in revenue decreases for the government and lowering taxes consistently increase revenue, a combination of lowering tax rates and closing tax loop holes should result in a windfall for our government while at the same time raising the spirit of the people.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/14/11
Leadership and Indiscretion
Leadership and indiscretions
By Armstrong Williams
What is it that makes us all think we can get away with it? And by all, I mean all men. It seems that across the board, and irrespective of political affiliation, men have failed at exhibiting the better part of valor when it comes to sex. The recent and devastating implosions of once powerful men, whether Arnold Schwarzenegger, Congressman Anthony Weiner or Senator John Edwards suggest a powerful connection between sex, power and the public eye.
But what many forget is the fact that married men cheat all the time. The alarming divorce rate and rate of out of wedlock births alone is proof enough of this. So it should come of no surprise that men who reach the pinnacles of power succumb to some of the same problems that mere mortals struggle with every day. Or should it? After all, people in power know that fame is a double edged sword. It amplifies your successes and failures alike. You would think that discretion in sexual matters would be on the first page of the public figure’s handbook. And yet, time and again, the sexual indiscretions of powerful men spill out of the bedroom and onto the front page.
But this brings up a real question about leadership. Some would question whether a man who has cheated on his spouse and lied about it to the public the way Congressman Weiner did is really fit for leadership. My question is, given what we know now about men in power and a few exceptional women, are they any less qualified once their indiscretions have surfaced than they were before so?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Leadership and Indiscretion
Leadership and indiscretions
By Armstrong Williams
What is it that makes us all think we can get away with it? And by all, I mean all men. It seems that across the board, and irrespective of political affiliation, men have failed at exhibiting the better part of valor when it comes to sex. The recent and devastating implosions of once powerful men, whether Arnold Schwarzenegger, Congressman Anthony Weiner or Senator John Edwards suggest a powerful connection between sex, power and the public eye.
But what many forget is the fact that married men cheat all the time. The alarming divorce rate and rate of out of wedlock births alone is proof enough of this. So it should come of no surprise that men who reach the pinnacles of power succumb to some of the same problems that mere mortals struggle with every day. Or should it? After all, people in power know that fame is a double edged sword. It amplifies your successes and failures alike. You would think that discretion in sexual matters would be on the first page of the public figure’s handbook. And yet, time and again, the sexual indiscretions of powerful men spill out of the bedroom and onto the front page.
But this brings up a real question about leadership. Some would question whether a man who has cheated on his spouse and lied about it to the public the way Congressman Weiner did is really fit for leadership. My question is, given what we know now about men in power and a few exceptional women, are they any less qualified once their indiscretions have surfaced than they were before so?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/13/11
Joke's on the press after Palin email witch-hunt turns up zilch
BY: Armstrong Williams
Joke's on the press corps after Palin email witch-hunt turns up zilch
It was the biggest non-story story in Washington since Al Gore’s global warming tirades. I’m talking about the release of thousands of emails of former Governor Sarah Palin last Friday in Juneau, Alaska. The release of emails (printed on paper) had reporters forming lines the lengths of which made the O.J. Simpson trial look like a queue at the local Dairy Queen.
News outlets such as the Washington Post publicly heralded their “read em here first” status. Never mind that no reporter had actually spent any time and bothered to read them. The editors just wanted to get the “full coverage” mantra out in order to light up the Google tote board.
That was Friday. By Saturday, a shocking revelation ripped through the nation’s headlines: Palin had a 3rd email account!! Oh, the political tremors that were felt then! No lie, folks. That was the headline if you weren’t following. Surely, there would be something more salacious to uncover, no? I have three email accounts. Does the Washington Post want to put a dozen reporters on the case?
More breaking news revealed from poring over the Lost Scrolls of Palin – she used her email to discuss the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens. Wow, what amazing sleuth work on the part of the mainstream media. Here we have the sitting governor of the state whose most powerful son – the senior Senator – has been indicted and she (gasped) wanted to discuss the matter! Someone call Rod Blagojevich and tell him that’s how one uses email – not to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder.
And then finally on Sunday, the coup de grace. The Associated Press reporting that Palin’s emails painted her as an “image conscious, driven leader angling for higher office.” Well now, they just described every member of the U.S. House and Senate. Chuck Schumer, look out.
This would be funny if the handling of the release by the media weren’t so sad. If only the press corps threw the same amount of time and energy into uncovering why this Administration can’t seem to create one job in the private sector.
The Huffington Post’s John Linkins said it best on Friday when pondering if the press was really performing a public service, or just wasting a lot of time in scouring through mundane and overall meaningless emails, saying, “…It’s really not hard to think that the joke might somehow be on us.”
Indeed, it is.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Joke's on the press after Palin email witch-hunt turns up zilch
BY: Armstrong Williams
Joke's on the press corps after Palin email witch-hunt turns up zilch
It was the biggest non-story story in Washington since Al Gore’s global warming tirades. I’m talking about the release of thousands of emails of former Governor Sarah Palin last Friday in Juneau, Alaska. The release of emails (printed on paper) had reporters forming lines the lengths of which made the O.J. Simpson trial look like a queue at the local Dairy Queen.
News outlets such as the Washington Post publicly heralded their “read em here first” status. Never mind that no reporter had actually spent any time and bothered to read them. The editors just wanted to get the “full coverage” mantra out in order to light up the Google tote board.
That was Friday. By Saturday, a shocking revelation ripped through the nation’s headlines: Palin had a 3rd email account!! Oh, the political tremors that were felt then! No lie, folks. That was the headline if you weren’t following. Surely, there would be something more salacious to uncover, no? I have three email accounts. Does the Washington Post want to put a dozen reporters on the case?
More breaking news revealed from poring over the Lost Scrolls of Palin – she used her email to discuss the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens. Wow, what amazing sleuth work on the part of the mainstream media. Here we have the sitting governor of the state whose most powerful son – the senior Senator – has been indicted and she (gasped) wanted to discuss the matter! Someone call Rod Blagojevich and tell him that’s how one uses email – not to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder.
And then finally on Sunday, the coup de grace. The Associated Press reporting that Palin’s emails painted her as an “image conscious, driven leader angling for higher office.” Well now, they just described every member of the U.S. House and Senate. Chuck Schumer, look out.
This would be funny if the handling of the release by the media weren’t so sad. If only the press corps threw the same amount of time and energy into uncovering why this Administration can’t seem to create one job in the private sector.
The Huffington Post’s John Linkins said it best on Friday when pondering if the press was really performing a public service, or just wasting a lot of time in scouring through mundane and overall meaningless emails, saying, “…It’s really not hard to think that the joke might somehow be on us.”
Indeed, it is.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/10/11
Privatizing Social Security
BY: Armstrong Williams
Privatizing Social Security
You can only raise taxes or increase the retirement age by so much. The problem of too few workers supporting too many retirees will continue to lurk as long as infant mortality rates continue to decrease and life expectancy continues to increase.
The only way to actually solve the problem is to transfer our Social Security taxes into privately managed universal savings accounts. Under such a system, each individual would be responsible for managing his or her retirement savings. Rather than have money bogged down in a low-yield Treasury bill (as currently is the case), an individual could benefit from much higher rates of return in the stock market.
Under a privatized system, a worker can simply enter into a computer his desired benefits and retirement age. The computer then specifies how much he must withdraw from his salary each month in order to meet those goals. In such a manner, the worker can sculpt his retirement savings to meet his individual needs.
Giving people more of a choice in their retirement planning will better connect them to the economy. Each American will understand that his retirement savings rest in the well-being of the economy. Consequently, the populace will be less likely to make a run on their banks at the first signs of financial tremors.
The free-market economy will strengthen as citizens exert control over their financial well-being, rather than relying upon the government to administer aid like some subtle narcotic.
The alternative is to continue ignoring the problem. Most of our politicians are comfortable with that. Social Security is one of those issues that can only get a politician in trouble — mostly because citizens rely on it, but they generally don't know how it works. That's the real reason that a Social Security overhaul currently lacks enough votes to pass through the Senate — politicians are scared to touch it.
Unfortunately if they don't find the courage to overhaul the system, it is either going to collapse or its maintenance is going to result in crushing tax rates for our children.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Privatizing Social Security
BY: Armstrong Williams
Privatizing Social Security
You can only raise taxes or increase the retirement age by so much. The problem of too few workers supporting too many retirees will continue to lurk as long as infant mortality rates continue to decrease and life expectancy continues to increase.
The only way to actually solve the problem is to transfer our Social Security taxes into privately managed universal savings accounts. Under such a system, each individual would be responsible for managing his or her retirement savings. Rather than have money bogged down in a low-yield Treasury bill (as currently is the case), an individual could benefit from much higher rates of return in the stock market.
Under a privatized system, a worker can simply enter into a computer his desired benefits and retirement age. The computer then specifies how much he must withdraw from his salary each month in order to meet those goals. In such a manner, the worker can sculpt his retirement savings to meet his individual needs.
Giving people more of a choice in their retirement planning will better connect them to the economy. Each American will understand that his retirement savings rest in the well-being of the economy. Consequently, the populace will be less likely to make a run on their banks at the first signs of financial tremors.
The free-market economy will strengthen as citizens exert control over their financial well-being, rather than relying upon the government to administer aid like some subtle narcotic.
The alternative is to continue ignoring the problem. Most of our politicians are comfortable with that. Social Security is one of those issues that can only get a politician in trouble — mostly because citizens rely on it, but they generally don't know how it works. That's the real reason that a Social Security overhaul currently lacks enough votes to pass through the Senate — politicians are scared to touch it.
Unfortunately if they don't find the courage to overhaul the system, it is either going to collapse or its maintenance is going to result in crushing tax rates for our children.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/09/11
Gutter Journalism at Newsweek
BY: Armstrong Williams
Gutter Journalism at Newsweek
If you ever needed a reason for why news magazines are starving for attention and consumer dollars, just stroll down the aisle of your favorite supermarket and you can judge this industry by its cover(s) alone. They’re pathetic. They continually fight against their very core to deliver cutting-edge journalism that compiles the top stories of the week, and instead look increasingly like their neighboring world wrestling federation pubs.
I couldn’t believe what I saw last night while in my area bookstore. I had heard about Newsweek’s controversial cover of Governor Mitt Romney and a colleague remarking how “tasteless” it was, but it didn’t hit home until I actually saw it.
There on the cover I saw some gangly body with the head of Mitt Romney photo-shopped on top. The idea was to borrow a theme from the Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” and affix some political twist with a back-handed compliment that all those darn Mormons are just so successful these days… What gives?? As if anyone outside of Manhattan would pick up on such stupidity.
This is beyond poor taste or junior varsity decision-making by Newsweek’s editors. They were clearly trying to make a statement – to mock the Republican’s presidential front-runner and remind everyone who didn’t already know that Mitt Romney was some “crazy” Mormon.
Why is it that Newsweek and other mainstream media publications can feign outrage and trot out all sorts of “isms” when it suits their agendas, yet it’s perfectly acceptable mock others as they deem? Will Newsweek’s editors next run a photo of Rick Santorum on a Catholic cross with some cute headline of his messianic drive toward the White House? Where is the line? And who at Newsweek gets to decide?
The sad commentary here is that Newsweek is now notorious for such infantile moves. And their chief target during the past few years has been Sarah Palin. The magazine’s disdain for the Alaskan governor is palpable. On its Oct. 13, 2008 issue, Newsweek ran an extreme close-up shot of Palin on its cover. Only that one was not photo-shopped, revealing less-than-flattering views of her deep pores, stray facial hair and other blemishes a woman would never want shared. Ever see that with Hillary Clinton when she was running? Let’s put it this way, if the same photo was taken of Vice President Joe Biden, we could probably count the number of ear hairs the man had, as well as how many of his teeth were beginning to yellow.
Not to be outdone, Newsweek followed up with a mid-November 2009 cover of Palin on its cover showing her legs in some high-cut shorts. The shot was actually not taken by Newsweek, but instead bootlegged off a cover shoot Palin did for Runner’s World magazine.
This is a world-class news magazine. Why does it need to stoop to such lows to advance its agenda and tear down conservatives?
Try and think of one shot of President Obama on the cover of a magazine in an equally unflattering light. You can’t.
The Newsweek Romney cover is beyond the pale. Draw a parallel to our sitting president if you disagree.
Would anyone cry foul if Obama were running for president and Newsweek depicted him in the colorful Maasai tribal garb of his father’s African homeland, Kenya? You get the idea and the stereotype formed there. No one would dare accept such an overtly racist depiction. And yet Newsweek shamelessly bashes a man for his religious faith, and we’re expected to view that as all in good taste?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside
Gutter Journalism at Newsweek
BY: Armstrong Williams
Gutter Journalism at Newsweek
If you ever needed a reason for why news magazines are starving for attention and consumer dollars, just stroll down the aisle of your favorite supermarket and you can judge this industry by its cover(s) alone. They’re pathetic. They continually fight against their very core to deliver cutting-edge journalism that compiles the top stories of the week, and instead look increasingly like their neighboring world wrestling federation pubs.
I couldn’t believe what I saw last night while in my area bookstore. I had heard about Newsweek’s controversial cover of Governor Mitt Romney and a colleague remarking how “tasteless” it was, but it didn’t hit home until I actually saw it.
There on the cover I saw some gangly body with the head of Mitt Romney photo-shopped on top. The idea was to borrow a theme from the Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” and affix some political twist with a back-handed compliment that all those darn Mormons are just so successful these days… What gives?? As if anyone outside of Manhattan would pick up on such stupidity.
This is beyond poor taste or junior varsity decision-making by Newsweek’s editors. They were clearly trying to make a statement – to mock the Republican’s presidential front-runner and remind everyone who didn’t already know that Mitt Romney was some “crazy” Mormon.
Why is it that Newsweek and other mainstream media publications can feign outrage and trot out all sorts of “isms” when it suits their agendas, yet it’s perfectly acceptable mock others as they deem? Will Newsweek’s editors next run a photo of Rick Santorum on a Catholic cross with some cute headline of his messianic drive toward the White House? Where is the line? And who at Newsweek gets to decide?
The sad commentary here is that Newsweek is now notorious for such infantile moves. And their chief target during the past few years has been Sarah Palin. The magazine’s disdain for the Alaskan governor is palpable. On its Oct. 13, 2008 issue, Newsweek ran an extreme close-up shot of Palin on its cover. Only that one was not photo-shopped, revealing less-than-flattering views of her deep pores, stray facial hair and other blemishes a woman would never want shared. Ever see that with Hillary Clinton when she was running? Let’s put it this way, if the same photo was taken of Vice President Joe Biden, we could probably count the number of ear hairs the man had, as well as how many of his teeth were beginning to yellow.
Not to be outdone, Newsweek followed up with a mid-November 2009 cover of Palin on its cover showing her legs in some high-cut shorts. The shot was actually not taken by Newsweek, but instead bootlegged off a cover shoot Palin did for Runner’s World magazine.
This is a world-class news magazine. Why does it need to stoop to such lows to advance its agenda and tear down conservatives?
Try and think of one shot of President Obama on the cover of a magazine in an equally unflattering light. You can’t.
The Newsweek Romney cover is beyond the pale. Draw a parallel to our sitting president if you disagree.
Would anyone cry foul if Obama were running for president and Newsweek depicted him in the colorful Maasai tribal garb of his father’s African homeland, Kenya? You get the idea and the stereotype formed there. No one would dare accept such an overtly racist depiction. And yet Newsweek shamelessly bashes a man for his religious faith, and we’re expected to view that as all in good taste?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside
06/08/11
Calamity vs Opportunity
BY: Armstrong Williams
Calamity v Opportunity
The magnitude of global events over the past few years signals a shift in the world’s geopolitical order. Economic growth in the major developed nations has slowed and the world is looking to emerging economies to drive global expansion. We have been the lynchpin for the global economy for decades, what nations are now prepared to lead the way if the once great US of A continues to spiral economically out of control? America’s identity has been strongly defined by its commitment to the less fortunate, The New Deal, War on Poverty, and social insurance programs have helped America develop social cohesion. However, these same programs are bankrupting and negatively impacting our economy and our human capital is paying a huge price as a result. We should know from the past that the models of Communism and Socialism have not sustained themselves and in many ways have self-destructed. In the long haul capitalism, which built America, is the best model for long existing super powers.
Whenever great change occurs things fall apart, but that is not the end of the story. In the place of old traditions, new ones inevitably emerge. As the world becomes more complex and interdependent, local relationships give way to national relationships and broader interdependencies. To the casual observer, this process of coming together on the global stage might appear chaotic and fraught with uncertainties, but the courageous and far sighted recognize change for what it is: an opportunity to grow.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Calamity vs Opportunity
BY: Armstrong Williams
Calamity v Opportunity
The magnitude of global events over the past few years signals a shift in the world’s geopolitical order. Economic growth in the major developed nations has slowed and the world is looking to emerging economies to drive global expansion. We have been the lynchpin for the global economy for decades, what nations are now prepared to lead the way if the once great US of A continues to spiral economically out of control? America’s identity has been strongly defined by its commitment to the less fortunate, The New Deal, War on Poverty, and social insurance programs have helped America develop social cohesion. However, these same programs are bankrupting and negatively impacting our economy and our human capital is paying a huge price as a result. We should know from the past that the models of Communism and Socialism have not sustained themselves and in many ways have self-destructed. In the long haul capitalism, which built America, is the best model for long existing super powers.
Whenever great change occurs things fall apart, but that is not the end of the story. In the place of old traditions, new ones inevitably emerge. As the world becomes more complex and interdependent, local relationships give way to national relationships and broader interdependencies. To the casual observer, this process of coming together on the global stage might appear chaotic and fraught with uncertainties, but the courageous and far sighted recognize change for what it is: an opportunity to grow.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/07/11
The end of Rep. Anthony Weiner
BY: Armstrong Williams
The end of Rep. Anthony Weiner
Shocking revelations yesterday of lewd texts sent via Twitter by New York Congressman Anthony Weiner can only point to one outcome – he must resign.
It’s the best move for him, but more importantly, it’s the best thing for his family, notably his young bride and his nascent marriage.
I felt Weiner did a fairly nice job at his press conference confronting his sins head on. But what undercut his entire effort was the part in his statement where he indicated he would not resign his post. It was as if he was saying, “I did something wrong, but it doesn’t rise to the level of my ending my political career.”
If revealed body parts alone were indications of degrees of the offense, then Weiner loses his seat as well. Just look at his up-state colleague, former Rep. Chris Lee. He merely sent shirtless photos of himself, and immediately stepped down.
Weiner has been sexting and/or texting girls other than his wife for years now, and he thinks he can side-step or outlast this revelation through one press conference?
This whole episode suggests the story is not yet fully written. I suspect Weiner did more than just text these women. Or if that was all he did, then there is someone else where he crossed the line, physically. Perhaps time will tell. Why else would he decide, at the moment when it appeared he was escaping this brouhaha, that it was time to come clean if he had nothing else to hide?
The fact that Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has called for a congressional ethics investigation should tip us off that she’s first and foremost protecting the party. Good for her. It’s not worth forfeiting the principles of her caucus for a pol who has been all about himself. For not only has Weiner alienated himself with his pompous ways, but he also attacked vehemently the national press corps, essentially calling them all liars, scoffing at their questions.
This entire episode is bad for representative government. Ensign, Vitter, Lee, Schwarzenegger, Edwards…what’s next? Both parties must realize the personal peccadillos of its members must move to the back of the room. When these members arrive in Washington, they need to have their game faces on. The quickest way to restore some of the MAJOR credibility this institution has lost is to actually move legislation and achieve something on behalf of the true owners of government – the people.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The end of Rep. Anthony Weiner
BY: Armstrong Williams
The end of Rep. Anthony Weiner
Shocking revelations yesterday of lewd texts sent via Twitter by New York Congressman Anthony Weiner can only point to one outcome – he must resign.
It’s the best move for him, but more importantly, it’s the best thing for his family, notably his young bride and his nascent marriage.
I felt Weiner did a fairly nice job at his press conference confronting his sins head on. But what undercut his entire effort was the part in his statement where he indicated he would not resign his post. It was as if he was saying, “I did something wrong, but it doesn’t rise to the level of my ending my political career.”
If revealed body parts alone were indications of degrees of the offense, then Weiner loses his seat as well. Just look at his up-state colleague, former Rep. Chris Lee. He merely sent shirtless photos of himself, and immediately stepped down.
Weiner has been sexting and/or texting girls other than his wife for years now, and he thinks he can side-step or outlast this revelation through one press conference?
This whole episode suggests the story is not yet fully written. I suspect Weiner did more than just text these women. Or if that was all he did, then there is someone else where he crossed the line, physically. Perhaps time will tell. Why else would he decide, at the moment when it appeared he was escaping this brouhaha, that it was time to come clean if he had nothing else to hide?
The fact that Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has called for a congressional ethics investigation should tip us off that she’s first and foremost protecting the party. Good for her. It’s not worth forfeiting the principles of her caucus for a pol who has been all about himself. For not only has Weiner alienated himself with his pompous ways, but he also attacked vehemently the national press corps, essentially calling them all liars, scoffing at their questions.
This entire episode is bad for representative government. Ensign, Vitter, Lee, Schwarzenegger, Edwards…what’s next? Both parties must realize the personal peccadillos of its members must move to the back of the room. When these members arrive in Washington, they need to have their game faces on. The quickest way to restore some of the MAJOR credibility this institution has lost is to actually move legislation and achieve something on behalf of the true owners of government – the people.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/06/11
Immigration, Immigration, Immigration
BY: Armstrong Williams
Immigration, Immigration, Immigration:
Illegal immigrant labor is a performance enhancing drug with wide side effects. By hiring illegals, companies get an edge over other firms that don’t. They buy cheap labor from individuals who have no civil rights whatsoever: they cannot complain if they are cheated on their paycheck, protest unhealthy working conditions, or reject wages beneath the minimum federal wage level. If they do complain, they can be immediately detained and sent back to their countries of origin with none of the due process that would be accorded an American citizen. And so this keeps them in their place – a place of legal limbo - and gives U.S. firms access to what is essentially slave labor.
Before now, we’ve had a tacit agreement between big business and big government to leave the immigration issue unresolved. After all, illegal labor has acted as a subsidy to businesses and consumers of the cheap labor. But that arrangement seems to be cracking, and that’s a good thing. The American people want their borders defended and their rights protected by the Government that they, the citizens, have elected. This is especially true in a recession when Americans are facing unprecedented unemployment, debt and declining living standards.
The recent Supreme Court ruling was right for America – legally, factually and morally. But the Supreme Court’s vocal minority, along with a strange bedfellows' coalition of big business and civil rights organizations would have you believe that a reasonable business regulation is an encroachment on the civil rights of legal immigrants. Nothing could be further from the truth. The regulations are narrowly tailored in accordance with Federal definitions of “illegal” status, and they accord appropriate due process for the offending corporations. No one can be rejected for a job because they “look” illegal. But businesses have the additional responsibility of verifying an applicant’s immigration status. All of the normal civil rights protections for workers has been undisturbed by the ruling.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Immigration, Immigration, Immigration
BY: Armstrong Williams
Immigration, Immigration, Immigration:
Illegal immigrant labor is a performance enhancing drug with wide side effects. By hiring illegals, companies get an edge over other firms that don’t. They buy cheap labor from individuals who have no civil rights whatsoever: they cannot complain if they are cheated on their paycheck, protest unhealthy working conditions, or reject wages beneath the minimum federal wage level. If they do complain, they can be immediately detained and sent back to their countries of origin with none of the due process that would be accorded an American citizen. And so this keeps them in their place – a place of legal limbo - and gives U.S. firms access to what is essentially slave labor.
Before now, we’ve had a tacit agreement between big business and big government to leave the immigration issue unresolved. After all, illegal labor has acted as a subsidy to businesses and consumers of the cheap labor. But that arrangement seems to be cracking, and that’s a good thing. The American people want their borders defended and their rights protected by the Government that they, the citizens, have elected. This is especially true in a recession when Americans are facing unprecedented unemployment, debt and declining living standards.
The recent Supreme Court ruling was right for America – legally, factually and morally. But the Supreme Court’s vocal minority, along with a strange bedfellows' coalition of big business and civil rights organizations would have you believe that a reasonable business regulation is an encroachment on the civil rights of legal immigrants. Nothing could be further from the truth. The regulations are narrowly tailored in accordance with Federal definitions of “illegal” status, and they accord appropriate due process for the offending corporations. No one can be rejected for a job because they “look” illegal. But businesses have the additional responsibility of verifying an applicant’s immigration status. All of the normal civil rights protections for workers has been undisturbed by the ruling.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
06/03/11
Vegetables Make Me Sick?
The recent outbreak of E.Coli in the produce of the European Union started my thoughts down a path I hope I will never have to find the end of. What happens when I can no longer trust what I require for sustenance?
More than 2,000 people have fallen ill and more than a dozen have lost their lives due to the outbreak. I do my best to eat fresh fruits and vegetables as often as possible, and as a consumer with limited resources it would be out of the realm of possibility for me to test everything that I ate. For this reason we have a trust of our food suppliers that is borne of the marketplace. We believe that our food suppliers will not sell us contaminated products if for no other reason than to protect their brand name. Nobody wants to be known as the supplier of mal-effected consumables which is why Spanish farmers were outraged that Germany chose to point the finger at them. While I understand that Germany wants to solve the problem and exonerate themselves, they must understand that a public lambasting is not the best solution. It is the European Union after all. Regardless, the finger-pointing and the lack of progress in their investigation isn’t the most alarming part of this story.
What really made me worrisome was to discover that if this type of outbreak were to happen in the United States it would be legal. Yes, legal. Growers and processors in the United States are not required to test food for disease causing agents, like bacteria or other microorganisms, before it is shipped to grocery stores and markets. Let me say that again. In the United States of America our food suppliers are not required to make sure the food they produce is safe to eat before it is shipped. Despite this, our track record here in the US has not been terrible which places me in a bit of a dilemma, does that mean we should trust our suppliers more, or less?
-AW
Vegetables Make Me Sick?
The recent outbreak of E.Coli in the produce of the European Union started my thoughts down a path I hope I will never have to find the end of. What happens when I can no longer trust what I require for sustenance?
More than 2,000 people have fallen ill and more than a dozen have lost their lives due to the outbreak. I do my best to eat fresh fruits and vegetables as often as possible, and as a consumer with limited resources it would be out of the realm of possibility for me to test everything that I ate. For this reason we have a trust of our food suppliers that is borne of the marketplace. We believe that our food suppliers will not sell us contaminated products if for no other reason than to protect their brand name. Nobody wants to be known as the supplier of mal-effected consumables which is why Spanish farmers were outraged that Germany chose to point the finger at them. While I understand that Germany wants to solve the problem and exonerate themselves, they must understand that a public lambasting is not the best solution. It is the European Union after all. Regardless, the finger-pointing and the lack of progress in their investigation isn’t the most alarming part of this story.
What really made me worrisome was to discover that if this type of outbreak were to happen in the United States it would be legal. Yes, legal. Growers and processors in the United States are not required to test food for disease causing agents, like bacteria or other microorganisms, before it is shipped to grocery stores and markets. Let me say that again. In the United States of America our food suppliers are not required to make sure the food they produce is safe to eat before it is shipped. Despite this, our track record here in the US has not been terrible which places me in a bit of a dilemma, does that mean we should trust our suppliers more, or less?
-AW
06/02/11
By Surgery or Scissor
Watching our congress fight over the budget and now the debt ceiling is sickening. How did we, as a country, get to the point where our elected officials are so rife with incompetence that they’re looking down the barrel of a gun, can see the bullet in the chamber, and yet still want to argue over whether or not it will kill. I don’t get it, the most powerful government in the world falling prey to it’s own financial imprudence. Furthermore, what does all of this say about us, the people of the United States of America, if these are our elected representatives; the very people we choose to champion our best interests in government.
This reminds me of those people you hear about being neck-deep in credit card debt and choose to resolve the issue by getting more credit. Is insolvency one of our Nation’s core values? I am starting to think that this administration believes it is. First Wall Street was too big to fail and got bailed out and now Medicare is too important to reform? Who is going to bail us out? I will give you one hint; it won’t be the Chinese.
If you can’t stay afloat you don’t add more water to the ship, you roll up your pant legs and start bailing. Which, in financial terms, would mean to cut spending. Drastically. The excess expenditures are there to be cut, and it needs to be done, by surgery or scissor.
-AW
By Surgery or Scissor
Watching our congress fight over the budget and now the debt ceiling is sickening. How did we, as a country, get to the point where our elected officials are so rife with incompetence that they’re looking down the barrel of a gun, can see the bullet in the chamber, and yet still want to argue over whether or not it will kill. I don’t get it, the most powerful government in the world falling prey to it’s own financial imprudence. Furthermore, what does all of this say about us, the people of the United States of America, if these are our elected representatives; the very people we choose to champion our best interests in government.
This reminds me of those people you hear about being neck-deep in credit card debt and choose to resolve the issue by getting more credit. Is insolvency one of our Nation’s core values? I am starting to think that this administration believes it is. First Wall Street was too big to fail and got bailed out and now Medicare is too important to reform? Who is going to bail us out? I will give you one hint; it won’t be the Chinese.
If you can’t stay afloat you don’t add more water to the ship, you roll up your pant legs and start bailing. Which, in financial terms, would mean to cut spending. Drastically. The excess expenditures are there to be cut, and it needs to be done, by surgery or scissor.
-AW
06/01/11
Saint Sarah, Our "Joan of Arc"
BY: Armstrong Williams
Saint Sarah, Our "Joan of Arc"
The media finally has some excitement to report in the political arena as Sarah Palin has once again invigorated their pens. Is she running is she not? Can she win? Will she win? Even her recent ‘One Nation’ bus tour has been put under the lens of a microscope, the inspection revealing that the bus tour (according to realclearpolitics.com) is actually a campaign test run.
Why is she such a lightning rod? She is perpetually lambasted, and yet, the media can't seem to get enough, and if she's as stupid and inconsequential as she's portrayed, then why are they so fascinated with her? Maybe the answer lies in the fact that she's non-traditional and represents a serious threat to the political status quo, be that Democrat or Republican. She certainly isn’t lacking in charisma, people are drawn to, and cheer for, her at every turn. It's as if she has used politics to become a legitimate celebrity but has maintained enough clout to still be considered a political threat. Despite her celebrity status among politicians she has been so damaged by relentless attacks that she's probably not a viable presidential candidate. But really, who can say?
Regardless, one must admire her fortitude and courage. No matter how many times, or in what way she is attacked she just keeps on trucking, keeps on being Sarah Palin. We can only hope some of the other Republican candidates will learn some important things from her daily sacrifice.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Saint Sarah, Our "Joan of Arc"
BY: Armstrong Williams
Saint Sarah, Our "Joan of Arc"
The media finally has some excitement to report in the political arena as Sarah Palin has once again invigorated their pens. Is she running is she not? Can she win? Will she win? Even her recent ‘One Nation’ bus tour has been put under the lens of a microscope, the inspection revealing that the bus tour (according to realclearpolitics.com) is actually a campaign test run.
Why is she such a lightning rod? She is perpetually lambasted, and yet, the media can't seem to get enough, and if she's as stupid and inconsequential as she's portrayed, then why are they so fascinated with her? Maybe the answer lies in the fact that she's non-traditional and represents a serious threat to the political status quo, be that Democrat or Republican. She certainly isn’t lacking in charisma, people are drawn to, and cheer for, her at every turn. It's as if she has used politics to become a legitimate celebrity but has maintained enough clout to still be considered a political threat. Despite her celebrity status among politicians she has been so damaged by relentless attacks that she's probably not a viable presidential candidate. But really, who can say?
Regardless, one must admire her fortitude and courage. No matter how many times, or in what way she is attacked she just keeps on trucking, keeps on being Sarah Palin. We can only hope some of the other Republican candidates will learn some important things from her daily sacrifice.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/31/11
Republican presidential calculus with Palin in the race
BY: Armstrong Williams
Republican presidential calculus with Palin in the race
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is back in the news again. If you never tune off FOX News, she never left the prime time spotlight. But this time, it’s different, it seems.
Her posse has loaded up a big RV and she’s taking a bus tour around some of the most historic sites in the land. All of this launched, of course, during Sunday’s Rolling Thunder – a must-attend event for any biker or Harley rider to roll through downtown Washington DC to honor the fallen, POWs, and MIAs during the Vietnam conflict.
Full of class, the riders welcomed Palin so long as she didn’t turn the event into a political circus and away from its true and needed purpose.
But what does Palin’s latest move mean to the GOP nominating calculus? For months now, I had it on good authority the governor was not running. She was attending functions in Iowa alright, but charging fees (a no-no in the caucus state) for appearances and book-signings. It all seemed as though she was ready to turn the idea of a Palin on the Republican ticket into a windfall.
Others with similar pedigrees quickly filled the vacuum she left.
And yet here we are, still very very early in the nominating process, and Palin is drawing crowds that would make even Barack Obama green with envy.
But is she running? Even her staff won’t release details to the press corps on the nature of her stops, let alone times and locations. And when asked if she is indeed running, Palin’s stock answer is, “I’m thinking about it.” Will somebody please pass that information along to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann?
Her candidacy for the nomination is ripe to fill the void Palin left. Yet if Palin returns, that’s too much “girl power” for the right to handle.
Here’s who it does help – Mitt Romney. The former governor and businessman now looks to be the most sane, smart choice so long as candidates such as Ron Paul, Palin and Bachmann join in the fray. Romney may also be charting his own path to the presidency this cycle by not paying so much attention in Iowa – a state he knows he can’t win – and instead spending more time in New Hampshire (where he’ll formally announce this week) and other early primary states.
Suffice it to say the GOP field is wide open. Even Herman Cain will stand to gain in a state such as Iowa so long as Republican voters are still sorting through their choices. One thing I’m eager to see in the coming weeks is which candidate is increasingly proving he or she is the most electable in an Obama matchup. I’ve yet to see that trait emerge in the early days of the season.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Re
Republican presidential calculus with Palin in the race
BY: Armstrong Williams
Republican presidential calculus with Palin in the race
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is back in the news again. If you never tune off FOX News, she never left the prime time spotlight. But this time, it’s different, it seems.
Her posse has loaded up a big RV and she’s taking a bus tour around some of the most historic sites in the land. All of this launched, of course, during Sunday’s Rolling Thunder – a must-attend event for any biker or Harley rider to roll through downtown Washington DC to honor the fallen, POWs, and MIAs during the Vietnam conflict.
Full of class, the riders welcomed Palin so long as she didn’t turn the event into a political circus and away from its true and needed purpose.
But what does Palin’s latest move mean to the GOP nominating calculus? For months now, I had it on good authority the governor was not running. She was attending functions in Iowa alright, but charging fees (a no-no in the caucus state) for appearances and book-signings. It all seemed as though she was ready to turn the idea of a Palin on the Republican ticket into a windfall.
Others with similar pedigrees quickly filled the vacuum she left.
And yet here we are, still very very early in the nominating process, and Palin is drawing crowds that would make even Barack Obama green with envy.
But is she running? Even her staff won’t release details to the press corps on the nature of her stops, let alone times and locations. And when asked if she is indeed running, Palin’s stock answer is, “I’m thinking about it.” Will somebody please pass that information along to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann?
Her candidacy for the nomination is ripe to fill the void Palin left. Yet if Palin returns, that’s too much “girl power” for the right to handle.
Here’s who it does help – Mitt Romney. The former governor and businessman now looks to be the most sane, smart choice so long as candidates such as Ron Paul, Palin and Bachmann join in the fray. Romney may also be charting his own path to the presidency this cycle by not paying so much attention in Iowa – a state he knows he can’t win – and instead spending more time in New Hampshire (where he’ll formally announce this week) and other early primary states.
Suffice it to say the GOP field is wide open. Even Herman Cain will stand to gain in a state such as Iowa so long as Republican voters are still sorting through their choices. One thing I’m eager to see in the coming weeks is which candidate is increasingly proving he or she is the most electable in an Obama matchup. I’ve yet to see that trait emerge in the early days of the season.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Re
05/30/11
Memorial Day Remembrance
BY: Armstrong Williams
Memorial Day Remembrance
Lest we forget, Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's wars.
Established in the 1860s during the American Civil War, Memorial Day tapped into the general human need to honor our dead who had contributed honorably to this great country.
Many of us who are beneficiaries of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice have ignored the true meaning of Memorial Day.
We often do not observe the day as it should be. It's a day where we actively remember our ancestors, our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones and our family members who have given their lives for the betterment of this great nation.
The thing to remember about war is that there are very few moments of individual gallantry. The individual combatant rarely dwarfs his surroundings. No John Waynes to ride through a hale of enemy fire to save the day.
In fact, those one-dimensional embodiments of masculine striving are usually the first to die. Moments of war rarely allow for clarity.
War is a chaos where platoons of men are condemned to slaughter one another. War is a horror where one is ordered to kill strangers, to run in the face of enemy fire, to ignore the sight of his friends as they crumple to the ground. This lack of clarity becomes transparent to every soldier as his captain shouts, "Over the top men, everyone out!"
In that moment, each soldier finds himself engulfed in death and confusion. There is a scene in Steven Spielberg's film "Saving Private Ryan", in which a young man has his arm blown off. He stumbles around, gazing at his shattered limb, unsure of what to do.
War is detached horror.
War is confusion.
With this in mind, do something different this Memorial Day.
Visit cemeteries and place flags or flowers on the graves of our fallen heroes.
Visit memorials and fly U.S. flags at half-staff until noon and pledge to aid the disabled veterans, widows, widowers and orphans of those that died in conflicts and wars.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Memorial Day Remembrance
BY: Armstrong Williams
Memorial Day Remembrance
Lest we forget, Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's wars.
Established in the 1860s during the American Civil War, Memorial Day tapped into the general human need to honor our dead who had contributed honorably to this great country.
Many of us who are beneficiaries of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice have ignored the true meaning of Memorial Day.
We often do not observe the day as it should be. It's a day where we actively remember our ancestors, our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones and our family members who have given their lives for the betterment of this great nation.
The thing to remember about war is that there are very few moments of individual gallantry. The individual combatant rarely dwarfs his surroundings. No John Waynes to ride through a hale of enemy fire to save the day.
In fact, those one-dimensional embodiments of masculine striving are usually the first to die. Moments of war rarely allow for clarity.
War is a chaos where platoons of men are condemned to slaughter one another. War is a horror where one is ordered to kill strangers, to run in the face of enemy fire, to ignore the sight of his friends as they crumple to the ground. This lack of clarity becomes transparent to every soldier as his captain shouts, "Over the top men, everyone out!"
In that moment, each soldier finds himself engulfed in death and confusion. There is a scene in Steven Spielberg's film "Saving Private Ryan", in which a young man has his arm blown off. He stumbles around, gazing at his shattered limb, unsure of what to do.
War is detached horror.
War is confusion.
With this in mind, do something different this Memorial Day.
Visit cemeteries and place flags or flowers on the graves of our fallen heroes.
Visit memorials and fly U.S. flags at half-staff until noon and pledge to aid the disabled veterans, widows, widowers and orphans of those that died in conflicts and wars.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/27/11
The Politics of Shared Sacrifice
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Politics Of Shared Sacrifice
According to recent polls, most Americans believe that the dangers of further debt increases outweigh the dangers of defaulting on our current debt. The politicians have done an excellent job of selling the obvious. Bankers and economists, the holders of that debt, largely disagree with mainstream sentiment because it ultimately means they don't get paid back. But the political calculus among the general electorate is more complicated ---
While, according to polls, most people agree with the Republican position that the national debt is a ticking time bomb, and even that painful sacrifices are needed, the political disconnect occurs over what people perceive as the Republicans' unwillingness to share the sacrifice -- that is, they want to impose painful spending cuts on the poor and elderly, while giving away massive tax breaks to the rich and well connected. And they want all of this after the business community was bailed out of the banking crisis with taxpayer funds -- the bailouts being the major cause of our increased debt levels. This is a ripe opportunity to play political arbitrage by the Dems, and they've used it to their advantage recently.
So here you have businesses sitting on free taxpayer (borrowed) cash and complaining about tax increases, while trying to force those same taxpayers to swallow cuts to essential social programs. People are beginning to see this as a disingenuous, not to mention fundamentally unfair, approach to fixing the economy.
Until this conundrum is resolved, America will continue to be in a stalemate over the debt and the structural adjustments we need to foster long term growth…and the bills will keep mounting.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Politics of Shared Sacrifice
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Politics Of Shared Sacrifice
According to recent polls, most Americans believe that the dangers of further debt increases outweigh the dangers of defaulting on our current debt. The politicians have done an excellent job of selling the obvious. Bankers and economists, the holders of that debt, largely disagree with mainstream sentiment because it ultimately means they don't get paid back. But the political calculus among the general electorate is more complicated ---
While, according to polls, most people agree with the Republican position that the national debt is a ticking time bomb, and even that painful sacrifices are needed, the political disconnect occurs over what people perceive as the Republicans' unwillingness to share the sacrifice -- that is, they want to impose painful spending cuts on the poor and elderly, while giving away massive tax breaks to the rich and well connected. And they want all of this after the business community was bailed out of the banking crisis with taxpayer funds -- the bailouts being the major cause of our increased debt levels. This is a ripe opportunity to play political arbitrage by the Dems, and they've used it to their advantage recently.
So here you have businesses sitting on free taxpayer (borrowed) cash and complaining about tax increases, while trying to force those same taxpayers to swallow cuts to essential social programs. People are beginning to see this as a disingenuous, not to mention fundamentally unfair, approach to fixing the economy.
Until this conundrum is resolved, America will continue to be in a stalemate over the debt and the structural adjustments we need to foster long term growth…and the bills will keep mounting.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/26/11
Our Government is on the verge of collapsing
BY: Armstrong Williams
The ensuing debate over spending, debt ceilings, and entitlement reforms holds far more than the process hostage. Our entire system of government hangs in a delicate balance.
Government does not create anything. It does not manufacture a good, or yield a product that’s traded on the open market. Instead, it confiscates our individual monies and redistributes those funds in a manner it deems best. So in that regard, money is the lifeblood of government; without which it essentially ceases to exist.
Hence the reason that this time, this current debate over repairing and repaying our national debt, is so critical. For if our government falls, the institutions that have come to rely on that “full faith and credit” guarantee are in turn, capable of collapsing as well.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Our Government is on the verge of collapsing
BY: Armstrong Williams
The ensuing debate over spending, debt ceilings, and entitlement reforms holds far more than the process hostage. Our entire system of government hangs in a delicate balance.
Government does not create anything. It does not manufacture a good, or yield a product that’s traded on the open market. Instead, it confiscates our individual monies and redistributes those funds in a manner it deems best. So in that regard, money is the lifeblood of government; without which it essentially ceases to exist.
Hence the reason that this time, this current debate over repairing and repaying our national debt, is so critical. For if our government falls, the institutions that have come to rely on that “full faith and credit” guarantee are in turn, capable of collapsing as well.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/25/11
Big-Business Religion
BY: Armstrong Williams
Big-Business Religion
Corporations and parishioners are increasingly coming together to spread the word of God and make money. All across the country, churches — once intimate places of spiritual interconnectedness — have been replaced by stadiums of worship that utilize advanced technological innovations to awe, edify and rip off those in attendance.
The jig goes something like this: Corporations underwrite the construction of vast religious complexes that awe people into regular attendance. The preacher's image is projected onto a big screen. His calm baritone is beamed out by state-of-the-art speakers. From all sides, his voice fills the room. The seats shake as he gives expression to the word of God.
It's a rousing experience to be sure, and one that is increasingly paid for by corporations. In return for their funding, the churches circulate corporate promotional calendars and fliers and, if the corporation is really lucky, broadcast an endorsement straight from the pulpit. Trusting the pastor's judgment, the flock simply surrenders its money to whatever service the corporation is hawking. In such a manner, countless Christians are fleeced every year.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Big-Business Religion
BY: Armstrong Williams
Big-Business Religion
Corporations and parishioners are increasingly coming together to spread the word of God and make money. All across the country, churches — once intimate places of spiritual interconnectedness — have been replaced by stadiums of worship that utilize advanced technological innovations to awe, edify and rip off those in attendance.
The jig goes something like this: Corporations underwrite the construction of vast religious complexes that awe people into regular attendance. The preacher's image is projected onto a big screen. His calm baritone is beamed out by state-of-the-art speakers. From all sides, his voice fills the room. The seats shake as he gives expression to the word of God.
It's a rousing experience to be sure, and one that is increasingly paid for by corporations. In return for their funding, the churches circulate corporate promotional calendars and fliers and, if the corporation is really lucky, broadcast an endorsement straight from the pulpit. Trusting the pastor's judgment, the flock simply surrenders its money to whatever service the corporation is hawking. In such a manner, countless Christians are fleeced every year.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/24/11
Special election with devastating consequences
BY: Armstrong Williams
A special election with significant consequences
A special election is being held today in New York’s 26th Congressional District, a seat once held by Rep. Chris Lee (R). You’ll recall Lee was the member forced to resign after pictures of his shirtless frame appeared on the Internet while he was soliciting sex, yet still happily married.
There’s no question the vote will be a nail biter. The reliably Republican district is a nail biter as Democrat Kate Hochul has whipped her opponent, Jane Corwin, silly with relentless attacks over her party’s support for Medicare reforms. Corwin has fought the good fight, but the Ryan plan she backs is definitely weighing her down. It’s understandable. The Ryan plan for Medicare is a tough political pill. Voters are anxious. And they’re also naïve.
Recriminations are already flowing from Republican enclaves here in Washington, as political insiders are going on the record (now, of all times) saying “they told you so” that the Medicare reforms were a non-winner.
Let’s face it folks, Medicare is broke. The non-partisan actuaries dropped a few more years from its life just last week. And here we have (seniors first among them) a set of voters that continues to want something for nothing.
I said as much when the GOP re-took control of the House late last year – if they think they are entering a new era of a “permanent majority” then they’re smoking something funny.
These are difficult times that demand serious leadership. The country saw that Democrats under Barack Obama are incapable of said leadership, so they reverted back to a party that was sober enough to admit we’re in a fiscal hurt locker.
And now, when the tough decisions come due, and voters are faced with the choice, they’re not liking the options. Republicans should count on that, and yet, they SHOULD STILL MOVE FORWARD!
Now is not the time for those of weak constitutions. Republicans didn’t get elected to then turn around and get re-elected two years later. Someone please show them the door if they believed anything but…
They were elected in 2010 to change this town. And to stare down the largest of federal leviathans – entitlement spending – and do something about it.
Now is the time to fix Medicare, and Social Security. Damn the fallout, let’s do the right thing!
If Democrats showed any courage, it was certainly on health care. The polls said it was a political stinker, and still they voted in lock-step for the measure. Now they think that one day they may be vindicated. Even if they're wrong (which they are), you have to hand it to them -- they felt in their heart of hearts they were doing the right thing. Can someone show a Republican that playbook?
The same argument could be made for Republicans and Medicare; only with this issue, history will prove them right. Fate does not reward nor assign hero status to those who merely continue the status quo. There are no milestones that mark monotony.
An argument could be made in the special election that conservative views in the form of a 3rd party, Tea Party, candidate is what will ultimately cause Corwin to lose if she does in fact fall tonight.
It's difficult to say if this race is a harbinger of things to come if Republicans don’t abandon their bid to reform Medicare. Yet one thing is certain, there may not be a better time to mend a broken program. And if Republicans let political expediency govern their decisions this year, our grandchildren will see a different Medicare alright…one that no longer exists because it went insolvent in 2024.
www.rightsidewire.com
Special election with devastating consequences
BY: Armstrong Williams
A special election with significant consequences
A special election is being held today in New York’s 26th Congressional District, a seat once held by Rep. Chris Lee (R). You’ll recall Lee was the member forced to resign after pictures of his shirtless frame appeared on the Internet while he was soliciting sex, yet still happily married.
There’s no question the vote will be a nail biter. The reliably Republican district is a nail biter as Democrat Kate Hochul has whipped her opponent, Jane Corwin, silly with relentless attacks over her party’s support for Medicare reforms. Corwin has fought the good fight, but the Ryan plan she backs is definitely weighing her down. It’s understandable. The Ryan plan for Medicare is a tough political pill. Voters are anxious. And they’re also naïve.
Recriminations are already flowing from Republican enclaves here in Washington, as political insiders are going on the record (now, of all times) saying “they told you so” that the Medicare reforms were a non-winner.
Let’s face it folks, Medicare is broke. The non-partisan actuaries dropped a few more years from its life just last week. And here we have (seniors first among them) a set of voters that continues to want something for nothing.
I said as much when the GOP re-took control of the House late last year – if they think they are entering a new era of a “permanent majority” then they’re smoking something funny.
These are difficult times that demand serious leadership. The country saw that Democrats under Barack Obama are incapable of said leadership, so they reverted back to a party that was sober enough to admit we’re in a fiscal hurt locker.
And now, when the tough decisions come due, and voters are faced with the choice, they’re not liking the options. Republicans should count on that, and yet, they SHOULD STILL MOVE FORWARD!
Now is not the time for those of weak constitutions. Republicans didn’t get elected to then turn around and get re-elected two years later. Someone please show them the door if they believed anything but…
They were elected in 2010 to change this town. And to stare down the largest of federal leviathans – entitlement spending – and do something about it.
Now is the time to fix Medicare, and Social Security. Damn the fallout, let’s do the right thing!
If Democrats showed any courage, it was certainly on health care. The polls said it was a political stinker, and still they voted in lock-step for the measure. Now they think that one day they may be vindicated. Even if they're wrong (which they are), you have to hand it to them -- they felt in their heart of hearts they were doing the right thing. Can someone show a Republican that playbook?
The same argument could be made for Republicans and Medicare; only with this issue, history will prove them right. Fate does not reward nor assign hero status to those who merely continue the status quo. There are no milestones that mark monotony.
An argument could be made in the special election that conservative views in the form of a 3rd party, Tea Party, candidate is what will ultimately cause Corwin to lose if she does in fact fall tonight.
It's difficult to say if this race is a harbinger of things to come if Republicans don’t abandon their bid to reform Medicare. Yet one thing is certain, there may not be a better time to mend a broken program. And if Republicans let political expediency govern their decisions this year, our grandchildren will see a different Medicare alright…one that no longer exists because it went insolvent in 2024.
www.rightsidewire.com
05/23/11
What's next for the California GOP?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What’s next for the California GOP?
The ignominious fall of former Governor and cheating husband Arnold Schwarzenegger is pretty pathetic in itself. As allegations of still more women who slept with the “governator” spring up (ahem), there’s one question that many political watchers should be asking – what’s next for the Republican Party in California?
I know what you’re thinking: “What does a Hollywood actor’s sexual peccadillos have to do with the state’s political party?” Nothing if you look at the question that way. But let’s be honest, until Arnold Schwarzenegger came along in that 70-something person gubernatorial race over seven years ago, the state’s Republicans were floundering.
Schwarzenegger did what no Republican has done since arguably Pete Wilson – unite the different factions of the party into one unified front. Even then, Schwarzenegger’s leadership in Sacramento was spotty at times. The state still faces billions in budget shortfalls and more runaway spending. And the GOP continues its infighting at the local levels.
The best, most recent indicators of that situation lie with the defeat of Republican challenger Meg Whitman by Jerry Brown for the right to succeed Schwarzenegger. One might say the state leans decidedly blue, but Jerry Brown? Wasn’t he governor back in the 80s?? C’mon folks. This guy gives new meaning to the term “also-ran”.
Taken a step further, Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are probably at their weakest politically in years, and still no Republican challenger has given these two a run for their money.
A lot hinges on the national party paying attention to the largest state in the union. If left to those inside the state to continue handling how Republicans fare, it could pose serious problems come next November in the presidential election. Even if the electoral-rich state goes for President Obama, how the process of winning California unfolds could mean the difference between millions more invested there by Democrats. If the Obama camp faces any friction at all next year given the overall mood of Americans, they may be forced to spend tens of millions extra in a state that would otherwise go handily for the president.
And without a national, fairly popular Republican such as Schwarzenegger keeping Democrats honest, that could prove problematic for the national party.
Waiting until next fall to decide if the Republican nominee wants to contest Obama in California will be too late. Republicans should take the steps now to soften the ground politically for their nominee. That begins with elevating lesser-known but smart pols such as House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy into the media spotlight. These small but smart moves now will help come next year.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
What's next for the California GOP?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What’s next for the California GOP?
The ignominious fall of former Governor and cheating husband Arnold Schwarzenegger is pretty pathetic in itself. As allegations of still more women who slept with the “governator” spring up (ahem), there’s one question that many political watchers should be asking – what’s next for the Republican Party in California?
I know what you’re thinking: “What does a Hollywood actor’s sexual peccadillos have to do with the state’s political party?” Nothing if you look at the question that way. But let’s be honest, until Arnold Schwarzenegger came along in that 70-something person gubernatorial race over seven years ago, the state’s Republicans were floundering.
Schwarzenegger did what no Republican has done since arguably Pete Wilson – unite the different factions of the party into one unified front. Even then, Schwarzenegger’s leadership in Sacramento was spotty at times. The state still faces billions in budget shortfalls and more runaway spending. And the GOP continues its infighting at the local levels.
The best, most recent indicators of that situation lie with the defeat of Republican challenger Meg Whitman by Jerry Brown for the right to succeed Schwarzenegger. One might say the state leans decidedly blue, but Jerry Brown? Wasn’t he governor back in the 80s?? C’mon folks. This guy gives new meaning to the term “also-ran”.
Taken a step further, Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are probably at their weakest politically in years, and still no Republican challenger has given these two a run for their money.
A lot hinges on the national party paying attention to the largest state in the union. If left to those inside the state to continue handling how Republicans fare, it could pose serious problems come next November in the presidential election. Even if the electoral-rich state goes for President Obama, how the process of winning California unfolds could mean the difference between millions more invested there by Democrats. If the Obama camp faces any friction at all next year given the overall mood of Americans, they may be forced to spend tens of millions extra in a state that would otherwise go handily for the president.
And without a national, fairly popular Republican such as Schwarzenegger keeping Democrats honest, that could prove problematic for the national party.
Waiting until next fall to decide if the Republican nominee wants to contest Obama in California will be too late. Republicans should take the steps now to soften the ground politically for their nominee. That begins with elevating lesser-known but smart pols such as House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy into the media spotlight. These small but smart moves now will help come next year.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/20/11
Imperfect Experts
BY: Armstrong Williams
Imperfect Experts
It’s obvious by now that the latest collapse of the U.S. stock market and the ensuing recession was spearheaded by experts – those same people who received fancy degrees from Ivy League institutions. They sold the public on their complex mathematical models purporting to show huge profits – all the while masking the risk of a total blow up. In many respects, this is the societal effect of a miseducated population. It is the result of an over-reliance by many people on the advice of experts, and the reliance of those experts on theoretical constructs that have little bearing on the real world. It is a classic case of mistaking the map for the territory. Popular writer and educator Nassim Taleb, when describing the cause of the market collapse, was blunter. He aptly describes it as a case of “scholarship without erudition.”
Taleb’s argument is simple yet nuanced. By concentrating for a long time on complex problems, experts tend to become experts in solving known problems -- such as the probability of winning a casino game (where all of the possibilities are known). But this tunnel view prevents them from considering the broader factors that account for real world events in which there is no complete information – be it business performance, the stock market, or the riskiness of complex financial derivatives. In part, it is the level of education that deludes them into believing that they can manage the complexity of making large bets for small gains.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Imperfect Experts
BY: Armstrong Williams
Imperfect Experts
It’s obvious by now that the latest collapse of the U.S. stock market and the ensuing recession was spearheaded by experts – those same people who received fancy degrees from Ivy League institutions. They sold the public on their complex mathematical models purporting to show huge profits – all the while masking the risk of a total blow up. In many respects, this is the societal effect of a miseducated population. It is the result of an over-reliance by many people on the advice of experts, and the reliance of those experts on theoretical constructs that have little bearing on the real world. It is a classic case of mistaking the map for the territory. Popular writer and educator Nassim Taleb, when describing the cause of the market collapse, was blunter. He aptly describes it as a case of “scholarship without erudition.”
Taleb’s argument is simple yet nuanced. By concentrating for a long time on complex problems, experts tend to become experts in solving known problems -- such as the probability of winning a casino game (where all of the possibilities are known). But this tunnel view prevents them from considering the broader factors that account for real world events in which there is no complete information – be it business performance, the stock market, or the riskiness of complex financial derivatives. In part, it is the level of education that deludes them into believing that they can manage the complexity of making large bets for small gains.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/19/11
Herman Cain moves up
BY: Armstrong Williams
Herman Cain moves up
What’s wrong with Newt Gingrich these days? Barely a week after kicking off his triumphant procession of intellectual conservatism in action, the former Speaker of the House gaffes on the one show he used to dust in his sleep – Meet the Press.
Medicare must be Gingrich’s Achilles heel. Even years following his “wither on the vine” line, he now calls the one reasonable plan to save Medicare “right-wing social engineering” as though he copied it off The New Republic’s website.
Then on Tuesday, he apparently hosts a conference call to say he didn’t mean it. Gingrich was just joshing. So can we please move on now with the business of picking a Republican who can beat Barack Obama?
I’m sorry, but you don’t get a free pass after that sort of week. This legislative brainiac has been on Meet the Press no fewer than 34 times through the years, and he follows his appearance by saying “it didn’t occur to me going in that you’d have a series of setups.”…?? Please.
Okay, I’ll let it go. But it is the missteps and just plain dumb moves like that which make the candidacy of a Herman Cain – the proclaimed winner of South Carolina’s GOP presidential debate – look increasingly appealing by the day.
Words like “articulate” “measured” and “sensible” have been used by my viewers and radio show listeners to describe Cain’s fledgling, almost Quixotic pursuit of the presidency.
It’s fair to say that candidates such as Cain have a tough race in front of them, but isn’t that what the race for the presidency should be about? The rise of the lesser-known because he wants to better this country? In some twisted way, wasn’t that the most appealing part of Donald Trump – he knew how to run a business and tell it like it is?
Is Herman Cain, a CEO of a major franchise, the Donald-lite of this 2012 election? Does he have all the attractive qualities of an M.B.A. type minus the ego (and the hair)?
The lesson of Newt Gingrich’s policy foibles this past weekend prove this Republican race is wide open. But one thing is clear – the party needs to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff, because Obama’s presidential campaign is having one good laugh right now at their expense.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Herman Cain moves up
BY: Armstrong Williams
Herman Cain moves up
What’s wrong with Newt Gingrich these days? Barely a week after kicking off his triumphant procession of intellectual conservatism in action, the former Speaker of the House gaffes on the one show he used to dust in his sleep – Meet the Press.
Medicare must be Gingrich’s Achilles heel. Even years following his “wither on the vine” line, he now calls the one reasonable plan to save Medicare “right-wing social engineering” as though he copied it off The New Republic’s website.
Then on Tuesday, he apparently hosts a conference call to say he didn’t mean it. Gingrich was just joshing. So can we please move on now with the business of picking a Republican who can beat Barack Obama?
I’m sorry, but you don’t get a free pass after that sort of week. This legislative brainiac has been on Meet the Press no fewer than 34 times through the years, and he follows his appearance by saying “it didn’t occur to me going in that you’d have a series of setups.”…?? Please.
Okay, I’ll let it go. But it is the missteps and just plain dumb moves like that which make the candidacy of a Herman Cain – the proclaimed winner of South Carolina’s GOP presidential debate – look increasingly appealing by the day.
Words like “articulate” “measured” and “sensible” have been used by my viewers and radio show listeners to describe Cain’s fledgling, almost Quixotic pursuit of the presidency.
It’s fair to say that candidates such as Cain have a tough race in front of them, but isn’t that what the race for the presidency should be about? The rise of the lesser-known because he wants to better this country? In some twisted way, wasn’t that the most appealing part of Donald Trump – he knew how to run a business and tell it like it is?
Is Herman Cain, a CEO of a major franchise, the Donald-lite of this 2012 election? Does he have all the attractive qualities of an M.B.A. type minus the ego (and the hair)?
The lesson of Newt Gingrich’s policy foibles this past weekend prove this Republican race is wide open. But one thing is clear – the party needs to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff, because Obama’s presidential campaign is having one good laugh right now at their expense.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/18/11
What is the future of American Prosperity?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What is the future of American Prosperity?
The US has too many lawyers, entertainers, would be sports players, writers, government workers, etc. We have a dearth of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, stonemasons, bricklayers, nurses, indigenous American MDs, skilled factory workers and engineers. Our educational system is not training our students for jobs in the 21st century. Our youth, our future, are unable to meet the demands of our market-based economy.
Too many of our youth get caught up in glitz glamour and shortcuts; the life of Aesop's Hare. Yet that is not the way that the United States achieved prosperity, the United States of America is the greatest country in the history of the world due to the hard work, moral striving, and and unprecedented diligence of its people; the life of Aesop's Tortoise. Many of our founding fathers were craftsmen themselves and they understood the value of being skilled at a trade. Working hard and toiling long hours until they achieved excellence at any given thing.
Contemporary United States culture is all about the easy dollar and simple life, it is the rare soul who wishes to let blood, sweat, and tears for the sake of achievement, and it is those rare few that are the success stories we take pride in who continues to build and strengthen our nation. The question is, if we take so much pride in the few of us that prove hard work and diligence pays time and time again then why are there so many of us that scoff at the notion of commitment to continued excellence and execution?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
What is the future of American Prosperity?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What is the future of American Prosperity?
The US has too many lawyers, entertainers, would be sports players, writers, government workers, etc. We have a dearth of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, stonemasons, bricklayers, nurses, indigenous American MDs, skilled factory workers and engineers. Our educational system is not training our students for jobs in the 21st century. Our youth, our future, are unable to meet the demands of our market-based economy.
Too many of our youth get caught up in glitz glamour and shortcuts; the life of Aesop's Hare. Yet that is not the way that the United States achieved prosperity, the United States of America is the greatest country in the history of the world due to the hard work, moral striving, and and unprecedented diligence of its people; the life of Aesop's Tortoise. Many of our founding fathers were craftsmen themselves and they understood the value of being skilled at a trade. Working hard and toiling long hours until they achieved excellence at any given thing.
Contemporary United States culture is all about the easy dollar and simple life, it is the rare soul who wishes to let blood, sweat, and tears for the sake of achievement, and it is those rare few that are the success stories we take pride in who continues to build and strengthen our nation. The question is, if we take so much pride in the few of us that prove hard work and diligence pays time and time again then why are there so many of us that scoff at the notion of commitment to continued excellence and execution?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/16/11
What the Huckabee decision means
BY: Armstrong Williams
What the Huckabee decision means
The political world caught its breath over the weekend regarding Mike Huckabee’s decision not to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency. To many, it was a non-news event. They had predicted all along the former Arkansas governor was just too cozy in his popular TV environment to hit the hustings in what promises to be a smash-mouth affair.
Let’s acknowledge that point. Let’s also acknowledge that this GOP race is wide open. But we knew that before Huckabee made his announcement.
What we don’t know right now is who’s in the best position to capture a solid portion of the Republican base – the Southern states?
Mike Huckabee spoke to a large segment of that population, in addition to coming from the area, his folksy preaching style mesmerized many and connected with the Southern voter on multiple levels, not the least of which was a firm faith in God and an evangelical flair.
The only other Southern candidate in the race – Newt Gingrich from Georgia – lacks those key traits. Yes, it’s no secret Gingrich has been trying for years to restore the luster his very presence brought to the political realm. But this is one area where the former Speaker’s trysts rise up and haunt him.
Folks in the South have a real problem with that infidelity factor, and they don’t tend to dismiss hypocrisy so quickly.
Add to the calculus the fact that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is no longer in the race, and the Southern vote seems ripe for the picking if the right candidate comes along to appeal to their issues.
All the candidates know this. The real trick is deciding what secures the largest segments of that voting bloc. Is it an appeal to the basics of the Founding Fathers, which was rooted in the Protestant work ethic and other biblical teachings? How about a more direct appeal to touchstone issues such as abortion and gun control?
As pressing as topics such as high gas prices, runaway government spending, and America’s questionable place in the world, one would think these “old-school” political bones have out-lived their appeal.
Yet it may serve a Mitt Romney well to re-tool some of his campaign speeches toward a spiritual message – something that, on the surface at least, hearkens back to his own Mormon religion and the deep theological premises both Mormonism and other Protestant-based religions stand upon.
Look, it’s too early to gauge just what will sway a Southern voter, let alone if it will have broad appeal. The South today looks far different than even the early 2000’s when George W. Bush beat back an aggressive challenge from Sen. John McCain. Don’t believe me? Just look at how North Carolina and Virginia voted in the last presidential…
But chance favors the best prepared. And the road to the GOP nomination may once again run straight through the Bible Belt.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
What the Huckabee decision means
BY: Armstrong Williams
What the Huckabee decision means
The political world caught its breath over the weekend regarding Mike Huckabee’s decision not to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency. To many, it was a non-news event. They had predicted all along the former Arkansas governor was just too cozy in his popular TV environment to hit the hustings in what promises to be a smash-mouth affair.
Let’s acknowledge that point. Let’s also acknowledge that this GOP race is wide open. But we knew that before Huckabee made his announcement.
What we don’t know right now is who’s in the best position to capture a solid portion of the Republican base – the Southern states?
Mike Huckabee spoke to a large segment of that population, in addition to coming from the area, his folksy preaching style mesmerized many and connected with the Southern voter on multiple levels, not the least of which was a firm faith in God and an evangelical flair.
The only other Southern candidate in the race – Newt Gingrich from Georgia – lacks those key traits. Yes, it’s no secret Gingrich has been trying for years to restore the luster his very presence brought to the political realm. But this is one area where the former Speaker’s trysts rise up and haunt him.
Folks in the South have a real problem with that infidelity factor, and they don’t tend to dismiss hypocrisy so quickly.
Add to the calculus the fact that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is no longer in the race, and the Southern vote seems ripe for the picking if the right candidate comes along to appeal to their issues.
All the candidates know this. The real trick is deciding what secures the largest segments of that voting bloc. Is it an appeal to the basics of the Founding Fathers, which was rooted in the Protestant work ethic and other biblical teachings? How about a more direct appeal to touchstone issues such as abortion and gun control?
As pressing as topics such as high gas prices, runaway government spending, and America’s questionable place in the world, one would think these “old-school” political bones have out-lived their appeal.
Yet it may serve a Mitt Romney well to re-tool some of his campaign speeches toward a spiritual message – something that, on the surface at least, hearkens back to his own Mormon religion and the deep theological premises both Mormonism and other Protestant-based religions stand upon.
Look, it’s too early to gauge just what will sway a Southern voter, let alone if it will have broad appeal. The South today looks far different than even the early 2000’s when George W. Bush beat back an aggressive challenge from Sen. John McCain. Don’t believe me? Just look at how North Carolina and Virginia voted in the last presidential…
But chance favors the best prepared. And the road to the GOP nomination may once again run straight through the Bible Belt.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/13/11
The week that was in Washington
BY: Armstrong Williams
The week that was in Washington
Today is Friday the 13th, but after the sort of events we’ve seen here in town and around the country, one would think the entire week was cursed with oddities and questionable decisions…at least for politics.
Perhaps the oddest move of the week rests again at the doorstep of the White House. This time, the Justice Department’s decision to allow family members to visit detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I can’t figure this one out, folks. Less than 10 days after destroying the world’s top terrorists, we give the guy a proper Muslim burial (because the radical Islamists will appreciate our gesture…not), and now we want to allow other would-be terrorists to spend time with family members? What kind of message does that send? Who is it meant to please? What’s next – conjugal visits with some of the virgins promised these murderers before the after-life? I don’t get it.
It’s almost as if the Obama Administration can’t let a good deed go without having to follow-up behind it with some bone-headed move meant to appease not Americans, but some other constituency that gave this president his Nobel peace prize. I’m not sure who’s whispering into the president’s ear, but I can’t believe they’re thinking these moves thorough in an election year.
If this week is an indication of what’s to come, you better strap yourselves in for a long and wild ride, folks.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The week that was in Washington
BY: Armstrong Williams
The week that was in Washington
Today is Friday the 13th, but after the sort of events we’ve seen here in town and around the country, one would think the entire week was cursed with oddities and questionable decisions…at least for politics.
Perhaps the oddest move of the week rests again at the doorstep of the White House. This time, the Justice Department’s decision to allow family members to visit detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I can’t figure this one out, folks. Less than 10 days after destroying the world’s top terrorists, we give the guy a proper Muslim burial (because the radical Islamists will appreciate our gesture…not), and now we want to allow other would-be terrorists to spend time with family members? What kind of message does that send? Who is it meant to please? What’s next – conjugal visits with some of the virgins promised these murderers before the after-life? I don’t get it.
It’s almost as if the Obama Administration can’t let a good deed go without having to follow-up behind it with some bone-headed move meant to appease not Americans, but some other constituency that gave this president his Nobel peace prize. I’m not sure who’s whispering into the president’s ear, but I can’t believe they’re thinking these moves thorough in an election year.
If this week is an indication of what’s to come, you better strap yourselves in for a long and wild ride, folks.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/12/11
The Economics of Marriage
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Economics of Marriage
Currently, our culture is concerned with our three front wars, education, health care,
the assassination of Bin Laden, and the economy -- and rightfully so. All of these things are
critical to the success of our nation. That being true, preserving the
institution of marriage is the single most important issue facing our country
today, because it strengthens our social foundations. A strong marriage creates
a strong household; a strong household produces strong children; and strong
children produce a strong society. It's a cycle that has been forgotten or
ignored the past 50 years. But until our leaders start fighting for marriage in
Congress, our churches start focusing on marriage in their places of worship,
and each of us start working on our own marriages in our households, our country
will continue to fall short.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Economics of Marriage
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Economics of Marriage
Currently, our culture is concerned with our three front wars, education, health care,
the assassination of Bin Laden, and the economy -- and rightfully so. All of these things are
critical to the success of our nation. That being true, preserving the
institution of marriage is the single most important issue facing our country
today, because it strengthens our social foundations. A strong marriage creates
a strong household; a strong household produces strong children; and strong
children produce a strong society. It's a cycle that has been forgotten or
ignored the past 50 years. But until our leaders start fighting for marriage in
Congress, our churches start focusing on marriage in their places of worship,
and each of us start working on our own marriages in our households, our country
will continue to fall short.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/11/11
Excuses Justify doing nothing
BY: Armstrong Williams
Excuses Justify doing nothing
You don't make money by making excuses for your or other people's poverty. You make money by finding market based solutions to the issues and causes of poverty. Excuses justify doing nothing. This implies that it's someone else's fault. It could very well be someone else's fault, but it won't solve the problem. People in poverty and people who want to help them need to find market based solutions which incentivizes responses to opportunities. There are many opportunities to make money in the world, from the young shoe shine boy with his kit looking for customers on main street, to the software engineer who writes a sensational program for social networking. Both are individuals responding to opportunities in the market. They are fulfilling a need and therefore deserve to be duly compensated.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Excuses Justify doing nothing
BY: Armstrong Williams
Excuses Justify doing nothing
You don't make money by making excuses for your or other people's poverty. You make money by finding market based solutions to the issues and causes of poverty. Excuses justify doing nothing. This implies that it's someone else's fault. It could very well be someone else's fault, but it won't solve the problem. People in poverty and people who want to help them need to find market based solutions which incentivizes responses to opportunities. There are many opportunities to make money in the world, from the young shoe shine boy with his kit looking for customers on main street, to the software engineer who writes a sensational program for social networking. Both are individuals responding to opportunities in the market. They are fulfilling a need and therefore deserve to be duly compensated.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius Power 128, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/10/11
Black Sabotage
BY: Armstrong Williams
Black Sabotage.
The civil rights movement was born out of an intense struggle to enjoy those basic human rights we associate with happiness. Early leaders of the movement settled on the theory that American society was primarily characterized by racism and that American institutions were grounded in the maintenance of racial privilege. Many of the black politicians who swept into office on the heels of the movement consciously embodied this organizing principle. Their legislative remedies were predicated on the belief that the problems of black people, whether its high crime rates, drug use, poor educational performance, were, primarily, if not entirely, the result of white racism. Their obligation was to promote and protect their constituents by offering remedies to specific aspects of racial discrimination (i.e., segregated schools, disparity in pay, public accommodations, etc.) In other words, they wed their legitimacy to the belief that all the problems confronting blacks were rooted in racism.
To this day, many black officeholders depend on the perception of on-going, widespread racism in order to remain competitive in the electoral process. They underplay the dramatic improvements in economic and social status experienced by blacks over the last 40 years. Large numbers of their constituents, particularly those who came to age during the overt racism of the past half century, continue to believe that the problems confronting the black lower class stem primarily from racism.
Herein lies the greatest missed opportunity of the civil rights movement. They never prepared for the day when America would find the moral compass to embrace minorities as their equals. Their entire public image, their very legitimacy as political and cultural spokespersons--was predicated on the rhetoric of a black versus white war. As Justice Clarence Thomas once observed, the [civil rights] revolution missed a larger point by merely changing the status [of minorities] from invisible to victimized.
Tragically, this point was also missed by the pop culture, which glorifies images of black misogyny, violence and victimization. We hold up gansta rappers as models of achievement. Hey, they’re just keeping it real we say. Meanwhile our children stare at these sociopaths with adoring eyes. They emulate their mean sense of entitlement, their broken English, and their violence, because this is what the popular culture tells us it means to be black. How tragic!!!
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Black Sabotage
BY: Armstrong Williams
Black Sabotage.
The civil rights movement was born out of an intense struggle to enjoy those basic human rights we associate with happiness. Early leaders of the movement settled on the theory that American society was primarily characterized by racism and that American institutions were grounded in the maintenance of racial privilege. Many of the black politicians who swept into office on the heels of the movement consciously embodied this organizing principle. Their legislative remedies were predicated on the belief that the problems of black people, whether its high crime rates, drug use, poor educational performance, were, primarily, if not entirely, the result of white racism. Their obligation was to promote and protect their constituents by offering remedies to specific aspects of racial discrimination (i.e., segregated schools, disparity in pay, public accommodations, etc.) In other words, they wed their legitimacy to the belief that all the problems confronting blacks were rooted in racism.
To this day, many black officeholders depend on the perception of on-going, widespread racism in order to remain competitive in the electoral process. They underplay the dramatic improvements in economic and social status experienced by blacks over the last 40 years. Large numbers of their constituents, particularly those who came to age during the overt racism of the past half century, continue to believe that the problems confronting the black lower class stem primarily from racism.
Herein lies the greatest missed opportunity of the civil rights movement. They never prepared for the day when America would find the moral compass to embrace minorities as their equals. Their entire public image, their very legitimacy as political and cultural spokespersons--was predicated on the rhetoric of a black versus white war. As Justice Clarence Thomas once observed, the [civil rights] revolution missed a larger point by merely changing the status [of minorities] from invisible to victimized.
Tragically, this point was also missed by the pop culture, which glorifies images of black misogyny, violence and victimization. We hold up gansta rappers as models of achievement. Hey, they’re just keeping it real we say. Meanwhile our children stare at these sociopaths with adoring eyes. They emulate their mean sense of entitlement, their broken English, and their violence, because this is what the popular culture tells us it means to be black. How tragic!!!
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/09/11
Poor form in Louisiana
BY: Armstrong Williams
Poor form in Louisiana
Back in April, two Louisiana state Republican legislators introduced a “birther” bill clearly to score some political points and try to make themselves relevant, I suppose. Specifically, the measure required that any presidential candidate seeking to be on the Louisiana ballot would need to swear out an affidavit that he was in fact a U.S. citizen, then offer a birth certificate to validate the claim.
Less than a week later, the office of Governor Bobby Jindal said he would sign the bill if it made it to his desk.
I have just one question surrounding this issue, “Are you serious?”
Why Louisiana? Other states are considering similar measures, so the foolishness of such a move is not lost solely down on the Bayou. But come on folks. Doesn’t the state’s lawmakers have enough to worry about with unemployment, high gas prices and other pressing domestic concerns to be moving legislation that will not improve one life inside its borders? Not to mention the ongoing clean-up from the BP oil spill that continues to haunt every major industry along the Gulf.
This is bad politics turned into bad policy. And it needs to stop.
But wait, it gets more laughable. Less than two weeks after President Obama succumbs to some invisible pressure to settle once and for all his own birth on American soil, Governor Jindal somehow feels compelled to do the same.
We all knew Jindal is of Indian origins, but that’s where it ended. No one ever questioned his citizenship. So why does he choose to release his own birth certificate over the weekend? His office was apparently responding to an editorial in a local New Orleans newspaper that said Jindal might face similar “birther” questions should he ever decide to run for president if a Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) bill ever became law.
But here, again, bad politics and bad policy meet. No one honestly believes Sen. Vitter’s bill will go anywhere in the U.S. Senate. In fact, there are some who would just as soon see Vitter himself leave the august body given his recent peccadillos.
And now the astute governor takes this weak bait and responds? What’s sad here is this latest move by Governor Jindal says more about his political rookie-ness than any desire to run for the highest office in the land.
I'm sure the voters want to see an Obama-Jindal debate where the two spend an hour talking about who's more "American" than the other...
Republicans need to think long and hard about what their agenda is going to be moving into this presidential election cycle. So far, I haven't heard much by way of substance, and heaven knows there's plenty of issues to talk about.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Poor form in Louisiana
BY: Armstrong Williams
Poor form in Louisiana
Back in April, two Louisiana state Republican legislators introduced a “birther” bill clearly to score some political points and try to make themselves relevant, I suppose. Specifically, the measure required that any presidential candidate seeking to be on the Louisiana ballot would need to swear out an affidavit that he was in fact a U.S. citizen, then offer a birth certificate to validate the claim.
Less than a week later, the office of Governor Bobby Jindal said he would sign the bill if it made it to his desk.
I have just one question surrounding this issue, “Are you serious?”
Why Louisiana? Other states are considering similar measures, so the foolishness of such a move is not lost solely down on the Bayou. But come on folks. Doesn’t the state’s lawmakers have enough to worry about with unemployment, high gas prices and other pressing domestic concerns to be moving legislation that will not improve one life inside its borders? Not to mention the ongoing clean-up from the BP oil spill that continues to haunt every major industry along the Gulf.
This is bad politics turned into bad policy. And it needs to stop.
But wait, it gets more laughable. Less than two weeks after President Obama succumbs to some invisible pressure to settle once and for all his own birth on American soil, Governor Jindal somehow feels compelled to do the same.
We all knew Jindal is of Indian origins, but that’s where it ended. No one ever questioned his citizenship. So why does he choose to release his own birth certificate over the weekend? His office was apparently responding to an editorial in a local New Orleans newspaper that said Jindal might face similar “birther” questions should he ever decide to run for president if a Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) bill ever became law.
But here, again, bad politics and bad policy meet. No one honestly believes Sen. Vitter’s bill will go anywhere in the U.S. Senate. In fact, there are some who would just as soon see Vitter himself leave the august body given his recent peccadillos.
And now the astute governor takes this weak bait and responds? What’s sad here is this latest move by Governor Jindal says more about his political rookie-ness than any desire to run for the highest office in the land.
I'm sure the voters want to see an Obama-Jindal debate where the two spend an hour talking about who's more "American" than the other...
Republicans need to think long and hard about what their agenda is going to be moving into this presidential election cycle. So far, I haven't heard much by way of substance, and heaven knows there's plenty of issues to talk about.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/08/11
Greatest wonder of them all, a Mother's Love
BY: Armstrong Williams
Greatest wonder of them all, A Mother's Love.
My Mother, now in her 80’s, is sweet and adorable and is in much more need of her children than ever before. Yes, she gives the impression that she’s still tough and independent, but the simple things remind me that she’s getting older and that I need to enjoy every waking moment with her.
Knowing that we all have an anointed time on this earth I make each day and moment count with my Mother and other mothers that have mentored me along the way. Every morning without interruption, at 5 AM I call my Mother and it’s as if she’s hearing from me for the first time. She’s having cataract surgery soon and I made it clear that I would be home to be by her side. Her response, “son, I sure appreciate it.”
The sadness of all of this is that so many sons and daughters these days go through life never understanding what it means to really have loved and been loved unconditionally by the progenitors of our society. The Bible’s definition of love could not have described a mother’s love for her children more poignantly.
My siblings and I never have to wonder where our blessing lies in life because just hearing her gentle voice or seeing her caring face is a reminder of all the love we’ve received. In my lifetime, I have seen five of the original seven wonders of the world: Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, the ruins of the Parthenon, the Great Wall of China, and what’s left of the hanging gardens of Babylon. Those are incredible and magnificent creations, but I’ve concluded that the greatest wonder of them all is a Mother’s love.
Greatest wonder of them all, a Mother's Love
BY: Armstrong Williams
Greatest wonder of them all, A Mother's Love.
My Mother, now in her 80’s, is sweet and adorable and is in much more need of her children than ever before. Yes, she gives the impression that she’s still tough and independent, but the simple things remind me that she’s getting older and that I need to enjoy every waking moment with her.
Knowing that we all have an anointed time on this earth I make each day and moment count with my Mother and other mothers that have mentored me along the way. Every morning without interruption, at 5 AM I call my Mother and it’s as if she’s hearing from me for the first time. She’s having cataract surgery soon and I made it clear that I would be home to be by her side. Her response, “son, I sure appreciate it.”
The sadness of all of this is that so many sons and daughters these days go through life never understanding what it means to really have loved and been loved unconditionally by the progenitors of our society. The Bible’s definition of love could not have described a mother’s love for her children more poignantly.
My siblings and I never have to wonder where our blessing lies in life because just hearing her gentle voice or seeing her caring face is a reminder of all the love we’ve received. In my lifetime, I have seen five of the original seven wonders of the world: Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, the ruins of the Parthenon, the Great Wall of China, and what’s left of the hanging gardens of Babylon. Those are incredible and magnificent creations, but I’ve concluded that the greatest wonder of them all is a Mother’s love.
05/06/11
IRAQ---Should we Go or Stay
BY: Armstrong Williams
IRAQ --Should we Go or Stay?
The United States is clearly willing, but the Iraqi people and more problematically Iraq's Council of Representatives must take the steps necessary to allow some U.S. forces to remain. It is definitely in their interest and ours... A half century later we maintain thousands of troops in South Korea and one must question the logic of not maintaining a similiar partnership with Iraq --- especially in the next five years. With an ever expanding Iran and a seemingly endless number of nefarious extremist elements operating in the Middle East -- If we abruptly close up shop in Iraq how does this play out?
IRAQ Should we Go or Stay?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
IRAQ---Should we Go or Stay
BY: Armstrong Williams
IRAQ --Should we Go or Stay?
The United States is clearly willing, but the Iraqi people and more problematically Iraq's Council of Representatives must take the steps necessary to allow some U.S. forces to remain. It is definitely in their interest and ours... A half century later we maintain thousands of troops in South Korea and one must question the logic of not maintaining a similiar partnership with Iraq --- especially in the next five years. With an ever expanding Iran and a seemingly endless number of nefarious extremist elements operating in the Middle East -- If we abruptly close up shop in Iraq how does this play out?
IRAQ Should we Go or Stay?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/05/11
Previewing tonight's GOP debates
BY: Armstrong Williams
Previewing tonight’s GOP debates
Say what you will about the debate tonight in my home state of South Carolina. Question the depth of the star power if you must. You may even wonder aloud if topics that matter most to the average American voter will come up (anyone for a few birther questions?). But one thing is certain – a winner will emerge.
And for one of the five in attendance, that could mean a nice shot in the arm. However, the boost will benefit and sustain some candidates more than others.
Put another way, there are essentially only two individuals tonight who need this win. Of the five, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty have the most to gain (and lose) tonight. On paper, they blow away the rest of the admittedly weak field. They have the background and time spent in the true public spotlight and legislative arenas to mount legitimate campaigns.
I’d wager that no one could even name the state Gary Johnson presided over, much less the public office he held (New Mexico’s governor). Former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza Herman Cain puts new meaning to the word “longshot.” And then there’s Texas congressman Ron Paul. What can you say about him. He can definitely mobilize a conservative voting bloc, but in terms of broad appeal and an agenda that would attract the much-needed vote of independents, he misses the mark.
Tonight is also a laboratory for myriad attack lines against President Obama. Rest assured the political wordsmiths will be rolling out new themes and messages to see which ones stick.
Will Mitt Romney and Donald Trump be watching? They’d be fools not to. It’s the beginning of the presidential selection process for the GOP. More importantly, FOX News will be covering it. That’s a direct line to millions of primary voters in key states.
So despite the impressiveness of the slate of contenders tonight, traction will be gained, messages will be tested, and one candidate may begin to see the stars aligning in his favor…
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Previewing tonight's GOP debates
BY: Armstrong Williams
Previewing tonight’s GOP debates
Say what you will about the debate tonight in my home state of South Carolina. Question the depth of the star power if you must. You may even wonder aloud if topics that matter most to the average American voter will come up (anyone for a few birther questions?). But one thing is certain – a winner will emerge.
And for one of the five in attendance, that could mean a nice shot in the arm. However, the boost will benefit and sustain some candidates more than others.
Put another way, there are essentially only two individuals tonight who need this win. Of the five, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty have the most to gain (and lose) tonight. On paper, they blow away the rest of the admittedly weak field. They have the background and time spent in the true public spotlight and legislative arenas to mount legitimate campaigns.
I’d wager that no one could even name the state Gary Johnson presided over, much less the public office he held (New Mexico’s governor). Former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza Herman Cain puts new meaning to the word “longshot.” And then there’s Texas congressman Ron Paul. What can you say about him. He can definitely mobilize a conservative voting bloc, but in terms of broad appeal and an agenda that would attract the much-needed vote of independents, he misses the mark.
Tonight is also a laboratory for myriad attack lines against President Obama. Rest assured the political wordsmiths will be rolling out new themes and messages to see which ones stick.
Will Mitt Romney and Donald Trump be watching? They’d be fools not to. It’s the beginning of the presidential selection process for the GOP. More importantly, FOX News will be covering it. That’s a direct line to millions of primary voters in key states.
So despite the impressiveness of the slate of contenders tonight, traction will be gained, messages will be tested, and one candidate may begin to see the stars aligning in his favor…
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/03/11
Quite a week for Western Civilization
BY: Armstrong Williams
Quite a week for Western Civilization
From my perspective, this has been a remarkable three days this weekend. Two central institutions of Western civilization were affirmed: the Roman Catholic Church (what remains of the Roman Empire); and the British monarchy (the symbol of the British Empire); and the slaying of Osama bin Laden (the leading western antagonist of the Islamic strain) with the implements of western technical prowess.
The Roman Empire and the British Empire were the incubator and primary global distributor, respectively, of the essentials of western civilization: Judeo-Christian ethics and Christianity, classical learning, technology, and, latterly, liberal democracy and market economics/free trade. T o watch a million people in London (outstripping even the attendance at the 1981 wedding of Charles-Diana), and an estimated two million in Rome for the beatification of Pope John Paul II was an indication that though both are under challenge, these central institutions of western-ism have a remarkable resilience and ability still to captivate.
The killing of bin Laden indicates that the US – today’s primary exemplar of ‘the West’ – still has the ability to stalk its enemies, and to liquidate them. That this took over a decade in the case of bin Laden is a tribute to the assiduousness of American administrations of both parties to accomplish this goal. While so many are pointing particularly to China (whose growth, though large, is, I believe, premised on a financial house of cards) and the passing of the West, these last three days show something remarkable: a West still intact, still predominant, and still the central actor on the world stage.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Quite a week for Western Civilization
BY: Armstrong Williams
Quite a week for Western Civilization
From my perspective, this has been a remarkable three days this weekend. Two central institutions of Western civilization were affirmed: the Roman Catholic Church (what remains of the Roman Empire); and the British monarchy (the symbol of the British Empire); and the slaying of Osama bin Laden (the leading western antagonist of the Islamic strain) with the implements of western technical prowess.
The Roman Empire and the British Empire were the incubator and primary global distributor, respectively, of the essentials of western civilization: Judeo-Christian ethics and Christianity, classical learning, technology, and, latterly, liberal democracy and market economics/free trade. T o watch a million people in London (outstripping even the attendance at the 1981 wedding of Charles-Diana), and an estimated two million in Rome for the beatification of Pope John Paul II was an indication that though both are under challenge, these central institutions of western-ism have a remarkable resilience and ability still to captivate.
The killing of bin Laden indicates that the US – today’s primary exemplar of ‘the West’ – still has the ability to stalk its enemies, and to liquidate them. That this took over a decade in the case of bin Laden is a tribute to the assiduousness of American administrations of both parties to accomplish this goal. While so many are pointing particularly to China (whose growth, though large, is, I believe, premised on a financial house of cards) and the passing of the West, these last three days show something remarkable: a West still intact, still predominant, and still the central actor on the world stage.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
05/02/11
The poster child of terror
BY: Armstrong Williams
R.I.D. – The poster child of terror
Dead at last. Dead at last. Thank God almighty.
The most wanted terrorist in the world is now rotting away in dust. Due to an American “military action” we got our man.
A special debt of gratitude goes out to the men and women in uniform for their tireless months and years of sacrifice – running this pestilence down and eradicating him. Predator drones finished what others started on 9/12. We didn’t wait. We couldn’t wait. Too many Americans lost their lives that fateful day. It may have taken years to bring this to pass, but it did occur. And now justice has been served.
Didn’t we know in our heart of hearts this would happen? That it was only a matter of time before good ol’ American ingenuity and know-how would wipe this menace from the earth?
Al Qaida operatives will spew their usual banter. That UBL was no longer responsible for the day-to-day operations of the terrorist organization. That business as usual will continue, and that the new center of the network will remain in Yemen, not Afghanistan or Pakistan where it was believed the rat was holed up.
But that doesn’t matter. The psychological impact of this event is enormous. It’s huge for the country, but it holds even larger accolades and praise for our military. Nearly 47,000 Americans were either killed or wounded in both Iraq and Afghanistan essentially fighting because of this man. The threat of terrorism will remain, make no mistake. But this man represented so much. He stood for fear and death, and as a symbol for striking at the most powerful nation on earth. He was the poster child of terror. To take him out in the way it happened will send a clear message to those contemplating similar actions.
Indeed, this is a turning point in the global war on terror. It sends a new message to the world that actions have consequences. That we will make you pay if you threaten and harm these United States.
We now need to exploit the global message that his death brings. We need to reach out to the moderate Muslims in the world and call on them to work with us to end the scourge of terrorism in the Middle East. The world doesn’t need any more Usama bin Ladens. Let’s turn the page of history and embark on a new era of peace.
Rest in despair, bin Laden. Not one soul in this country will mourn your loss.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The poster child of terror
BY: Armstrong Williams
R.I.D. – The poster child of terror
Dead at last. Dead at last. Thank God almighty.
The most wanted terrorist in the world is now rotting away in dust. Due to an American “military action” we got our man.
A special debt of gratitude goes out to the men and women in uniform for their tireless months and years of sacrifice – running this pestilence down and eradicating him. Predator drones finished what others started on 9/12. We didn’t wait. We couldn’t wait. Too many Americans lost their lives that fateful day. It may have taken years to bring this to pass, but it did occur. And now justice has been served.
Didn’t we know in our heart of hearts this would happen? That it was only a matter of time before good ol’ American ingenuity and know-how would wipe this menace from the earth?
Al Qaida operatives will spew their usual banter. That UBL was no longer responsible for the day-to-day operations of the terrorist organization. That business as usual will continue, and that the new center of the network will remain in Yemen, not Afghanistan or Pakistan where it was believed the rat was holed up.
But that doesn’t matter. The psychological impact of this event is enormous. It’s huge for the country, but it holds even larger accolades and praise for our military. Nearly 47,000 Americans were either killed or wounded in both Iraq and Afghanistan essentially fighting because of this man. The threat of terrorism will remain, make no mistake. But this man represented so much. He stood for fear and death, and as a symbol for striking at the most powerful nation on earth. He was the poster child of terror. To take him out in the way it happened will send a clear message to those contemplating similar actions.
Indeed, this is a turning point in the global war on terror. It sends a new message to the world that actions have consequences. That we will make you pay if you threaten and harm these United States.
We now need to exploit the global message that his death brings. We need to reach out to the moderate Muslims in the world and call on them to work with us to end the scourge of terrorism in the Middle East. The world doesn’t need any more Usama bin Ladens. Let’s turn the page of history and embark on a new era of peace.
Rest in despair, bin Laden. Not one soul in this country will mourn your loss.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/29/11
Terrorist Tweet
Subject: Terrorist Tweet
Armstrong Williams
Have you tweeted today? Or ever? I bet you have used Facebook today. As a country we fall in love with the unbridled technological progress that the great minds of our country afford us. It can do so much good for us, it connects us with long lost friends, family, and otherwise. It allows us to stay up to date, up to the minute in some instances of events around the corner and around the world. All of this is absolutely fantastic when it helps us out, but we are often remiss in our consideration of the negative ramifications of these very same advances.
Today's Washington Times has a cover-story entitled 'Terrorists discover uses for Twitter' that sheds light on the use of social media for the promulgation of terrorist propaganda. Twitter was created as a system for sending out group text messages but has evolved into a micro-blogging outlet where a celebrity like Charlie Sheen can have over one million followers, otherwise known as subscribers, that receive his messages the instant he presses 'Tweet' (you see where I'm going with this). Imagine, the spontaneous gathering of several thousand terrorists called to action with a death knell of 140 characters or less. This type of mass dissemination has governments on high alert, and for good reason.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Terrorist Tweet
Subject: Terrorist Tweet
Armstrong Williams
Have you tweeted today? Or ever? I bet you have used Facebook today. As a country we fall in love with the unbridled technological progress that the great minds of our country afford us. It can do so much good for us, it connects us with long lost friends, family, and otherwise. It allows us to stay up to date, up to the minute in some instances of events around the corner and around the world. All of this is absolutely fantastic when it helps us out, but we are often remiss in our consideration of the negative ramifications of these very same advances.
Today's Washington Times has a cover-story entitled 'Terrorists discover uses for Twitter' that sheds light on the use of social media for the promulgation of terrorist propaganda. Twitter was created as a system for sending out group text messages but has evolved into a micro-blogging outlet where a celebrity like Charlie Sheen can have over one million followers, otherwise known as subscribers, that receive his messages the instant he presses 'Tweet' (you see where I'm going with this). Imagine, the spontaneous gathering of several thousand terrorists called to action with a death knell of 140 characters or less. This type of mass dissemination has governments on high alert, and for good reason.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/28/11
Obama's policies are Americans worst enemy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's policies are Americans worst enemy.
President Obama's administration and his political team are becoming increasingly tone deaf. Everyday Americans aren’t visiting town halls of Republicans to complain about draconian cuts. They’re coming to gripe the majority party isn’t cutting enough. We've had many tax cuts over the past 20 years but no spending decreases. The lack of discipline created by a broken political system now has us on the verge of bankruptcy.
This is a seminal moment in our nation’s understanding of fiscal policy. The billions and trillions are starting to matter. They’re no longer “just on paper” and meaningless terms with no real impact on individual families and businesses. The fear is there and it’s palpable. And Americans are starting to sort out in their own minds what a bankrupt nation could mean to them and their futures.
When will this Administration grasp that? How many more houses must foreclose and businesses fail before someone on the president’s economic team realizes these policies are a joke??
So don’t worry when we’re 19 months out who will rise up among the GOP and assume his/her rightful place in the presidential pantheon. There’s plenty of time for that.
From my own perspective, I’m more interested in seeing how much farther down the road of disrepair the current administration will take us. Obama's continued policies are Americans worst enemy and nightmare right now. Republicans would do well to get out of his way.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's policies are Americans worst enemy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's policies are Americans worst enemy.
President Obama's administration and his political team are becoming increasingly tone deaf. Everyday Americans aren’t visiting town halls of Republicans to complain about draconian cuts. They’re coming to gripe the majority party isn’t cutting enough. We've had many tax cuts over the past 20 years but no spending decreases. The lack of discipline created by a broken political system now has us on the verge of bankruptcy.
This is a seminal moment in our nation’s understanding of fiscal policy. The billions and trillions are starting to matter. They’re no longer “just on paper” and meaningless terms with no real impact on individual families and businesses. The fear is there and it’s palpable. And Americans are starting to sort out in their own minds what a bankrupt nation could mean to them and their futures.
When will this Administration grasp that? How many more houses must foreclose and businesses fail before someone on the president’s economic team realizes these policies are a joke??
So don’t worry when we’re 19 months out who will rise up among the GOP and assume his/her rightful place in the presidential pantheon. There’s plenty of time for that.
From my own perspective, I’m more interested in seeing how much farther down the road of disrepair the current administration will take us. Obama's continued policies are Americans worst enemy and nightmare right now. Republicans would do well to get out of his way.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/27/11
Rs v. Obama
BY: Armstrong Williams
Rs v. Obama
Mark my words, the sudden exit of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour from the Republican presidential nomination race will be followed by many more. The prospects will either bow out before they ever catch any fire (Rick Santorum) or they may never enter the race at all because of the writing on the wall (Michele Bachmann).
Put simply, these candidates lack the fire to stir men’s souls. They can’t mobilize the voter base across the wide swath they know they’ll need to win the White House. It’s more than just the entire Republican “base”, and more than even some disgruntled, out of work Independent voters. And it’s certainly more than the Tea Party faction.
The winning Republican candidate will need all of these blocs. But can it be done? Of course. Yet I don’t believe that candidate has emerged.
Even if the person who defeats President Obama is among the crowded field today in the form of a Romney or Daniels or even Pawlenty, the 2012 election won’t even be about them. I’m serious.
This race is all about Obama. He’s weak politically, and if current trends continue, his brand and stock will only fall. $4/gallon gas prices? A plummeting dollar? Borrowing 47 cents on every dollar we spend? That’s only the beginning folks, unless this White House can put some significant punch back into this economy.
I’m not saying it won’t be a fistfight. Obama’s campaign is gearing up for one helluva contest. Media buyers are already predicting this election cycle to tip the $2 billion scale in terms of ad buys and placements in the next 18 months. Yep, that’s “billion” with a “b”.
A GOP candidate will emerge, and he will be battle-hardened from a rigorous primary that will force him all over the Republican spectrum. You can bet on that. But the less this is about personalities and the more it’s about the direction of the country and the principles that the Obama White House has made clear it owns (larger government, paternalistic nannyism), then the voters will send a clear message.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Rs v. Obama
BY: Armstrong Williams
Rs v. Obama
Mark my words, the sudden exit of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour from the Republican presidential nomination race will be followed by many more. The prospects will either bow out before they ever catch any fire (Rick Santorum) or they may never enter the race at all because of the writing on the wall (Michele Bachmann).
Put simply, these candidates lack the fire to stir men’s souls. They can’t mobilize the voter base across the wide swath they know they’ll need to win the White House. It’s more than just the entire Republican “base”, and more than even some disgruntled, out of work Independent voters. And it’s certainly more than the Tea Party faction.
The winning Republican candidate will need all of these blocs. But can it be done? Of course. Yet I don’t believe that candidate has emerged.
Even if the person who defeats President Obama is among the crowded field today in the form of a Romney or Daniels or even Pawlenty, the 2012 election won’t even be about them. I’m serious.
This race is all about Obama. He’s weak politically, and if current trends continue, his brand and stock will only fall. $4/gallon gas prices? A plummeting dollar? Borrowing 47 cents on every dollar we spend? That’s only the beginning folks, unless this White House can put some significant punch back into this economy.
I’m not saying it won’t be a fistfight. Obama’s campaign is gearing up for one helluva contest. Media buyers are already predicting this election cycle to tip the $2 billion scale in terms of ad buys and placements in the next 18 months. Yep, that’s “billion” with a “b”.
A GOP candidate will emerge, and he will be battle-hardened from a rigorous primary that will force him all over the Republican spectrum. You can bet on that. But the less this is about personalities and the more it’s about the direction of the country and the principles that the Obama White House has made clear it owns (larger government, paternalistic nannyism), then the voters will send a clear message.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/26/11
Will America be spared the same fate?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will America be spared from the same fate?
In the midst of a season that has provided riveting political theatre – the budget extension impasse and the impending battle over raising the debt ceiling – a bright ideological line has emerged between the two major political parties. It is not about whether we must reduce our debt (both sides ostensibly agree that we must), but about where those cuts should come from. But let’s be clear; without a serious challenge by congressional Republicans, the seriousness of America’s debt situation would not occupy its’ rightful place the forefront of the political debate.
Let’s face it. The U.S. Government is bankrupt. Its liabilities exceed its revenues by over 200% by some estimates. If it were not for America’s status as a reserve currency – a status earned by the nation’s long history of political stability and economic growth -- we would find ourselves in the same position as Greece and Portugal. Those countries are not only unable to repay the principle amount they’ve borrowed, but also have trouble meeting the minimum debt service payments without additional borrowing. In what appears to be an inexorable death spiral – borrowing costs rising, while revenues are falling – it appears those countries are going into default.
While the European Central bank has tried to bolster Europe’s failing economies with lending of last resort, it has thus far failed to stem the tide of economic logic: At a certain level, when you owe more than you make, your creditors get skittish and demand higher interest rates to compensate for the risk of default. Creditors in Europe fought their version Fed, and, contrary to popular wisdom in the U.S., they appear to be winning, putting the people of those countries at their mercy. In sum, the people of Greece and Portugal have become serfs in their own country. The land they live on and the houses they live in do not belong to them anymore. Moreover, their political system is being increasingly controlled -- not by their elected leaders, but by unelected supers-sovereigns such as the IMF and ECB.
Will America be spared from the same fate?
Will America be spared the same fate?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will America be spared from the same fate?
In the midst of a season that has provided riveting political theatre – the budget extension impasse and the impending battle over raising the debt ceiling – a bright ideological line has emerged between the two major political parties. It is not about whether we must reduce our debt (both sides ostensibly agree that we must), but about where those cuts should come from. But let’s be clear; without a serious challenge by congressional Republicans, the seriousness of America’s debt situation would not occupy its’ rightful place the forefront of the political debate.
Let’s face it. The U.S. Government is bankrupt. Its liabilities exceed its revenues by over 200% by some estimates. If it were not for America’s status as a reserve currency – a status earned by the nation’s long history of political stability and economic growth -- we would find ourselves in the same position as Greece and Portugal. Those countries are not only unable to repay the principle amount they’ve borrowed, but also have trouble meeting the minimum debt service payments without additional borrowing. In what appears to be an inexorable death spiral – borrowing costs rising, while revenues are falling – it appears those countries are going into default.
While the European Central bank has tried to bolster Europe’s failing economies with lending of last resort, it has thus far failed to stem the tide of economic logic: At a certain level, when you owe more than you make, your creditors get skittish and demand higher interest rates to compensate for the risk of default. Creditors in Europe fought their version Fed, and, contrary to popular wisdom in the U.S., they appear to be winning, putting the people of those countries at their mercy. In sum, the people of Greece and Portugal have become serfs in their own country. The land they live on and the houses they live in do not belong to them anymore. Moreover, their political system is being increasingly controlled -- not by their elected leaders, but by unelected supers-sovereigns such as the IMF and ECB.
Will America be spared from the same fate?
04/25/11
Is Our Government the best Engine for Futue Growth?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is our Government the best engine for future growth?
Major U.S. investors, including Pacific Investment Management Co. Manager Bill Gross, have exited the U.S. debt market, citing the increasing riskiness of the assets on its books relative to the interest rate it pays to bond holders. They are not likely to return until interest rates rise. And, with total federal debt having ballooned to an astronomical $14 trillion, a rise in borrowing costs would have catastrophic effects on the government´s ability to meet its debt service obligations.
But what seems to get lost in the ideological debate is the fundamental truth. A country with declining national growth should not attempt to fill the gap with a rash of borrowing. At some point, using additional long-term borrowing to support short-term consumption — whether its bank bailouts, stimulus spending or unemployment benefits — constrains future growth. The Obama administration has attempted to phrase the borrowing as an "investment" in future growth.
But there is a real question as to whether the government is the best engine for investing in the growth America needs to get out of debt. The ideological line starts here. Would we rather have government "invest" our money for us, or is private enterprise the more appropriate conduit for achieving long term growth?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Is Our Government the best Engine for Futue Growth?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is our Government the best engine for future growth?
Major U.S. investors, including Pacific Investment Management Co. Manager Bill Gross, have exited the U.S. debt market, citing the increasing riskiness of the assets on its books relative to the interest rate it pays to bond holders. They are not likely to return until interest rates rise. And, with total federal debt having ballooned to an astronomical $14 trillion, a rise in borrowing costs would have catastrophic effects on the government´s ability to meet its debt service obligations.
But what seems to get lost in the ideological debate is the fundamental truth. A country with declining national growth should not attempt to fill the gap with a rash of borrowing. At some point, using additional long-term borrowing to support short-term consumption — whether its bank bailouts, stimulus spending or unemployment benefits — constrains future growth. The Obama administration has attempted to phrase the borrowing as an "investment" in future growth.
But there is a real question as to whether the government is the best engine for investing in the growth America needs to get out of debt. The ideological line starts here. Would we rather have government "invest" our money for us, or is private enterprise the more appropriate conduit for achieving long term growth?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/22/11
Easter Reflections
BY: Armstrong Williams
Easter Reflections
Many Christians around the world begin celebrating Easter with Lent, a 40-day period before Easter which begins on Ash Wednesday; Holy Week, which begins with Palm Sunday, celebrates the story of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, where people spread palm branches and clothing before him; Good Friday, the day Jesus died on the cross and then, Easter Sunday, Jesus' resurrection.
As I reflect back on my many journey's to Israel, the visit to the Mount of Olives where Jesus had his last supper is a reminder of what Easter really means. Many people think of Easter as the colored eggs, plenty of candy, and the Easter Bunny. But I am reminded of Christ's final journey-from the place where Pontius Pilate condemned him to die, to where he bore his own cross, to the site where he was hung, to the tomb where he rose from the dead. These steps leading to Christ's crucifixion leave me awakened to the truly beautiful possibilities of life because the very moment Jesus rose from the dead, was the very moment we would be given everlasting life. Christians would now receive new life after death.
As I passed through the garden of Gethsemane where Christ was delivered to the Romans and paraded through the streets of Jerusalem, before being nailed to a cross, in between two criminals, I recalled that, even as Christ hung on the cross, he saved the repentant soul of one of those criminals. Christ always reached out to those who were different than Himself.
As Christians, we feel comfortable with other Christians. We feel safety in worshipping together. We feel peace in socializing together. And we feel righteousness in standing against those who seek to bring moral and ethical decay to the culture of this nation. But is it enough to just stand together? Is it enough to just stand against? Should we not also, as Christ did, reach out to those who believe and behave differently from us? When was the last time you saw someone in desperation and extended your hand?
We should not make the mistake of thinking that those who believe and behave differently from us cannot be good people. It is too easy to say that those who believe as we do are good and those who believe otherwise are bad. That worldview, while convenient and expedient, is compassionless and ill conceived.
Christians must reach out to those who do not believe. We must provide an example that will inspire others to follow. We must see the good in others. We must condemn behavior and not people. We have nothing to fear in reaching out. Those who believe differently will not shake our beliefs. Those who act differently will not change our behavior. As long as we are grounded in faith, we can walk securely with anyone, anywhere.
Easter Reflections
BY: Armstrong Williams
Easter Reflections
Many Christians around the world begin celebrating Easter with Lent, a 40-day period before Easter which begins on Ash Wednesday; Holy Week, which begins with Palm Sunday, celebrates the story of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, where people spread palm branches and clothing before him; Good Friday, the day Jesus died on the cross and then, Easter Sunday, Jesus' resurrection.
As I reflect back on my many journey's to Israel, the visit to the Mount of Olives where Jesus had his last supper is a reminder of what Easter really means. Many people think of Easter as the colored eggs, plenty of candy, and the Easter Bunny. But I am reminded of Christ's final journey-from the place where Pontius Pilate condemned him to die, to where he bore his own cross, to the site where he was hung, to the tomb where he rose from the dead. These steps leading to Christ's crucifixion leave me awakened to the truly beautiful possibilities of life because the very moment Jesus rose from the dead, was the very moment we would be given everlasting life. Christians would now receive new life after death.
As I passed through the garden of Gethsemane where Christ was delivered to the Romans and paraded through the streets of Jerusalem, before being nailed to a cross, in between two criminals, I recalled that, even as Christ hung on the cross, he saved the repentant soul of one of those criminals. Christ always reached out to those who were different than Himself.
As Christians, we feel comfortable with other Christians. We feel safety in worshipping together. We feel peace in socializing together. And we feel righteousness in standing against those who seek to bring moral and ethical decay to the culture of this nation. But is it enough to just stand together? Is it enough to just stand against? Should we not also, as Christ did, reach out to those who believe and behave differently from us? When was the last time you saw someone in desperation and extended your hand?
We should not make the mistake of thinking that those who believe and behave differently from us cannot be good people. It is too easy to say that those who believe as we do are good and those who believe otherwise are bad. That worldview, while convenient and expedient, is compassionless and ill conceived.
Christians must reach out to those who do not believe. We must provide an example that will inspire others to follow. We must see the good in others. We must condemn behavior and not people. We have nothing to fear in reaching out. Those who believe differently will not shake our beliefs. Those who act differently will not change our behavior. As long as we are grounded in faith, we can walk securely with anyone, anywhere.
04/21/11
We are Bankrupt
BY: Armstrong Williams
We are Bankrupt?
How can our U.S Government have a triple A rating credit when you borrow 47 cents of every dollar to meet your financial obligations. If GE borrowed 47 percent of all bills they must pay on a monthly basis, that's bankruptcy. There's not enough cash flow to continue your business. Do we have any standard of behavior? Our money is being spent to care for those who make little effort to care for themselves. Can you imagine that 47% of all people pay no taxes and they want to continue taxing us to make up for it. Isn't it time that we go to a consumption tax that is linear where everyone is treated the same.
Debt creates instability. Hillary Clinton commented how can we criticize China's economic policies when we're in debt to them . With shareholders you can only lose what you've invested, but debt leveraged allows you to make outside gains from various small movements in growth but also magnifies the losses from very small declines in growth. Ultimately the debt has to be repaid from tax revenue. The pie will not expand to justify taking on more debt.
Why trust the S&P for they are the same people that gave Lehman's brothers a triple A rating six months before they collapsed. These ratings agencies are politically motivated, if it were any country other than the US, the ratings would have already fallen.
Who can tell that we're bankrupt or not because we continue to print dollars and debt in form of bonds and notes.
We are Bankrupt
BY: Armstrong Williams
We are Bankrupt?
How can our U.S Government have a triple A rating credit when you borrow 47 cents of every dollar to meet your financial obligations. If GE borrowed 47 percent of all bills they must pay on a monthly basis, that's bankruptcy. There's not enough cash flow to continue your business. Do we have any standard of behavior? Our money is being spent to care for those who make little effort to care for themselves. Can you imagine that 47% of all people pay no taxes and they want to continue taxing us to make up for it. Isn't it time that we go to a consumption tax that is linear where everyone is treated the same.
Debt creates instability. Hillary Clinton commented how can we criticize China's economic policies when we're in debt to them . With shareholders you can only lose what you've invested, but debt leveraged allows you to make outside gains from various small movements in growth but also magnifies the losses from very small declines in growth. Ultimately the debt has to be repaid from tax revenue. The pie will not expand to justify taking on more debt.
Why trust the S&P for they are the same people that gave Lehman's brothers a triple A rating six months before they collapsed. These ratings agencies are politically motivated, if it were any country other than the US, the ratings would have already fallen.
Who can tell that we're bankrupt or not because we continue to print dollars and debt in form of bonds and notes.
04/20/11
Fear of Math and Science
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fear of Math and Science.
We can all agree that many children these days prefer not to study very much; I’m not sure if it’s because they are so busy with other things, or they just have been handed so much that the idea of hard work is foreign to them. But whatever the reason, it’s obvious to parents and teachers across America that kids aren’t putting in the effort to excel in math and science. One explanation may be because math and science generally demand specific solutions, meaning either a right or wrong answer. So for a lot of kids who are scared to fail, or sadly even scared to try, math and science are just pushed away at all costs. Instead, more kids focus on subjects like History and English which tend to be more philosophical and interpretive which allows for more wiggle room and less hurt feelings. Don't misinterpret my meaning, subjects like History and English are imperative to education and add great value to society, but they are not the only things our children should be learning. It is a fact that far more people study these subjects because they fear complete failure in math or science, where strict guidelines and exact answers are expected. Unfortunately, 20% off will not make a $40 shirt cost $20 no matter how much you 'feel' that it should; the shirt would still cost you $32. Also, science tells us that it is impossible to hear a bullet, because they travel faster than the speed of sound.
Do you really think that with the brain that either evolution handed down, or God bestowed upon us, we are incapable of learning science and math if we put our mind to it? Absolutely not! We can all learn everything taught in school, it merely requires effort, determination, and perseverance. And once learned it is empowering and enjoyable to utilize these new-learned skills. We must pass along this attitude to our children and demand that lawmakers, teachers, and administrators make math and science a priority in our schools again. Then we must put away our calculators, brush up on our arithmetic, and show our children that even old dogs can break out old tricks. We may not always need math and we may not always like science, but we must always learn and hone these valuable subjects and skills. Given today's financial crisis this nation faces, a better understanding of math could make the difference between foreclosure and having peace of mind with your home purchase.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Fear of Math and Science
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fear of Math and Science.
We can all agree that many children these days prefer not to study very much; I’m not sure if it’s because they are so busy with other things, or they just have been handed so much that the idea of hard work is foreign to them. But whatever the reason, it’s obvious to parents and teachers across America that kids aren’t putting in the effort to excel in math and science. One explanation may be because math and science generally demand specific solutions, meaning either a right or wrong answer. So for a lot of kids who are scared to fail, or sadly even scared to try, math and science are just pushed away at all costs. Instead, more kids focus on subjects like History and English which tend to be more philosophical and interpretive which allows for more wiggle room and less hurt feelings. Don't misinterpret my meaning, subjects like History and English are imperative to education and add great value to society, but they are not the only things our children should be learning. It is a fact that far more people study these subjects because they fear complete failure in math or science, where strict guidelines and exact answers are expected. Unfortunately, 20% off will not make a $40 shirt cost $20 no matter how much you 'feel' that it should; the shirt would still cost you $32. Also, science tells us that it is impossible to hear a bullet, because they travel faster than the speed of sound.
Do you really think that with the brain that either evolution handed down, or God bestowed upon us, we are incapable of learning science and math if we put our mind to it? Absolutely not! We can all learn everything taught in school, it merely requires effort, determination, and perseverance. And once learned it is empowering and enjoyable to utilize these new-learned skills. We must pass along this attitude to our children and demand that lawmakers, teachers, and administrators make math and science a priority in our schools again. Then we must put away our calculators, brush up on our arithmetic, and show our children that even old dogs can break out old tricks. We may not always need math and we may not always like science, but we must always learn and hone these valuable subjects and skills. Given today's financial crisis this nation faces, a better understanding of math could make the difference between foreclosure and having peace of mind with your home purchase.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/19/11
Can We Finally Admit That Racism is Dead?
Can We Finally Admit That Racism is Dead?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Liberals have their racist supporters, e.g. certain union members. Many liberals will advise that their Ivy League black friends, should not have gone to Wall Street to make a fortune and participate in the American dream. They strongly feel that they should go back to the ghetto and help their people. They do not tell that to the wasp, Jews, Poles, Italians, etc., only the blacks. That is truly racist and condescending. It is especially racist when black and white liberals , tell black conservatives that they are betraying their people because they want smaller government and individual freedom. Remember, government perpetuated slavery and racism in this country for nearly 200 years. Why should we trust it to keep it from returning as government policy? (Arguably, well intentioned affirmative action programs perpetuate racism.) Having said that, a movement with racist supporters does not mean that the movement is racist.
A person is not racist because he is against affirmative action. I am in favor of a color blind society. That means excluding race as a factor in school admissions, hiring and every other aspect of American society. America got into trouble with Jim Crow laws that perpetuated racism after emancipation. Affirmative action programs perpetuate racism after the repeal of the Jim Crow laws. Am I a racist because I am against affirmative action? Restrictions on immigration is not necessarily racist. There is a good argument to make that America restricts immigration to maintain the country’s culture and to facilitate assimilation. My personal belief is that we should have one American melting pot. I think the multiculturalism now in vogue in certain circles results in a Balkanized America. Racism is an emotionally charged word which liberals use to stop discussion of the substantive issues involved in the Tea Party movement. Please tell me the substantive Tea Party issues that you disagree with?
Even assuming that some Tea Party members are racist, that is not a reason not to form a coalition with them in areas where we agree there needs to be change, like huge government deficits and outrageous taxes. After all, America formed an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Even the American communists, socialists and liberals supported the monstrous Stalin in the 1930’s and 1940’s, because they thought it furthered the higher goal of worldwide socialism and communism.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Can We Finally Admit That Racism is Dead?
Can We Finally Admit That Racism is Dead?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Liberals have their racist supporters, e.g. certain union members. Many liberals will advise that their Ivy League black friends, should not have gone to Wall Street to make a fortune and participate in the American dream. They strongly feel that they should go back to the ghetto and help their people. They do not tell that to the wasp, Jews, Poles, Italians, etc., only the blacks. That is truly racist and condescending. It is especially racist when black and white liberals , tell black conservatives that they are betraying their people because they want smaller government and individual freedom. Remember, government perpetuated slavery and racism in this country for nearly 200 years. Why should we trust it to keep it from returning as government policy? (Arguably, well intentioned affirmative action programs perpetuate racism.) Having said that, a movement with racist supporters does not mean that the movement is racist.
A person is not racist because he is against affirmative action. I am in favor of a color blind society. That means excluding race as a factor in school admissions, hiring and every other aspect of American society. America got into trouble with Jim Crow laws that perpetuated racism after emancipation. Affirmative action programs perpetuate racism after the repeal of the Jim Crow laws. Am I a racist because I am against affirmative action? Restrictions on immigration is not necessarily racist. There is a good argument to make that America restricts immigration to maintain the country’s culture and to facilitate assimilation. My personal belief is that we should have one American melting pot. I think the multiculturalism now in vogue in certain circles results in a Balkanized America. Racism is an emotionally charged word which liberals use to stop discussion of the substantive issues involved in the Tea Party movement. Please tell me the substantive Tea Party issues that you disagree with?
Even assuming that some Tea Party members are racist, that is not a reason not to form a coalition with them in areas where we agree there needs to be change, like huge government deficits and outrageous taxes. After all, America formed an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Even the American communists, socialists and liberals supported the monstrous Stalin in the 1930’s and 1940’s, because they thought it furthered the higher goal of worldwide socialism and communism.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/18/11
A Tax Season to Remember
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Tax Season to Remember
From whom much is given, more is expected. This is the agreement we all take when we decide to avail ourselves of the abundant wealth that this country can afford us. This tax season, many people will complain about their tax dollars going down the Government waste hole. We will rail against the politicians who either tax us too much, spend too largely, or tax someone else too little. And we'll complain about the bottomless pit of debt in which our nation has become almost inextricably enmeshed.
These are real problems to be sure, and they are pressing. But before we get too down in the dumps, it's time we thanked our stars that we actually live in a country in which it is possible to make enough wealth to have a high tax bill in the first place. A little faith would reveal that God knows exactly what he's doing. Politicians, government, and yes, that most hated of all obligation of citizenry -- taxes -- are all part of the system that in the end has enabled Americans to build incredible fortunes for themselves and their families. We should be mindful of their excess, and work together to minimize the waste, fraud and abuse that comes with a Government that has become too large. But what we should remind ourselves of most, is the continued resiliency of America, which is evidenced by our prosperity despite the encumbrances placed upon us by our governments.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A Tax Season to Remember
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Tax Season to Remember
From whom much is given, more is expected. This is the agreement we all take when we decide to avail ourselves of the abundant wealth that this country can afford us. This tax season, many people will complain about their tax dollars going down the Government waste hole. We will rail against the politicians who either tax us too much, spend too largely, or tax someone else too little. And we'll complain about the bottomless pit of debt in which our nation has become almost inextricably enmeshed.
These are real problems to be sure, and they are pressing. But before we get too down in the dumps, it's time we thanked our stars that we actually live in a country in which it is possible to make enough wealth to have a high tax bill in the first place. A little faith would reveal that God knows exactly what he's doing. Politicians, government, and yes, that most hated of all obligation of citizenry -- taxes -- are all part of the system that in the end has enabled Americans to build incredible fortunes for themselves and their families. We should be mindful of their excess, and work together to minimize the waste, fraud and abuse that comes with a Government that has become too large. But what we should remind ourselves of most, is the continued resiliency of America, which is evidenced by our prosperity despite the encumbrances placed upon us by our governments.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/15/11
Serious about spending our money
BY: Armstrong Williams
Serious about spending our money
Our President Barack Obama seems to believe that a percentage of private income already belongs to the Government. He uses language that suggests tax cuts are theft of government owned properties. His language is most condescending in the sense that he's not asking us to contribute but rather forcing us to pay. Not only that, but he's forcing us to pay for priorities that are not chosen by those he proposes to hand the stiff bill to. Liberals assume that any money we earn belongs to the government and we should be happy that our government allows us to keep a portion of it. Will they not be satisfied until they take all of "their" money back?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Serious about spending our money
BY: Armstrong Williams
Serious about spending our money
Our President Barack Obama seems to believe that a percentage of private income already belongs to the Government. He uses language that suggests tax cuts are theft of government owned properties. His language is most condescending in the sense that he's not asking us to contribute but rather forcing us to pay. Not only that, but he's forcing us to pay for priorities that are not chosen by those he proposes to hand the stiff bill to. Liberals assume that any money we earn belongs to the government and we should be happy that our government allows us to keep a portion of it. Will they not be satisfied until they take all of "their" money back?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/14/11
Obama's path of Economic Destruction: The Race Against the Clock
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Path of Economic Destruction: The Race Against the Clock
President Obama, in a moment of insanity, stated emphatically that wealthy people want to pay more taxes it's just that our government hasn't asked them to. He went on to say that rich people like himself don't need any more tax cuts. Many would agree with you Mr. President if all of their necessities were provided for by the tax payers. This man is so out of touch with reality, he has no concept of what life truly is for everyday people. To believe that someone who makes $200,000 annually is rich is preposterous. By the time uncle sam takes his share, at best you're left with $135,000.00. Also, what about your mortgage, kids, healthcare, food, and paying your bills. Many universities now consider annual family income of $200,000.00 eligible for financial aid. They recognize that this salary level doesn't provide a family with much discretionary income.
Is our President that naive or his he intentionally hell bent on destroying our nation? Anyone with a modicum of economic sense would know that with our extraordinarily fragile economy, raising taxes is a non starter. We know that when taxes are lower, income to the federal government increases. Now we have a situation where our deficit is so large that you can confiscate a 100% of what the rich have and it wouldn't put a dent in our debt crisis. Therefore Obama's proposals are idiotic and make no sense. Taxing can't and will not solve the problem and will only exacerbate the growing debt. Either our president is too naive to understand simple economics or he's smart enough to understand how to accomplish his goal of permanently damaging the American economy. Both scenarios spell doom for our once great economic engine.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's path of Economic Destruction: The Race Against the Clock
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Path of Economic Destruction: The Race Against the Clock
President Obama, in a moment of insanity, stated emphatically that wealthy people want to pay more taxes it's just that our government hasn't asked them to. He went on to say that rich people like himself don't need any more tax cuts. Many would agree with you Mr. President if all of their necessities were provided for by the tax payers. This man is so out of touch with reality, he has no concept of what life truly is for everyday people. To believe that someone who makes $200,000 annually is rich is preposterous. By the time uncle sam takes his share, at best you're left with $135,000.00. Also, what about your mortgage, kids, healthcare, food, and paying your bills. Many universities now consider annual family income of $200,000.00 eligible for financial aid. They recognize that this salary level doesn't provide a family with much discretionary income.
Is our President that naive or his he intentionally hell bent on destroying our nation? Anyone with a modicum of economic sense would know that with our extraordinarily fragile economy, raising taxes is a non starter. We know that when taxes are lower, income to the federal government increases. Now we have a situation where our deficit is so large that you can confiscate a 100% of what the rich have and it wouldn't put a dent in our debt crisis. Therefore Obama's proposals are idiotic and make no sense. Taxing can't and will not solve the problem and will only exacerbate the growing debt. Either our president is too naive to understand simple economics or he's smart enough to understand how to accomplish his goal of permanently damaging the American economy. Both scenarios spell doom for our once great economic engine.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/13/11
Understanding the Debt Ceiling
BY: Armstrong Williams
Understanding the Debt Ceiling
For many people the debt ceiling is an arcane concept. They have no of idea the impact it has or what impact it could have on America's economy. When the Federal Government has large deficits, it is spending more money than it is taking in, in taxes. This excess spending must be financed by debt. If the government is not allowed to issue more debt or borrow more money it has no way of funding the spending programs that it is legally required to fund. It has a very difficult path at that point.
First it must stop spending, on not just non-essential government programs but on all government programs. Its spending will be limited to the amount of tax revenue. Government spending cuts mean that large numbers of federal employees must be furloughed, transfer programs such as medicare and Medicaid will not be funded and other government spending with federal contractors such as highways, airports etc. will be curtailed. If we immediately stop these services and transfer payments it will have a negative impact on the economy, including the loss of jobs. The second major impact has to do with the supply of money. Federal debt forms the basis of capital used in our banking system. The third major impact has to do with the issuance of federal debt instruments. When federal debt matures which takes 30 to 60 days after the debt ceiling is not extended, the government will have no alternative to paying off maturing debt. This means the US government has the potential of defaulting on its legal obligations to bond holders throughout the world. A default on government debt will throw the international monetary system and the entire global economy into chaos.
Sixty five percent of Americans public support appears to be in favor of not extending the debt ceiling. The catastrophic impact of not extending the debt ceilings gives the Republican in congress much leverage. We the people implicitly understand that the Federal Government is out of control and that the national debt is too big and shouldn't be increased. What many don't understand is that the only way to accomplish this is to stop spending on items that affect all Americans, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, block grants to states, highways etc. The leverage this gives to congress is that the Democrats and the President recognize not extending the debt ceiling as catastrophic to the world economy.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Understanding the Debt Ceiling
BY: Armstrong Williams
Understanding the Debt Ceiling
For many people the debt ceiling is an arcane concept. They have no of idea the impact it has or what impact it could have on America's economy. When the Federal Government has large deficits, it is spending more money than it is taking in, in taxes. This excess spending must be financed by debt. If the government is not allowed to issue more debt or borrow more money it has no way of funding the spending programs that it is legally required to fund. It has a very difficult path at that point.
First it must stop spending, on not just non-essential government programs but on all government programs. Its spending will be limited to the amount of tax revenue. Government spending cuts mean that large numbers of federal employees must be furloughed, transfer programs such as medicare and Medicaid will not be funded and other government spending with federal contractors such as highways, airports etc. will be curtailed. If we immediately stop these services and transfer payments it will have a negative impact on the economy, including the loss of jobs. The second major impact has to do with the supply of money. Federal debt forms the basis of capital used in our banking system. The third major impact has to do with the issuance of federal debt instruments. When federal debt matures which takes 30 to 60 days after the debt ceiling is not extended, the government will have no alternative to paying off maturing debt. This means the US government has the potential of defaulting on its legal obligations to bond holders throughout the world. A default on government debt will throw the international monetary system and the entire global economy into chaos.
Sixty five percent of Americans public support appears to be in favor of not extending the debt ceiling. The catastrophic impact of not extending the debt ceilings gives the Republican in congress much leverage. We the people implicitly understand that the Federal Government is out of control and that the national debt is too big and shouldn't be increased. What many don't understand is that the only way to accomplish this is to stop spending on items that affect all Americans, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, block grants to states, highways etc. The leverage this gives to congress is that the Democrats and the President recognize not extending the debt ceiling as catastrophic to the world economy.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/12/11
What The Discovery of a Record Haul In Libyan Assets
What The Discovery of a Record Haul In Libyan Assets Portends for The U.S.
By Armstrong Williams
There something distinctly fishy about the Treasury Department’s lightning fast and allegedly “surprise” discovery of over $30 billion in Libyan Government assets stored in U.S. banks. The Obama administration has lauded this as a major and unexpected victory in its effort to dislodge the Gaddafi regime. That may be so, but the implications of such a large deposit by Libya have deeper and far more disturbing implications. Could Libya have been in the process of purchasing a major stake in America’s critical infrastructure?
First, it is strange that Libya -- a Government that has traditionally been wary of storing its’ assets in a place where they could be confiscated by the U.S. government -- would keep almost half of its estimated $70 billion sovereign wealth fund (Libyan Investment Authority or ‘LIA’) in U.S. banks. After all, Libyan assets had been frozen before, most notably in 1986. In fact, most Arab nations, even those friendly to the U.S. had been reluctant to keep their assets within U.S. jurisdiction after the U.S. froze Iranian government assets in 1979. Admittedly, relations with Libya have warmed in recent years since it was removed from the U.S. list of official state sponsors of terrorism in 2005. Still, the old wounds run deep, and Qaddafi is, if nothing else, a shrewd operator. Clearly, if he were taking such a big risk he must have had assurances from on high.
The second strange aspect problem is the speed with which the Treasury department identified and froze the assets. According to the Washington Post, treasury officials expected to find somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million in Libyan assets, and were surprised when they pulled in a record haul for U.S. assets freezes. It’s strange, not just because the disparity between what was expected and what was eventually found – but because of information recently disclosed in the Wiki leaks cables. The cables revealed that Libyan officials revealed in a discussion with the U.S. Ambassador in January that LIA had roughly “$32 billion in liquidity, mostly in bank deposits that will give us good long-term returns.” A 2009 annual report suggested that the company held roughly 78% of its investments in “short term financial instruments abroad.”
So rather than feel particularly elated about finding $30 billion of Libyan Government funds conveniently parked in a U.S. bank, the news makes one wonder. Is America up for sale? Or worse yet, has it already been sold, and to whom?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Portends for The U.S.
By Armstrong Williams
There something distinctly fishy about the Treasury Department’s lightning fast and allegedly “surprise” discovery of over $30 billion in Libyan Government assets stored in U.S. banks. The Obama administration has lauded this as a major and unexpected victory in its effort to dislodge the Gaddafi regime. That may be so, but the implications of such a large deposit by Libya have deeper and far more disturbing implications. Could Libya have been in the process of purchasing a major stake in America’s critical infrastructure?
First, it is strange that Libya -- a Government that has traditionally been wary of storing its’ assets in a place where they could be confiscated by the U.S. government -- would keep almost half of its estimated $70 billion sovereign wealth fund (Libyan Investment Authority or ‘LIA’) in U.S. banks. After all, Libyan assets had been frozen before, most notably in 1986. In fact, most Arab nations, even those friendly to the U.S. had been reluctant to keep their assets within U.S. jurisdiction after the U.S. froze Iranian government assets in 1979. Admittedly, relations with Libya have warmed in recent years since it was removed from the U.S. list of official state sponsors of terrorism in 2005. Still, the old wounds run deep, and Qaddafi is, if nothing else, a shrewd operator. Clearly, if he were taking such a big risk he must have had assurances from on high.
The second strange aspect problem is the speed with which the Treasury department identified and froze the assets. According to the Washington Post, treasury officials expected to find somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million in Libyan assets, and were surprised when they pulled in a record haul for U.S. assets freezes. It’s strange, not just because the disparity between what was expected and what was eventually found – but because of information recently disclosed in the Wiki leaks cables. The cables revealed that Libyan officials revealed in a discussion with the U.S. Ambassador in January that LIA had roughly “$32 billion in liquidity, mostly in bank deposits that will give us good long-term returns.” A 2009 annual report suggested that the company held roughly 78% of its investments in “short term financial instruments abroad.”
So rather than feel particularly elated about finding $30 billion of Libyan Government funds conveniently parked in a U.S. bank, the news makes one wonder. Is America up for sale? Or worse yet, has it already been sold, and to whom?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
What The Discovery of a Record Haul In Libyan Assets
What The Discovery of a Record Haul In Libyan Assets Portends for The U.S.
By Armstrong Williams
There something distinctly fishy about the Treasury Department’s lightning fast and allegedly “surprise” discovery of over $30 billion in Libyan Government assets stored in U.S. banks. The Obama administration has lauded this as a major and unexpected victory in its effort to dislodge the Gaddafi regime. That may be so, but the implications of such a large deposit by Libya have deeper and far more disturbing implications. Could Libya have been in the process of purchasing a major stake in America’s critical infrastructure?
First, it is strange that Libya -- a Government that has traditionally been wary of storing its’ assets in a place where they could be confiscated by the U.S. government -- would keep almost half of its estimated $70 billion sovereign wealth fund (Libyan Investment Authority or ‘LIA’) in U.S. banks. After all, Libyan assets had been frozen before, most notably in 1986. In fact, most Arab nations, even those friendly to the U.S. had been reluctant to keep their assets within U.S. jurisdiction after the U.S. froze Iranian government assets in 1979. Admittedly, relations with Libya have warmed in recent years since it was removed from the U.S. list of official state sponsors of terrorism in 2005. Still, the old wounds run deep, and Qaddafi is, if nothing else, a shrewd operator. Clearly, if he were taking such a big risk he must have had assurances from on high.
The second strange aspect problem is the speed with which the Treasury department identified and froze the assets. According to the Washington Post, treasury officials expected to find somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million in Libyan assets, and were surprised when they pulled in a record haul for U.S. assets freezes. It’s strange, not just because the disparity between what was expected and what was eventually found – but because of information recently disclosed in the Wiki leaks cables. The cables revealed that Libyan officials revealed in a discussion with the U.S. Ambassador in January that LIA had roughly “$32 billion in liquidity, mostly in bank deposits that will give us good long-term returns.” A 2009 annual report suggested that the company held roughly 78% of its investments in “short term financial instruments abroad.”
So rather than feel particularly elated about finding $30 billion of Libyan Government funds conveniently parked in a U.S. bank, the news makes one wonder. Is America up for sale? Or worse yet, has it already been sold, and to whom?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Portends for The U.S.
By Armstrong Williams
There something distinctly fishy about the Treasury Department’s lightning fast and allegedly “surprise” discovery of over $30 billion in Libyan Government assets stored in U.S. banks. The Obama administration has lauded this as a major and unexpected victory in its effort to dislodge the Gaddafi regime. That may be so, but the implications of such a large deposit by Libya have deeper and far more disturbing implications. Could Libya have been in the process of purchasing a major stake in America’s critical infrastructure?
First, it is strange that Libya -- a Government that has traditionally been wary of storing its’ assets in a place where they could be confiscated by the U.S. government -- would keep almost half of its estimated $70 billion sovereign wealth fund (Libyan Investment Authority or ‘LIA’) in U.S. banks. After all, Libyan assets had been frozen before, most notably in 1986. In fact, most Arab nations, even those friendly to the U.S. had been reluctant to keep their assets within U.S. jurisdiction after the U.S. froze Iranian government assets in 1979. Admittedly, relations with Libya have warmed in recent years since it was removed from the U.S. list of official state sponsors of terrorism in 2005. Still, the old wounds run deep, and Qaddafi is, if nothing else, a shrewd operator. Clearly, if he were taking such a big risk he must have had assurances from on high.
The second strange aspect problem is the speed with which the Treasury department identified and froze the assets. According to the Washington Post, treasury officials expected to find somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million in Libyan assets, and were surprised when they pulled in a record haul for U.S. assets freezes. It’s strange, not just because the disparity between what was expected and what was eventually found – but because of information recently disclosed in the Wiki leaks cables. The cables revealed that Libyan officials revealed in a discussion with the U.S. Ambassador in January that LIA had roughly “$32 billion in liquidity, mostly in bank deposits that will give us good long-term returns.” A 2009 annual report suggested that the company held roughly 78% of its investments in “short term financial instruments abroad.”
So rather than feel particularly elated about finding $30 billion of Libyan Government funds conveniently parked in a U.S. bank, the news makes one wonder. Is America up for sale? Or worse yet, has it already been sold, and to whom?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/11/11
"High saver" vs Average saver"
BY: Armstrong Williams
"High saver" vs "Average saver"
Let us examine what happens to the wealth and income of a “high saver” and an “average saver” with a middle class salary of $50,000 per year. Without getting into the appropriate portfolio strategy for this middle class investor, let us assume that our saver receives a 6% rate of return on his investments. This return is below the average return achieved by most private pension funds over the past 50 years and below the 8% assumed by most government pension funds.
If the middle class wage earner is “high saver” who saves 10% of his annual salary or $5,000 per year, his wealth will be $70,000 at the end of 10 years. His annual income from this wealth will be $4,800. If he does not get a raise in his salary, his total income will be $54,800 or 9.6% higher than if he had not saved. The really amazing result of being a high saver is that by the time he retires 45 years later, he is a millionaire worth over $1.1 million. This nest egg is generating an income of $68,000 per year. His total income from salary and investment is $118,000 per year, 136% higher than his salary alone. He will not only replace his salary when he retires, his retirement income will be 36% higher than his salary. This is not the man who hits the lottery or invents the better mouse trap. This is the “millionaire next door”!
Unfortunately, the average American saves only about 2% of his income. The “average saver,” making the same $50,000 salary as the “high saver”, puts 2% of his salary or $1,000 per year into his investment account. At the end of 10 years, his wealth is $14,000 and his income from investments is $840 per year. His total income, assuming no salary increases, is $50,840 or 1.6% higher than his salary. When he retires 45 years later, his nest egg is worth $225,000 and it earns $13,500 per year. Clearly, this is not enough to replace his salary when he retires.
At the end of their respective careers, the high saver is a millionaire and the average saver is considered a low income retiree. The high saver’s income the year before retirement is 1.9 times that of the low saver! Yet the high saver and the low saver started out with equal incomes and earned the same salary over their working careers. It is important to recall that the average saver spent $180,000 more over his 45 year working career than the high saver. The growing disparity in income over the 45 year period was solely due to the thrifty behavior of the high saver. Yet, Americans are asked to feel sorry for the improvident average saver, and view the income and wealth of the high saver millionaire as a source of taxes to subsidize the retirement of the average saver.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
"High saver" vs Average saver"
BY: Armstrong Williams
"High saver" vs "Average saver"
Let us examine what happens to the wealth and income of a “high saver” and an “average saver” with a middle class salary of $50,000 per year. Without getting into the appropriate portfolio strategy for this middle class investor, let us assume that our saver receives a 6% rate of return on his investments. This return is below the average return achieved by most private pension funds over the past 50 years and below the 8% assumed by most government pension funds.
If the middle class wage earner is “high saver” who saves 10% of his annual salary or $5,000 per year, his wealth will be $70,000 at the end of 10 years. His annual income from this wealth will be $4,800. If he does not get a raise in his salary, his total income will be $54,800 or 9.6% higher than if he had not saved. The really amazing result of being a high saver is that by the time he retires 45 years later, he is a millionaire worth over $1.1 million. This nest egg is generating an income of $68,000 per year. His total income from salary and investment is $118,000 per year, 136% higher than his salary alone. He will not only replace his salary when he retires, his retirement income will be 36% higher than his salary. This is not the man who hits the lottery or invents the better mouse trap. This is the “millionaire next door”!
Unfortunately, the average American saves only about 2% of his income. The “average saver,” making the same $50,000 salary as the “high saver”, puts 2% of his salary or $1,000 per year into his investment account. At the end of 10 years, his wealth is $14,000 and his income from investments is $840 per year. His total income, assuming no salary increases, is $50,840 or 1.6% higher than his salary. When he retires 45 years later, his nest egg is worth $225,000 and it earns $13,500 per year. Clearly, this is not enough to replace his salary when he retires.
At the end of their respective careers, the high saver is a millionaire and the average saver is considered a low income retiree. The high saver’s income the year before retirement is 1.9 times that of the low saver! Yet the high saver and the low saver started out with equal incomes and earned the same salary over their working careers. It is important to recall that the average saver spent $180,000 more over his 45 year working career than the high saver. The growing disparity in income over the 45 year period was solely due to the thrifty behavior of the high saver. Yet, Americans are asked to feel sorry for the improvident average saver, and view the income and wealth of the high saver millionaire as a source of taxes to subsidize the retirement of the average saver.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/08/11
Be Astonished
BY: Armstrong Williams
Be Astonished
There are a lot of Washingtonians who, try as they might, they have a hard time carrying what they heard in church on Sundays to the workplace on Mondays. I’m no different. But yesterday, I got to thinking about what a country preacher told me many moons ago regarding life in general.
He challenged the congregation to do three things: 1) Pay attention; 2) Be astonished; and 3) Tell others.
Think about that. If we all paid a bit more attention to the things around us, how much more aware would we be – of the difficulties others may be facing, the burdens they’re carrying? The same thought applies to life and living in this country. The events around the world should have us all as Americans paying attention to just how fortunate we are to know and practice freedom.
If we practice that first principle, the second one should come easy…be astonished. When consciously thinking of that yesterday, I was indeed amazed at all the things around me. The cherry blossoms blooming, the snow on the ground (in late March!), the sheer humanity of our fellow Americans and the billions in giving we’ve shared for say, our Japanese neighbors.
Finally, we need to tell others. Clearly the pastor had the gospel in mind when discussing these three, but apply that third principle to better living in our everyday lives. Let me give you an example.
I was emailing a colleague the other day on what I felt to be a simple subject. She emailed me back, not quite understanding my point, and asking three more questions in the process. I then prepared to fire off a response to her not only clarifying my original request, but then trying to fold in answers to her other questions and then thinking about how they all should apply to the original email. See my point??
I was better off picking up the phone and just speaking with her.
In today’s technologically-driven world, just because we CAN communicate in different, more impersonal ways, doesn’t mean we SHOULD. I think more of our coworkers, friends, acquaintances, and strangers would feel each other’s humanity a bit more deeply if we practiced paying attention, being astonished, and telling others.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Be Astonished
BY: Armstrong Williams
Be Astonished
There are a lot of Washingtonians who, try as they might, they have a hard time carrying what they heard in church on Sundays to the workplace on Mondays. I’m no different. But yesterday, I got to thinking about what a country preacher told me many moons ago regarding life in general.
He challenged the congregation to do three things: 1) Pay attention; 2) Be astonished; and 3) Tell others.
Think about that. If we all paid a bit more attention to the things around us, how much more aware would we be – of the difficulties others may be facing, the burdens they’re carrying? The same thought applies to life and living in this country. The events around the world should have us all as Americans paying attention to just how fortunate we are to know and practice freedom.
If we practice that first principle, the second one should come easy…be astonished. When consciously thinking of that yesterday, I was indeed amazed at all the things around me. The cherry blossoms blooming, the snow on the ground (in late March!), the sheer humanity of our fellow Americans and the billions in giving we’ve shared for say, our Japanese neighbors.
Finally, we need to tell others. Clearly the pastor had the gospel in mind when discussing these three, but apply that third principle to better living in our everyday lives. Let me give you an example.
I was emailing a colleague the other day on what I felt to be a simple subject. She emailed me back, not quite understanding my point, and asking three more questions in the process. I then prepared to fire off a response to her not only clarifying my original request, but then trying to fold in answers to her other questions and then thinking about how they all should apply to the original email. See my point??
I was better off picking up the phone and just speaking with her.
In today’s technologically-driven world, just because we CAN communicate in different, more impersonal ways, doesn’t mean we SHOULD. I think more of our coworkers, friends, acquaintances, and strangers would feel each other’s humanity a bit more deeply if we practiced paying attention, being astonished, and telling others.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/07/11
Cut it or Shut it
BY: Armstrong Williams
Cut it or shut it.
Cut it or shut it? Cut it or shut it was the mantra of the Tea Party Patriots recently on Capitol Hill. Senate Democrats don't get it. Schumer and Reid are in total denial that we are facing a serious economic crisis in our nation. They're similar to a credit card and check book holder who don't make the connection that the cookie jar is empty. We've had enough. People in general have lost faith in our government's ability to manage its way out of financial disaster. Un-policed politicians will never correct this bankruptcy path. There is so much spending going on that is not grounded in reality, that the new movement must take on drastic measures of cut it our shut it. The day of reckoning is here and the longer the Schumer and Reid's remain in denial the more it looks like a spending addict with a serious addiction. We must now demand, "Cut it or Shut it!"
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Cut it or Shut it
BY: Armstrong Williams
Cut it or shut it.
Cut it or shut it? Cut it or shut it was the mantra of the Tea Party Patriots recently on Capitol Hill. Senate Democrats don't get it. Schumer and Reid are in total denial that we are facing a serious economic crisis in our nation. They're similar to a credit card and check book holder who don't make the connection that the cookie jar is empty. We've had enough. People in general have lost faith in our government's ability to manage its way out of financial disaster. Un-policed politicians will never correct this bankruptcy path. There is so much spending going on that is not grounded in reality, that the new movement must take on drastic measures of cut it our shut it. The day of reckoning is here and the longer the Schumer and Reid's remain in denial the more it looks like a spending addict with a serious addiction. We must now demand, "Cut it or Shut it!"
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/06/11
One Burning Question
One Burning Question
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why the outrage in Afghanistan over one Florida pastor's burning of a copy of the Koran? Isn't it a form of idolatry in both Christian and Islamic faith to worship objects and symbols? What does it say about the state of faith when the medium corrupts the message? Radical Islamic groups seem especially prone to exalting symbolism over other moral strictures – such as protecting the innocent and acting justly. Perversely, they seem to find it highly immoral for women to be seen uncovered in public – but not immoral to ruthlessly kill innocent men, women, and children in brutal terror attacks.
What does it portend about America’s deepening commitments in the Middle East, when it must deal with both partners and adversaries for whom death is preferable to a perceived dishonor?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
One Burning Question
One Burning Question
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why the outrage in Afghanistan over one Florida pastor's burning of a copy of the Koran? Isn't it a form of idolatry in both Christian and Islamic faith to worship objects and symbols? What does it say about the state of faith when the medium corrupts the message? Radical Islamic groups seem especially prone to exalting symbolism over other moral strictures – such as protecting the innocent and acting justly. Perversely, they seem to find it highly immoral for women to be seen uncovered in public – but not immoral to ruthlessly kill innocent men, women, and children in brutal terror attacks.
What does it portend about America’s deepening commitments in the Middle East, when it must deal with both partners and adversaries for whom death is preferable to a perceived dishonor?
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/05/11
Is Government a Necessary Evil ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is Government a necessary Evil ?
Many believe that Government is a necessary evil in a society of free men. It is a device that must be used sparingly and eyed with suspicion, for it's tendency is to accumulate in the name of protection, what truly belongs to a just and good people.
Because the laws governing society have become so complex, ordinary people often feel helplessly lost and feel they have to rely on experts just to perform basic, ordinary functions as citizens. Laws governing the voting process require proof of identification that can be difficult to obtain. The system of taxation has become opaque, fuzzy and susceptible to all forms of trickery and abuse. Small business owners find themselves bound by a mind-numbing set of regulations that impede the basic economic engine of our country from growing, stifle innovation, and discourage the entrepreneurial spirit. And our members of Congress have succumbed to the self-serving and amoral dictum, when fighting to fund this or what worthless project, that it's going to be spent somewhere, so why not in my district? Is there any surprise that our national debt is soaring at 14 trillion dollars and steadily rising. We certainly have lowered the standard for what's right and wrong, haven't we? In no small part because the laws are so complex and self-contradictory that we've almost been left with no other way to look at moral matters.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Is Government a Necessary Evil ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is Government a necessary Evil ?
Many believe that Government is a necessary evil in a society of free men. It is a device that must be used sparingly and eyed with suspicion, for it's tendency is to accumulate in the name of protection, what truly belongs to a just and good people.
Because the laws governing society have become so complex, ordinary people often feel helplessly lost and feel they have to rely on experts just to perform basic, ordinary functions as citizens. Laws governing the voting process require proof of identification that can be difficult to obtain. The system of taxation has become opaque, fuzzy and susceptible to all forms of trickery and abuse. Small business owners find themselves bound by a mind-numbing set of regulations that impede the basic economic engine of our country from growing, stifle innovation, and discourage the entrepreneurial spirit. And our members of Congress have succumbed to the self-serving and amoral dictum, when fighting to fund this or what worthless project, that it's going to be spent somewhere, so why not in my district? Is there any surprise that our national debt is soaring at 14 trillion dollars and steadily rising. We certainly have lowered the standard for what's right and wrong, haven't we? In no small part because the laws are so complex and self-contradictory that we've almost been left with no other way to look at moral matters.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/04/11
Obama and the Black Vote 2012
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama and the Black Vote 2012
President Obama has officially launched his reelection campaign for 2012. His strongest constituency remains American Blacks, while many others have wandered in the wilderness or have abandoned him for now.
In light of the statistics, with Blacks only comprising slightly more than 1/8th of the population, Obama would probably do well to steer clear of race in general during his upcoming reelection season. After all, he was elected as the president of the United States, which includes Blacks, but the other 87% of the country as well. Even if every single Black person in the United States (including those in prison) voted against him, there's still another nearly 7/8ths of the population to attempt to sway. If anything, this should be given more thought. The more likely scenario is that many Blacks will continue to harbor unrealistic expectations and it would be wiser to cater to the U.S populace in general. A disillusioned Black community is likely to do what it has always done: vote Democrat, typical and not very powerful, because there's no need to try to get their vote. Additionally,if they feel the way they've felt, they'll probably just not even bother voting.
Perhaps some may say it's actually problematic that Obama's skin happens to be dark, because that means he's expected to be a Black Superman. He is expected to do the "Black" thing in any situation where race is involved. What may not be so obvious is that the "Black" thing isn't agreed upon within the Black community, so the "Black" things could arguably be anything, would definitely be prejudiced, and coming from the president would actually be, dare I say it, racist! This obviously puts Obama in a difficult situation. It didn't help that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize as he was taking office (before he'd had a chance to do anything). The expectations upon his shoulders were so staggering, it's quite possible that they were impossible expectations. The midterm elections showed how the populace was unhappy with his performance under those extremely high demands. Stay tuned!
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama and the Black Vote 2012
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama and the Black Vote 2012
President Obama has officially launched his reelection campaign for 2012. His strongest constituency remains American Blacks, while many others have wandered in the wilderness or have abandoned him for now.
In light of the statistics, with Blacks only comprising slightly more than 1/8th of the population, Obama would probably do well to steer clear of race in general during his upcoming reelection season. After all, he was elected as the president of the United States, which includes Blacks, but the other 87% of the country as well. Even if every single Black person in the United States (including those in prison) voted against him, there's still another nearly 7/8ths of the population to attempt to sway. If anything, this should be given more thought. The more likely scenario is that many Blacks will continue to harbor unrealistic expectations and it would be wiser to cater to the U.S populace in general. A disillusioned Black community is likely to do what it has always done: vote Democrat, typical and not very powerful, because there's no need to try to get their vote. Additionally,if they feel the way they've felt, they'll probably just not even bother voting.
Perhaps some may say it's actually problematic that Obama's skin happens to be dark, because that means he's expected to be a Black Superman. He is expected to do the "Black" thing in any situation where race is involved. What may not be so obvious is that the "Black" thing isn't agreed upon within the Black community, so the "Black" things could arguably be anything, would definitely be prejudiced, and coming from the president would actually be, dare I say it, racist! This obviously puts Obama in a difficult situation. It didn't help that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize as he was taking office (before he'd had a chance to do anything). The expectations upon his shoulders were so staggering, it's quite possible that they were impossible expectations. The midterm elections showed how the populace was unhappy with his performance under those extremely high demands. Stay tuned!
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
04/01/11
Talking to myself and becoming frustrated
BY: Armstrong Williams
TaIking to myself and becoming frustrated
My recent harshness about the president comes because this is a bit of an “own goal.” We did not have to get involved – an Arab dictator is oppressing his people…that is hardly news, or, unless our interests are directly involved, not our issue. Also, given the perlious state of our finances and our already full military plate, it is simply not prudent to indulge in superfluous actions. But, there I go again…once I get started on any logic train thinking about this I find myself banging the keyboard and crying out loud in frustration.
What is obvious is that he is making it up as he goes along. Having been talked into easing the consciences of Hillary and Susan Rice, he is now dealing with the fallout. Having made a rash proclamation that Gadhaffi must go, he is being pulled to inevitable conclusions: an American president always seems bound to back his statements; if he’s protecting the Libyan people from Gadhaffi, the only real solution is regime change; if the rebels can’t do it, then he’s got to do it. This ‘doubling down’ effect is obvious in the new debate about arming the rebels. Arming rebels we don’t know or understand, but who we know have an al Qaeda component is insane. But, this whole episode is borderline ludicrous. With the basics of the strategy so awful, I find it hard not to be very, very critical.
I don’t see how this was handled “well”. Nor do I see Egypt as being in the ‘well done’ category. The long-term implications of undermining an ally will not be lost on this region: not by the Arabs and not by the Israelis. He now has an established track record as an unreliable partner. It’s already bit us in Bahrain . And, if we’re looking for places ancillary to our interests to ‘do good’, how about Ivory Coast, where a brutal dictator is currently engaged in killing his people. I am also increasingly angry about the sheer mendacity on display: “kinetic military action”; “we won’t be involved on the ground” (when we have CIA operatives there now); “humanitarian mission” when we’ve moved in A-10s and AC-130s to fly close support for the rebels. And, please, please don’t forget the abuse of the War Powers Act (to say nothing of Congress’ sole discretion to authorize military action) as we were not threatened with imminent attack, and his ‘notification’ efforts were perfunctory in the extreme. Waste, and sheer, utter, unmitigated incompetence always disappoint me. When it involves the treasure of the nation, and potentially the lives of our servicemen, it is unconscionable. Sorry, but this just boils my blood.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Talking to myself and becoming frustrated
BY: Armstrong Williams
TaIking to myself and becoming frustrated
My recent harshness about the president comes because this is a bit of an “own goal.” We did not have to get involved – an Arab dictator is oppressing his people…that is hardly news, or, unless our interests are directly involved, not our issue. Also, given the perlious state of our finances and our already full military plate, it is simply not prudent to indulge in superfluous actions. But, there I go again…once I get started on any logic train thinking about this I find myself banging the keyboard and crying out loud in frustration.
What is obvious is that he is making it up as he goes along. Having been talked into easing the consciences of Hillary and Susan Rice, he is now dealing with the fallout. Having made a rash proclamation that Gadhaffi must go, he is being pulled to inevitable conclusions: an American president always seems bound to back his statements; if he’s protecting the Libyan people from Gadhaffi, the only real solution is regime change; if the rebels can’t do it, then he’s got to do it. This ‘doubling down’ effect is obvious in the new debate about arming the rebels. Arming rebels we don’t know or understand, but who we know have an al Qaeda component is insane. But, this whole episode is borderline ludicrous. With the basics of the strategy so awful, I find it hard not to be very, very critical.
I don’t see how this was handled “well”. Nor do I see Egypt as being in the ‘well done’ category. The long-term implications of undermining an ally will not be lost on this region: not by the Arabs and not by the Israelis. He now has an established track record as an unreliable partner. It’s already bit us in Bahrain . And, if we’re looking for places ancillary to our interests to ‘do good’, how about Ivory Coast, where a brutal dictator is currently engaged in killing his people. I am also increasingly angry about the sheer mendacity on display: “kinetic military action”; “we won’t be involved on the ground” (when we have CIA operatives there now); “humanitarian mission” when we’ve moved in A-10s and AC-130s to fly close support for the rebels. And, please, please don’t forget the abuse of the War Powers Act (to say nothing of Congress’ sole discretion to authorize military action) as we were not threatened with imminent attack, and his ‘notification’ efforts were perfunctory in the extreme. Waste, and sheer, utter, unmitigated incompetence always disappoint me. When it involves the treasure of the nation, and potentially the lives of our servicemen, it is unconscionable. Sorry, but this just boils my blood.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/30/11
Acting like Gaddafi, you win.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Acting like Gaddafi, you win.
As Rebel fighters are fleeing under fire from a key town in eastern Libya, it’s now apparent that the Obama administration will not forcefully remove Gaddafi from power. Whew. Guess who’s resting easy in Tripoli! Sure, the Obama Administration wants the tyrant tossed. Why else would U.S. warplanes be pounding his military? But dropping a hint and showing him the door are two different things. While allied forces convening in London today insist Gaddafi must go, they are clueless as to how they can achieve this end goal.
Hello out there?
It is clear that President Obama has begun an illegal war - and if not illegal, then an unwise and unauthorized one - war on the cheap is not new, and has predictable outcomes. I'm intrigued by how some reporters have actually said counterfactual things like, "allied air power prevented a blood bath." It isn't possible to know what allied air power prevented, we can only observe what it did, how many civilians have died from our trying to protect them? Air power's utility shrinks when the fighting goes urban and none of us can possibly know what's going on there. The air strikes have been limited to the eastern part of Libya, shielding and creating a rebel redoubt without imperiling Gaddafi's power base in western Libya.
Further, I’m baffled why this President is still hung up on “humanitarian” relief and that being part of the reason behind the mission. Did someone from the Nobel Committee phone the Oval Office in recent weeks and remind the president there is a return policy on his Peace Prize if he gets too far out there? Come on. The American people know what’s going on here. Gaddafi is running roughshod over the rebels, the United States needed to help. That meant killing as many pro-Gaddafi forces as we could find. To do anything else would send a message to other parts of the world that if you act like Mubarak in Egypt, you lose. If you act like Gaddafi, torturing and killing your own, you win.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Acting like Gaddafi, you win.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Acting like Gaddafi, you win.
As Rebel fighters are fleeing under fire from a key town in eastern Libya, it’s now apparent that the Obama administration will not forcefully remove Gaddafi from power. Whew. Guess who’s resting easy in Tripoli! Sure, the Obama Administration wants the tyrant tossed. Why else would U.S. warplanes be pounding his military? But dropping a hint and showing him the door are two different things. While allied forces convening in London today insist Gaddafi must go, they are clueless as to how they can achieve this end goal.
Hello out there?
It is clear that President Obama has begun an illegal war - and if not illegal, then an unwise and unauthorized one - war on the cheap is not new, and has predictable outcomes. I'm intrigued by how some reporters have actually said counterfactual things like, "allied air power prevented a blood bath." It isn't possible to know what allied air power prevented, we can only observe what it did, how many civilians have died from our trying to protect them? Air power's utility shrinks when the fighting goes urban and none of us can possibly know what's going on there. The air strikes have been limited to the eastern part of Libya, shielding and creating a rebel redoubt without imperiling Gaddafi's power base in western Libya.
Further, I’m baffled why this President is still hung up on “humanitarian” relief and that being part of the reason behind the mission. Did someone from the Nobel Committee phone the Oval Office in recent weeks and remind the president there is a return policy on his Peace Prize if he gets too far out there? Come on. The American people know what’s going on here. Gaddafi is running roughshod over the rebels, the United States needed to help. That meant killing as many pro-Gaddafi forces as we could find. To do anything else would send a message to other parts of the world that if you act like Mubarak in Egypt, you lose. If you act like Gaddafi, torturing and killing your own, you win.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/29/11
Paradox of Social Network vs Wealth and Equality
BY: Armstrong Williams
Paradox of Social Network vs Wealth and Equality
When the government provides you with a safety net that provides a comfortable living in the event of misfortune, you are less likely to save money. Before Social Security if you wanted a comfortable retirement you had to save. Before unemployment insurance if you lost your job you had to save. If you had a health issue you hoped you had saved enough
These circumstances force people to save money as a personal insurance policy. But now that we have social safety nets Americans are not required to save in order to maintain their economic status in the event of a change in life circumstances. Therefore government safety net programs, such as Social Security, unemployment benefits and national healthcare result in a much lower savings rate among working Americans. It is not surprising that as the American welfare state increases its reach, the wealthy become relatively more wealthy. The increased reach of welfare programs is bad, it is an indicator that working Americans are saving less and are unable to reap the benefits of having savings working for them in the form of investments.
If America wants to reduce its income and wealth disparity it needs to shrink the social safety network by enabling Americans to wean themselves off the welfare system through intelligent saving and educated investment.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Paradox of Social Network vs Wealth and Equality
BY: Armstrong Williams
Paradox of Social Network vs Wealth and Equality
When the government provides you with a safety net that provides a comfortable living in the event of misfortune, you are less likely to save money. Before Social Security if you wanted a comfortable retirement you had to save. Before unemployment insurance if you lost your job you had to save. If you had a health issue you hoped you had saved enough
These circumstances force people to save money as a personal insurance policy. But now that we have social safety nets Americans are not required to save in order to maintain their economic status in the event of a change in life circumstances. Therefore government safety net programs, such as Social Security, unemployment benefits and national healthcare result in a much lower savings rate among working Americans. It is not surprising that as the American welfare state increases its reach, the wealthy become relatively more wealthy. The increased reach of welfare programs is bad, it is an indicator that working Americans are saving less and are unable to reap the benefits of having savings working for them in the form of investments.
If America wants to reduce its income and wealth disparity it needs to shrink the social safety network by enabling Americans to wean themselves off the welfare system through intelligent saving and educated investment.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/28/11
Why Donald Trump won't be president
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Donald Trump won’t be president
I was a big fan of Donald Trump’s exploratory moves for the presidency. I saw those interviews the money mogul did on Fox News recently. I have to admit, I was impressed. He was poised, and told host Neil Cavuto he was “embarrassed” for this country. Ashamed that the world viewed us so poorly, and he was just the fella to try and right the ship of state. Aside from his usual ramblings about his money (I can’t see a blue collar worker subscribing to that), the Donald made a lot of sense.
Take note: I was a big fan…
I wish the comment wasn’t in the past tense. But then I watched Trump appear on a dayside show called The View on Wednesday, and he single-handedly tanked his entire campaign.
It was on that show that Donald tussled with Whoopi Goldberg. But the exchange was not over serious issues of how this country is in total debt; or why this president should have a better story to tell regarding Libya, Afghanistan…you name it. No, Donald Trump pulled a rookie move – he took the bait of a host who knows nothing about politics. He thought he was smarter than she was.
Donald engaged in an argument with Goldberg that no one – whether in Washington or elsewhere - believes is a serious policy concern, let alone a personal one. We’re talking about why or why not President Obama won’t show his birth certificate. Yep, the Donald is a “birther.” Give me a break, folks.
I know many Hill readers question why and where this president refuses to reveal his birth certificate, but every time anyone brings the topic up, they are immediately relegated to the “not serious” pile.
I’m sorry, it’s true. With all the issues facing this nation, and a wannabe leader of the free world chooses to have a deep conversation about whether Obama was born in this country? Please.
All Whoopi had to do was pull the race card, which she did, and Trump was in over his head. Oh, he won’t think so, but he was. It wasn’t even a serious forum. The View? That’s a venue where you wax nostalgic about your first kiss, or where you were when you watched your first Harry Potter movie with the kids. You don’t talk about political conspiracy theories. And you certainly don’t do it on a show where Whoopi’s producers have access to an APPLAUSE button for the audience to make her look good and you look like an imbecile.
I know Donald Trump is smart. But that might be part of his problem. He’s too smart for his own good. And the moment you start believing that you’re going to set a liberal host like Whoopi Goldberg or Barbara Walters straight, you lose.
That play might have worked on Rosie, but not here. If Donald Trump keeps pulling such amateur moves, he won’t be around long enough to get his exploratory committee off the ground.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Why Donald Trump won't be president
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Donald Trump won’t be president
I was a big fan of Donald Trump’s exploratory moves for the presidency. I saw those interviews the money mogul did on Fox News recently. I have to admit, I was impressed. He was poised, and told host Neil Cavuto he was “embarrassed” for this country. Ashamed that the world viewed us so poorly, and he was just the fella to try and right the ship of state. Aside from his usual ramblings about his money (I can’t see a blue collar worker subscribing to that), the Donald made a lot of sense.
Take note: I was a big fan…
I wish the comment wasn’t in the past tense. But then I watched Trump appear on a dayside show called The View on Wednesday, and he single-handedly tanked his entire campaign.
It was on that show that Donald tussled with Whoopi Goldberg. But the exchange was not over serious issues of how this country is in total debt; or why this president should have a better story to tell regarding Libya, Afghanistan…you name it. No, Donald Trump pulled a rookie move – he took the bait of a host who knows nothing about politics. He thought he was smarter than she was.
Donald engaged in an argument with Goldberg that no one – whether in Washington or elsewhere - believes is a serious policy concern, let alone a personal one. We’re talking about why or why not President Obama won’t show his birth certificate. Yep, the Donald is a “birther.” Give me a break, folks.
I know many Hill readers question why and where this president refuses to reveal his birth certificate, but every time anyone brings the topic up, they are immediately relegated to the “not serious” pile.
I’m sorry, it’s true. With all the issues facing this nation, and a wannabe leader of the free world chooses to have a deep conversation about whether Obama was born in this country? Please.
All Whoopi had to do was pull the race card, which she did, and Trump was in over his head. Oh, he won’t think so, but he was. It wasn’t even a serious forum. The View? That’s a venue where you wax nostalgic about your first kiss, or where you were when you watched your first Harry Potter movie with the kids. You don’t talk about political conspiracy theories. And you certainly don’t do it on a show where Whoopi’s producers have access to an APPLAUSE button for the audience to make her look good and you look like an imbecile.
I know Donald Trump is smart. But that might be part of his problem. He’s too smart for his own good. And the moment you start believing that you’re going to set a liberal host like Whoopi Goldberg or Barbara Walters straight, you lose.
That play might have worked on Rosie, but not here. If Donald Trump keeps pulling such amateur moves, he won’t be around long enough to get his exploratory committee off the ground.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/22/11
Six Billion Dollar Joke
BY: Armstrong Williams
Six Billion Dollar Joke?
During the Bush era I thoughts his budget deficit of several hundred billions dollars was irresponsible, until this new crop of leaders found there way into congress and gave new meaning to the word, irresponsible. They incurred budget deficits of 1.5 trillion dollars. The Democrats proposal to eliminate a mere SIX BILLION DOLLARS to close the deficit is a joke and we all should be insulted by this gesture. It's like sending one slice of bread to feed Haitian refugees after the earth quake in Port Au Prince.
6 billion dollars towards our deficit is less than 2/10 of 1% (.2) of the total budget. It's equivalent to somebody with a $45,000 yearly income who spends $65,000 a year trying to reduce their $20,000 overspending by $80.00 a year or someone with a $10,000 credit card bill making payments of $20 a year. It will take 500 years to pay off the credit card bill at 0% interest.
Congress needs to make a credible effort to trim spending, before our nation becomes another bankrupt state like Argentina.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Six Billion Dollar Joke
BY: Armstrong Williams
Six Billion Dollar Joke?
During the Bush era I thoughts his budget deficit of several hundred billions dollars was irresponsible, until this new crop of leaders found there way into congress and gave new meaning to the word, irresponsible. They incurred budget deficits of 1.5 trillion dollars. The Democrats proposal to eliminate a mere SIX BILLION DOLLARS to close the deficit is a joke and we all should be insulted by this gesture. It's like sending one slice of bread to feed Haitian refugees after the earth quake in Port Au Prince.
6 billion dollars towards our deficit is less than 2/10 of 1% (.2) of the total budget. It's equivalent to somebody with a $45,000 yearly income who spends $65,000 a year trying to reduce their $20,000 overspending by $80.00 a year or someone with a $10,000 credit card bill making payments of $20 a year. It will take 500 years to pay off the credit card bill at 0% interest.
Congress needs to make a credible effort to trim spending, before our nation becomes another bankrupt state like Argentina.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/22/11
Time to define the Obama Doctrine
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to define the Obama Doctrine
The current tenuous situation in Libya poses a big dilemma for this Administration. What baffles me is that it doesn’t have to be this way.
As the bombs fall and the missiles fly, it’s clear the world wants Gaddafi gone. Even the Arab League acknowledges that point. So for President Obama to state a similar line, there’s not much foreign policy wisdom flowing forth. Yet as Congressional voices grow louder for clarity on “the mission”, this White House has turned to some pretty lame reasons for the U.S.’s presence over Libya.
“Humanitarian actions” to protect the citizens of Libya…Is that the best they can do? When the President states he wants Gaddafi deposed, that should be enough. And yet we have an administration that is stepping on its message by releasing statements in the name of protecting the people of Libya. A noble cause, yes, but to carry that logic through, then shouldn’t this country have acted sooner and not waited until the tyrant’s forces were about to deliver the deathblow to the opposition?
Why now?
By the same token, Congressional Republicans should give the President some time to work both diplomatically and militarily to secure the country and establish necessary ties with UN allies. Hurling hollow questions of “what’s next??” doesn’t really advance any substantive debate. Not now. Further, the only thing we should be concerned with is finishing the job (and we know what that job is) and making sure our soldiers come home.
So now is the time for Obama to set his doctrine. Appearing in a joint media availability with the president of Chile won’t cut it (bad PR move, Mr. Carney). No, we need a major presidential address. Such an act would also set the stage for American foreign policy moves toward other totalitarian regimes who might be reconsidering their actions given the latest events.
The world is watching the United States. That’s a good place for us to be right now. It’s where we as a country thrive. Obama should embrace this moment; not dally with what to call a military offensive against a crazed tyrant.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Time to define the Obama Doctrine
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to define the Obama Doctrine
The current tenuous situation in Libya poses a big dilemma for this Administration. What baffles me is that it doesn’t have to be this way.
As the bombs fall and the missiles fly, it’s clear the world wants Gaddafi gone. Even the Arab League acknowledges that point. So for President Obama to state a similar line, there’s not much foreign policy wisdom flowing forth. Yet as Congressional voices grow louder for clarity on “the mission”, this White House has turned to some pretty lame reasons for the U.S.’s presence over Libya.
“Humanitarian actions” to protect the citizens of Libya…Is that the best they can do? When the President states he wants Gaddafi deposed, that should be enough. And yet we have an administration that is stepping on its message by releasing statements in the name of protecting the people of Libya. A noble cause, yes, but to carry that logic through, then shouldn’t this country have acted sooner and not waited until the tyrant’s forces were about to deliver the deathblow to the opposition?
Why now?
By the same token, Congressional Republicans should give the President some time to work both diplomatically and militarily to secure the country and establish necessary ties with UN allies. Hurling hollow questions of “what’s next??” doesn’t really advance any substantive debate. Not now. Further, the only thing we should be concerned with is finishing the job (and we know what that job is) and making sure our soldiers come home.
So now is the time for Obama to set his doctrine. Appearing in a joint media availability with the president of Chile won’t cut it (bad PR move, Mr. Carney). No, we need a major presidential address. Such an act would also set the stage for American foreign policy moves toward other totalitarian regimes who might be reconsidering their actions given the latest events.
The world is watching the United States. That’s a good place for us to be right now. It’s where we as a country thrive. Obama should embrace this moment; not dally with what to call a military offensive against a crazed tyrant.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/21/11
American Ingenuity
BY: Armstrong Williams
American Ingenuity
The Internet as we know it today started as a small Department of Defense project as early as 1969. Back then, the Pentagon was looking for an alternate way of communicating beyond the telephone system during wartime threats. The best plan was to communicate across a “web” of networked computers – a program that was to be run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Created just after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1959 and long heralded as the wiz-bang arm of the Pentagon, DARPA quickly stepped into action and perfected the ARPANET as it was first called, by 1983.
Just think, American ingenuity has done what hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of soldiers’ lives, and all the might of the U.S. military war machine could not – spread democracy like a prairie fire.
Maybe that’s the lesson we as Americans can take from the volatile yet history-setting events unfolding half a world away. The desire for self-rule and independence is insatiable. No matter how big a stick we may carry, sometimes even the softest of words can wield the greatest influences.
Thought can in fact produce action, and spark a sense of community and solidarity, even when those passions are less than 140 characters. Didn’t we as a young people recognize this truism some 250 years ago? Only then, our rallying cries came in the form of Federalist Papers and words such as “Don’t Tread on Me.”
We are embarking on a new Age of Freedom. The world’s youth know this. To them, freedom rests in the palm of their hands. We as a beacon of that hope and representative government would serve ourselves well to keep looking for ways to share technology with them.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
American Ingenuity
BY: Armstrong Williams
American Ingenuity
The Internet as we know it today started as a small Department of Defense project as early as 1969. Back then, the Pentagon was looking for an alternate way of communicating beyond the telephone system during wartime threats. The best plan was to communicate across a “web” of networked computers – a program that was to be run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Created just after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1959 and long heralded as the wiz-bang arm of the Pentagon, DARPA quickly stepped into action and perfected the ARPANET as it was first called, by 1983.
Just think, American ingenuity has done what hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of soldiers’ lives, and all the might of the U.S. military war machine could not – spread democracy like a prairie fire.
Maybe that’s the lesson we as Americans can take from the volatile yet history-setting events unfolding half a world away. The desire for self-rule and independence is insatiable. No matter how big a stick we may carry, sometimes even the softest of words can wield the greatest influences.
Thought can in fact produce action, and spark a sense of community and solidarity, even when those passions are less than 140 characters. Didn’t we as a young people recognize this truism some 250 years ago? Only then, our rallying cries came in the form of Federalist Papers and words such as “Don’t Tread on Me.”
We are embarking on a new Age of Freedom. The world’s youth know this. To them, freedom rests in the palm of their hands. We as a beacon of that hope and representative government would serve ourselves well to keep looking for ways to share technology with them.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/18/11
Repatriating Offshore Profits
BY: Armstrong Williams
Repatriating Offshore Profits
One of the reasons that banks are less aggressive in lending to the private sector in a recession is that government regulators are more likely to “criticize” risky loans to the private sector. Banks with criticized loans are forced to write-down these loans and consequently have less money available to lend. There are more criticized loans in a recession, so banks have to rebuild their capital by reducing lending and lending only to the safest borrowers. Therefore in a recession, government bank regulators force banks to be more conservative in their lending to the private sector which leads the banks to buy more government bonds. In my more cynical moments, I wonder if the economic geniuses in the Treasury Department, Bank Regulatory Agencies and the Federal Reserve understand that they can force the banks to fund a larger portion of the huge federal deficit with cheap money by criticizing more bank loans to the private sector and crowding out private lending.
The analysis above assumes that all corporate excess money was kept in the US. As a practical matter much of the unused corporate money is in off shore accounts being invested in foreign government bonds and private foreign loans. It is not being spent in the US because US tax policy severely penalizes US companies that repatriate offshore profits. The US corporate tax rate is 35%, the highest in the developed world. The tax rates in Europe and Asia range from 10-25%. If US companies repatriate that money back to the US, they will have to pay an additional tax of 10-25% (the difference between the US corporate tax rate and the foreign tax rate.) For example, if Microsoft has $1 billion from profits in its Hong Kong account, it would have to pay a repatriation tax of 15%, $150 million, to the US government to repatriate the money back to the US. Are you surprised that they leave the money in Hong Kong? No other country materially taxes repatriated earnings made foreign countries. This means that they cannot spend, invest or distribute to shareholders the money from these offshore accounts in the US without a severe tax penalty!
The bottom line is that government tax and bank regulatory policy is responsible for much of the idle cash in corporate tills sitting on the side lines during this recession.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Repatriating Offshore Profits
BY: Armstrong Williams
Repatriating Offshore Profits
One of the reasons that banks are less aggressive in lending to the private sector in a recession is that government regulators are more likely to “criticize” risky loans to the private sector. Banks with criticized loans are forced to write-down these loans and consequently have less money available to lend. There are more criticized loans in a recession, so banks have to rebuild their capital by reducing lending and lending only to the safest borrowers. Therefore in a recession, government bank regulators force banks to be more conservative in their lending to the private sector which leads the banks to buy more government bonds. In my more cynical moments, I wonder if the economic geniuses in the Treasury Department, Bank Regulatory Agencies and the Federal Reserve understand that they can force the banks to fund a larger portion of the huge federal deficit with cheap money by criticizing more bank loans to the private sector and crowding out private lending.
The analysis above assumes that all corporate excess money was kept in the US. As a practical matter much of the unused corporate money is in off shore accounts being invested in foreign government bonds and private foreign loans. It is not being spent in the US because US tax policy severely penalizes US companies that repatriate offshore profits. The US corporate tax rate is 35%, the highest in the developed world. The tax rates in Europe and Asia range from 10-25%. If US companies repatriate that money back to the US, they will have to pay an additional tax of 10-25% (the difference between the US corporate tax rate and the foreign tax rate.) For example, if Microsoft has $1 billion from profits in its Hong Kong account, it would have to pay a repatriation tax of 15%, $150 million, to the US government to repatriate the money back to the US. Are you surprised that they leave the money in Hong Kong? No other country materially taxes repatriated earnings made foreign countries. This means that they cannot spend, invest or distribute to shareholders the money from these offshore accounts in the US without a severe tax penalty!
The bottom line is that government tax and bank regulatory policy is responsible for much of the idle cash in corporate tills sitting on the side lines during this recession.
Read Armstrong Williams content on RightSideWire.com and listen daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/17/11
Leadership
Leadership
By Armstrong Williams -
The chickens have finally come home to roost.
We're at the 3 a.m. call that candidate Hillary Clinton foreshadowed during her 2008 presidential campaign. She warned that electing a president with little or no experience would place our nation in danger by not knowing what to do in times of crisis.
President Obama probably has good intentions, yet he continues to tread lightly on the world stage. At this very moment there is a clarion call for strong leadership from the United States as the lone superpower on earth. Many crises are constantly erupting around the globe and the world is screaming for leadership with backbone and clarity.
As much as some may believe in non-exceptionalism, we are exceptional and must provide guidance and vision through these turbulent times we find ourselves in. We are by default world leaders and must remove our heads from the sand and take up the task.
Leadership requires taking risks. Obama is risk-averse. To put it simply, a leader must lead, and not perpetually ruminate.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Leadership
Leadership
By Armstrong Williams -
The chickens have finally come home to roost.
We're at the 3 a.m. call that candidate Hillary Clinton foreshadowed during her 2008 presidential campaign. She warned that electing a president with little or no experience would place our nation in danger by not knowing what to do in times of crisis.
President Obama probably has good intentions, yet he continues to tread lightly on the world stage. At this very moment there is a clarion call for strong leadership from the United States as the lone superpower on earth. Many crises are constantly erupting around the globe and the world is screaming for leadership with backbone and clarity.
As much as some may believe in non-exceptionalism, we are exceptional and must provide guidance and vision through these turbulent times we find ourselves in. We are by default world leaders and must remove our heads from the sand and take up the task.
Leadership requires taking risks. Obama is risk-averse. To put it simply, a leader must lead, and not perpetually ruminate.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/16/11
American benevolence in the wake of tragedy
BY: Armstrong Williams
American benevolence in the wake of tragedy
What happened in Japan is truly awful. In the wake of a devastating earthquake that shook the island nation to its very core lies destruction, loss of life, and a solemn emptiness that will be felt for generations. That’s the soul of the Japanese – they care for their own in unimaginable ways. From the manner in which they treat their country’s elderly (many remain with their families to their last days, not in institutions), to their disciplined work ethic, there is much to be admired. Just look at the story of those fearless 50 who, as I write this, are dug in deep of a nuclear reactor core trying to defuse that situation.
But another soul was laid bare this week in response to the tragedy – the benevolent, giving spirit of the American people. From our government to individuals such as The Hill readers, each gives of their time, talents and fortunes to help a people half a world away. Even $10 at a time makes a world of difference.
For example, hours after the quake struck, American churches were mobilizing. The Church of 7th Day Adventists set up relief stations for Japanese commuters who were trapped in subway cars due to loss of electrical power.
That’s what makes me proud to be an American. We don’t think to step up and step into the middle of the devastation. Our emergency response crews are on the next planes out of the country. The teams from Fairfax, Va… I swear they must live on planes and in vehicles – driving from one disaster area to the next.
We saw it in Haiti, New Zealand, and now in Japan. The American sense of giving is seemingly bottomless.
And that’s what the world needs right now. I’m not talking about a renewed sense of American exceptionalism. Forget that clap-trap for now. I’m talking about a plain, God-fearing sense of giving. Of love for a brother. No love is greater.
So let’s celebrate that today, even as we mourn for a nation in the throes of despair.
American benevolence in the wake of tragedy
BY: Armstrong Williams
American benevolence in the wake of tragedy
What happened in Japan is truly awful. In the wake of a devastating earthquake that shook the island nation to its very core lies destruction, loss of life, and a solemn emptiness that will be felt for generations. That’s the soul of the Japanese – they care for their own in unimaginable ways. From the manner in which they treat their country’s elderly (many remain with their families to their last days, not in institutions), to their disciplined work ethic, there is much to be admired. Just look at the story of those fearless 50 who, as I write this, are dug in deep of a nuclear reactor core trying to defuse that situation.
But another soul was laid bare this week in response to the tragedy – the benevolent, giving spirit of the American people. From our government to individuals such as The Hill readers, each gives of their time, talents and fortunes to help a people half a world away. Even $10 at a time makes a world of difference.
For example, hours after the quake struck, American churches were mobilizing. The Church of 7th Day Adventists set up relief stations for Japanese commuters who were trapped in subway cars due to loss of electrical power.
That’s what makes me proud to be an American. We don’t think to step up and step into the middle of the devastation. Our emergency response crews are on the next planes out of the country. The teams from Fairfax, Va… I swear they must live on planes and in vehicles – driving from one disaster area to the next.
We saw it in Haiti, New Zealand, and now in Japan. The American sense of giving is seemingly bottomless.
And that’s what the world needs right now. I’m not talking about a renewed sense of American exceptionalism. Forget that clap-trap for now. I’m talking about a plain, God-fearing sense of giving. Of love for a brother. No love is greater.
So let’s celebrate that today, even as we mourn for a nation in the throes of despair.
03/14/11
When’s crossing street safer than standing on curb?
Learning to cross the street safely is one of the first things a child is taught after he or she learns to walk. The first lesson: Cross at the crosswalk. Second, only cross when the pedestrian light is on. And, the cardinal rule: Always look both ways before crossing.
The financial markets made folly of these rules of thumb over the past three years, transforming once-seasoned street-crossers into mere toddlers overnight. People withdrew their investments from the roiling equity markets and sought safe havens in cash. Mattresses replaced major financial institutions as the most trusted stewards of national wealth.
Pedestrian investors came to no longer believe in the safety signals. After all, they had lost money on home mortgages that, up until 2008, were considered among the world's safest investments. Almost all the economic models showed that housing values would never decline. But decline they did. For those who lost their investments, it was like getting hit when the light was green. A few of the more cautious investors even looked both ways and foresaw the bursting mortgage bubble. They wisely moved into other investments, thinking that the crisis would be contained within the housing industry. They were wrong. The mess spilled into the overall economy, causing a global financial meltdown. The goody-two shoes got hit, too.
Those who managed to survive limped to the curb, where they stayed put for two years. The merest movement startled them. With a look of betrayal in their eyes, they looked up at their parents — the media pundits and the federal government — for answers. They instinctively reached for a comforting hand, placing their precious eggs in the federal government's nest. The year 2008 witnessed record purchases of U.S. treasuries by foreign and domestic investors looking for a safe place to ride out the storm.
The rush to safe haven started out as a reflexive, instinct-driven stampede, but quickly turned existential. Fear became the new normal. The question turned from "When is it really safe to cross the road?" to "Why would a chicken ever cross the road in the first place?" People were so concerned about preserving what little capital they had left that they lost all concern for how to grow their wealth. Not losing became the new winning.
But the hole was so deep that the government feared a downward economic spiral if it did not enable the worst drivers — those that in fact caused the crash — the nation's financial institutions. The mantra "too big to fail" echoed with mind-numbing repetition throughout the halls of government. Ultimately, the politicians heeded the call, propping up the banks with the largest bailouts in history. The government took most of the bad assets off the private firms' books and converted them into a public debt. After the bailouts, it was expected that the private financial institutions would be freed up to lend money to distressed individuals and businesses and get the economy rolling again.
But that didn't happen. As time has revealed, instead of using government largess to help troubled consumers and small businesses, the banks hoarded the cash, and compensated themselves handsomely. In fact, in 2009, less than a year after the government bailed them out, Wall Street rewarded itself with almost $144 billion, the largest compensation package in its history.
Moreover, the firms still held plenty of toxic mortgages on their books. And to add insult to injury: They lied about just needing to bail out their clients. After the dust settled, it came to light that Goldman Sachs, one of the supposedly least affected banks and one of the most arrogantly opposed to government regulation — received almost $3 billion in government funds to bail out its own losing trades.
Needless to say, investors were not impressed. They clung to the sidelines. There were, to borrow a term from the estimable Donald H. Rumsfeld, there were too many "unknown unknowns" out in the street. Meanwhile, the government's borrowing spree diluted the value of the dollar so much that yields on short-term treasuries trailed nominal inflation. Even while hugging the curb, investors were getting sideswiped. The second round of government debt issuance, QE 2, lowered returns on "safe money" further and forced shellshocked investors back into the street. As a result, the stock market rallied in the last months of 2010 and early 2011.
Many pundits celebrated the stock market rally as a sign of the return of consumer confidence. This was far from the case. The big, "dumb" money (as many Wall Street traders glibly refer to it) — institutional investors such as state pension funds and private insurance pools — could not survive on the near-zero interest rates they earned on public debt and were forced back into the street.
Their actuarial models, the means by which they paid claims, assumed risk-adjusted returns averaging between 5 percent and 8 percent. They were now earning less than 2 percent. Not only had they lost upwards of 40 percent of their capital in the downturn, but the anemic, jobless recovery combined with the retiring baby-boom population, placed serious strains on their resources. The risk of not crossing the street spelled certain failure, even as the unknown risks of crossing loomed.
The situation in the street is not much better (and maybe worse) than it was in 2008. The same large firms control the majority of the nation's financial assets. Only now, thanks to mergers and government bailouts, they're even bigger. Individuals at the helm of these firms largely escaped scrutiny, not to mention punishment, because the problem was chalked up to "systemic risk." Therefore, the same incentives that drove these firms to ignore the stop signs and run over pedestrians persist today. And one more thing: The U.S. government, supposedly the grown-up in the game, became the most risky institution in America.
When is crossing the street safer than standing on the curb? When there is no curb.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Satellite's Power 169 channel from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter aat www.twitter.com/arightside.
When’s crossing street safer than standing on curb?
Learning to cross the street safely is one of the first things a child is taught after he or she learns to walk. The first lesson: Cross at the crosswalk. Second, only cross when the pedestrian light is on. And, the cardinal rule: Always look both ways before crossing.
The financial markets made folly of these rules of thumb over the past three years, transforming once-seasoned street-crossers into mere toddlers overnight. People withdrew their investments from the roiling equity markets and sought safe havens in cash. Mattresses replaced major financial institutions as the most trusted stewards of national wealth.
Pedestrian investors came to no longer believe in the safety signals. After all, they had lost money on home mortgages that, up until 2008, were considered among the world's safest investments. Almost all the economic models showed that housing values would never decline. But decline they did. For those who lost their investments, it was like getting hit when the light was green. A few of the more cautious investors even looked both ways and foresaw the bursting mortgage bubble. They wisely moved into other investments, thinking that the crisis would be contained within the housing industry. They were wrong. The mess spilled into the overall economy, causing a global financial meltdown. The goody-two shoes got hit, too.
Those who managed to survive limped to the curb, where they stayed put for two years. The merest movement startled them. With a look of betrayal in their eyes, they looked up at their parents — the media pundits and the federal government — for answers. They instinctively reached for a comforting hand, placing their precious eggs in the federal government's nest. The year 2008 witnessed record purchases of U.S. treasuries by foreign and domestic investors looking for a safe place to ride out the storm.
The rush to safe haven started out as a reflexive, instinct-driven stampede, but quickly turned existential. Fear became the new normal. The question turned from "When is it really safe to cross the road?" to "Why would a chicken ever cross the road in the first place?" People were so concerned about preserving what little capital they had left that they lost all concern for how to grow their wealth. Not losing became the new winning.
But the hole was so deep that the government feared a downward economic spiral if it did not enable the worst drivers — those that in fact caused the crash — the nation's financial institutions. The mantra "too big to fail" echoed with mind-numbing repetition throughout the halls of government. Ultimately, the politicians heeded the call, propping up the banks with the largest bailouts in history. The government took most of the bad assets off the private firms' books and converted them into a public debt. After the bailouts, it was expected that the private financial institutions would be freed up to lend money to distressed individuals and businesses and get the economy rolling again.
But that didn't happen. As time has revealed, instead of using government largess to help troubled consumers and small businesses, the banks hoarded the cash, and compensated themselves handsomely. In fact, in 2009, less than a year after the government bailed them out, Wall Street rewarded itself with almost $144 billion, the largest compensation package in its history.
Moreover, the firms still held plenty of toxic mortgages on their books. And to add insult to injury: They lied about just needing to bail out their clients. After the dust settled, it came to light that Goldman Sachs, one of the supposedly least affected banks and one of the most arrogantly opposed to government regulation — received almost $3 billion in government funds to bail out its own losing trades.
Needless to say, investors were not impressed. They clung to the sidelines. There were, to borrow a term from the estimable Donald H. Rumsfeld, there were too many "unknown unknowns" out in the street. Meanwhile, the government's borrowing spree diluted the value of the dollar so much that yields on short-term treasuries trailed nominal inflation. Even while hugging the curb, investors were getting sideswiped. The second round of government debt issuance, QE 2, lowered returns on "safe money" further and forced shellshocked investors back into the street. As a result, the stock market rallied in the last months of 2010 and early 2011.
Many pundits celebrated the stock market rally as a sign of the return of consumer confidence. This was far from the case. The big, "dumb" money (as many Wall Street traders glibly refer to it) — institutional investors such as state pension funds and private insurance pools — could not survive on the near-zero interest rates they earned on public debt and were forced back into the street.
Their actuarial models, the means by which they paid claims, assumed risk-adjusted returns averaging between 5 percent and 8 percent. They were now earning less than 2 percent. Not only had they lost upwards of 40 percent of their capital in the downturn, but the anemic, jobless recovery combined with the retiring baby-boom population, placed serious strains on their resources. The risk of not crossing the street spelled certain failure, even as the unknown risks of crossing loomed.
The situation in the street is not much better (and maybe worse) than it was in 2008. The same large firms control the majority of the nation's financial assets. Only now, thanks to mergers and government bailouts, they're even bigger. Individuals at the helm of these firms largely escaped scrutiny, not to mention punishment, because the problem was chalked up to "systemic risk." Therefore, the same incentives that drove these firms to ignore the stop signs and run over pedestrians persist today. And one more thing: The U.S. government, supposedly the grown-up in the game, became the most risky institution in America.
When is crossing the street safer than standing on the curb? When there is no curb.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Satellite's Power 169 channel from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter aat www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/12/11
Abortion and the 2012 Elections
BY: Armstrong Williams
Abortion and the 2012 Elections
Just when you thought the 2012 election cycle would be all about economic and domestic policies, the third rail of social politics - abortion – rears its head.
The latest chapter in our nation’s struggles over what to do about the topic unfolds out of Texas. The Lone Star State’s General Assembly has approved separate bills in both the House and Senate forcing women seeking abortions to also get a sonogram 24 hours prior to the procedure.
Women’s rights groups howled. Democratic lawmakers in the Texas legislature cried foul.
But what were the complaints? Republicans pushing the bill said it only seems fair and right to ask a woman who was about to make one of the most difficult decisions of her life to a) think about it an extra day; and b) to at least understand that the fetus she was about to abort was in fact a living entity with a heartbeat. Is that so wrong?
Opponents didn’t challenge those fundamental questions. Instead, they chose to trot out traditional lofty statements such as “the reproductive rights of women will be set back generations…” and “this interferes with the doctor-patient relationship…” yadda yadda yadda.
"It is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think. This is government intrusion at its best," said Texas state Rep. Carol Alvarado during a debate on the House floor last week. That’s correct, this procedure would involve an ultrasound scan in the woman’s uterus. No question, that is invasive. But isn’t, too, an abortion? Isn’t that invasive?
If abortions should in fact be “legal yet rare” in this country, then doesn’t everyone contemplating such a move owe it to themselves and the unborn to at least THINK about it first?
That’s what bothers me most about the pro-abortion movement, especially as these arguments evolve through the decades. At first, it was “life of the mother.” Then it was “health” which opened to mental health, and that was loosely translated to mean, “Well, if she’s going to be depressed by the thought of having a kid, then let’s go ahead and offer abortions there, too.”
I’m sorry, this is a difficult decision. And I think women (and the fathers of these children) to not have to avoid the very real thoughts and anguish that go into the action of terminating a heartbeat shouldn't be allowed to proceed with an abortion. Unfortunately in life, one must pay a high price to learn a valuable lesson. And the price of abortion should come with such a lesson.
Since when do we in this country owe it to any citizen – man or woman – that they don’t have to think about the consequences of their actions? After all, isn’t that all the Texas bill is asking – that potential mothers and fathers consider what the outcomes of their decisions may be?
If abortion is to return to the stage of national politics on this particular question, then let it be so. For such is a debate that perhaps we should have, and on many levels. Whether in how we spend taxpayer dollars, ration health care, or fund priorities, we as a society cannot continue to believe that the decisions each of us makes have no bearing, impact, or weight on who we are as human beings. To protect life is to be human.
Read more of my content at www.rightsidewire.com and follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside
Abortion and the 2012 Elections
BY: Armstrong Williams
Abortion and the 2012 Elections
Just when you thought the 2012 election cycle would be all about economic and domestic policies, the third rail of social politics - abortion – rears its head.
The latest chapter in our nation’s struggles over what to do about the topic unfolds out of Texas. The Lone Star State’s General Assembly has approved separate bills in both the House and Senate forcing women seeking abortions to also get a sonogram 24 hours prior to the procedure.
Women’s rights groups howled. Democratic lawmakers in the Texas legislature cried foul.
But what were the complaints? Republicans pushing the bill said it only seems fair and right to ask a woman who was about to make one of the most difficult decisions of her life to a) think about it an extra day; and b) to at least understand that the fetus she was about to abort was in fact a living entity with a heartbeat. Is that so wrong?
Opponents didn’t challenge those fundamental questions. Instead, they chose to trot out traditional lofty statements such as “the reproductive rights of women will be set back generations…” and “this interferes with the doctor-patient relationship…” yadda yadda yadda.
"It is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think. This is government intrusion at its best," said Texas state Rep. Carol Alvarado during a debate on the House floor last week. That’s correct, this procedure would involve an ultrasound scan in the woman’s uterus. No question, that is invasive. But isn’t, too, an abortion? Isn’t that invasive?
If abortions should in fact be “legal yet rare” in this country, then doesn’t everyone contemplating such a move owe it to themselves and the unborn to at least THINK about it first?
That’s what bothers me most about the pro-abortion movement, especially as these arguments evolve through the decades. At first, it was “life of the mother.” Then it was “health” which opened to mental health, and that was loosely translated to mean, “Well, if she’s going to be depressed by the thought of having a kid, then let’s go ahead and offer abortions there, too.”
I’m sorry, this is a difficult decision. And I think women (and the fathers of these children) to not have to avoid the very real thoughts and anguish that go into the action of terminating a heartbeat shouldn't be allowed to proceed with an abortion. Unfortunately in life, one must pay a high price to learn a valuable lesson. And the price of abortion should come with such a lesson.
Since when do we in this country owe it to any citizen – man or woman – that they don’t have to think about the consequences of their actions? After all, isn’t that all the Texas bill is asking – that potential mothers and fathers consider what the outcomes of their decisions may be?
If abortion is to return to the stage of national politics on this particular question, then let it be so. For such is a debate that perhaps we should have, and on many levels. Whether in how we spend taxpayer dollars, ration health care, or fund priorities, we as a society cannot continue to believe that the decisions each of us makes have no bearing, impact, or weight on who we are as human beings. To protect life is to be human.
Read more of my content at www.rightsidewire.com and follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside
03/11/11
Michael Moore's Hypocrisy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Subject: Michael Moore's Hypocrisy
Michael Moore says the top 400 richest Americans' wealth now exceeds the cumulative affluence of bottom 50% of American population, 155 million people. For all of Michael Moore's faults, this statement is true. However, the message he attempts to make is impotent due to his own hypocrisy and his shallow understanding of why the wealthy are prosperous.
What’s strikes about Michael Moore is that he is a man that rails against capitalism and recently said, “…(rich people’s money) is not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it." For those that don’t know, Michael Moore is worth over $50 million. He made that fortune in our capitalist system by being a capitalist himself. I don’t see Mr. Moore rushing to give away his millions to the bottom 50% of income earners, nor have I heard that he voluntarily donated millions to the federal government.
So the hypocrite, Michael Moore, also commented on the poor state of affluence in the African American community, basically laying the blame for their economic plight at eh feet of the wealthy. What he fails to do is look at the root causes of the African American poverty, causes that are true of the impoverished of every demographic.
The first reason is the decline of the African America family reflected by low rates of marriage and high rate of out of wedlock births approaching 80%. Next is the lack of business and entrepreneurial culture that encourages savings and creates wealth. There is also an over dependence on government programs which discourage savings because the government will bail you out. Finally is the prevalence of the “victim mentality” which says it is not worth pursuing the American dream because of racism.
If Michael Moore is correct, then it’s a reasonable guesstimate that the top 20 wealthiest Americans’ wealth exceeds the combined wealth of the entire African American population. This assumes cumulative wealth of the top 20 of only $400 billion (Gates and Buffett are $100 billion combined) and it assumes average wealth among 40 million African Americans of $10,000 per capita, which is very high.
It's not a surprise that the top 400 wealthiest Americans owns more than the bottom 50% combined. These individuals continue to exemplify superior financial stewardship, which embodies the wise us of the resources they continue to multiply.
This is a result of values that include a clear culture of entrepreneurship. Remember, 75% of the people in the Forbes 400 were not on this list 25 years ago. This reminds us that the top 80% of the wealth earners are self-made… just like Michael Moore.
Read more of Armstrong Williams' content at www.rightsidewire.com. and follow him on twitter at twitter.com/arightside.
Michael Moore's Hypocrisy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Subject: Michael Moore's Hypocrisy
Michael Moore says the top 400 richest Americans' wealth now exceeds the cumulative affluence of bottom 50% of American population, 155 million people. For all of Michael Moore's faults, this statement is true. However, the message he attempts to make is impotent due to his own hypocrisy and his shallow understanding of why the wealthy are prosperous.
What’s strikes about Michael Moore is that he is a man that rails against capitalism and recently said, “…(rich people’s money) is not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it." For those that don’t know, Michael Moore is worth over $50 million. He made that fortune in our capitalist system by being a capitalist himself. I don’t see Mr. Moore rushing to give away his millions to the bottom 50% of income earners, nor have I heard that he voluntarily donated millions to the federal government.
So the hypocrite, Michael Moore, also commented on the poor state of affluence in the African American community, basically laying the blame for their economic plight at eh feet of the wealthy. What he fails to do is look at the root causes of the African American poverty, causes that are true of the impoverished of every demographic.
The first reason is the decline of the African America family reflected by low rates of marriage and high rate of out of wedlock births approaching 80%. Next is the lack of business and entrepreneurial culture that encourages savings and creates wealth. There is also an over dependence on government programs which discourage savings because the government will bail you out. Finally is the prevalence of the “victim mentality” which says it is not worth pursuing the American dream because of racism.
If Michael Moore is correct, then it’s a reasonable guesstimate that the top 20 wealthiest Americans’ wealth exceeds the combined wealth of the entire African American population. This assumes cumulative wealth of the top 20 of only $400 billion (Gates and Buffett are $100 billion combined) and it assumes average wealth among 40 million African Americans of $10,000 per capita, which is very high.
It's not a surprise that the top 400 wealthiest Americans owns more than the bottom 50% combined. These individuals continue to exemplify superior financial stewardship, which embodies the wise us of the resources they continue to multiply.
This is a result of values that include a clear culture of entrepreneurship. Remember, 75% of the people in the Forbes 400 were not on this list 25 years ago. This reminds us that the top 80% of the wealth earners are self-made… just like Michael Moore.
Read more of Armstrong Williams' content at www.rightsidewire.com. and follow him on twitter at twitter.com/arightside.
03/10/11
Time for the U.S. to step in on Libyan civil war
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time for the U.S. to step in on Libyan civil war
A lot has been written and said recently over the United States’ position with respect to the Libyan government’s conflict with its people. The situation on the ground is near levels of full scale civil war. And after this weekend, it appears Col. Gaddafi seems to be taking back what many rebels captured in the initial throes of this campaign.
That’s unfortunate, and I would argue certainly not in the best interests of the U.S. nor for stability in the region. Concepts of “the devil I know…” are continuously brought up when comparing the tyrant to what could replace him in that leadership vacuum.
But the potential for terror far outweighs any downsides of a leaderless Libya, at least in my mind. And for these reasons, the United States should begin to get more engaged in the region. A few reasons:
First, the “leaderless” part of Libya’s new storyline following the fall of Gaddafi won’t last long. Just as in years past, someone from inside the country will step forward, and the U.S. and our allies will ease in that transition, if only with human aid and funds alone. That form of diplomacy we’re pretty good at.
Second, as former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton recently stated, the window for the U.S. to actually make a difference and impact the outcome of this conflict is rapidly closing. Gaddafi’s henchmen are suppressing the opposition. If we wait too long, there may be no one left to help. At least not in any organized, systematic way.
Sen. John McCain agrees. That’s why he’s called for some sort of enforcement of a no-fly zone and an enhanced American presence in the country.
No one is talking about troops. Even if they were, the public’s appetite just isn’t there. But the president is missing an opportunity here to exert some foreign affairs leadership. Gaddafi is certifiable. No one disputes that.
Now is not the time to be timid. By the same token, we don’t need another Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet we shouldn’t let our apprehensions over those two conflicts cloud the good judgment that Libya is a country where the U.S. can step in and end this charade Gaddafi has perpetuated for too long.
Read More of my content at www.rightsidewire.com. Follow us on twitter @arightside.
Time for the U.S. to step in on Libyan civil war
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time for the U.S. to step in on Libyan civil war
A lot has been written and said recently over the United States’ position with respect to the Libyan government’s conflict with its people. The situation on the ground is near levels of full scale civil war. And after this weekend, it appears Col. Gaddafi seems to be taking back what many rebels captured in the initial throes of this campaign.
That’s unfortunate, and I would argue certainly not in the best interests of the U.S. nor for stability in the region. Concepts of “the devil I know…” are continuously brought up when comparing the tyrant to what could replace him in that leadership vacuum.
But the potential for terror far outweighs any downsides of a leaderless Libya, at least in my mind. And for these reasons, the United States should begin to get more engaged in the region. A few reasons:
First, the “leaderless” part of Libya’s new storyline following the fall of Gaddafi won’t last long. Just as in years past, someone from inside the country will step forward, and the U.S. and our allies will ease in that transition, if only with human aid and funds alone. That form of diplomacy we’re pretty good at.
Second, as former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton recently stated, the window for the U.S. to actually make a difference and impact the outcome of this conflict is rapidly closing. Gaddafi’s henchmen are suppressing the opposition. If we wait too long, there may be no one left to help. At least not in any organized, systematic way.
Sen. John McCain agrees. That’s why he’s called for some sort of enforcement of a no-fly zone and an enhanced American presence in the country.
No one is talking about troops. Even if they were, the public’s appetite just isn’t there. But the president is missing an opportunity here to exert some foreign affairs leadership. Gaddafi is certifiable. No one disputes that.
Now is not the time to be timid. By the same token, we don’t need another Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet we shouldn’t let our apprehensions over those two conflicts cloud the good judgment that Libya is a country where the U.S. can step in and end this charade Gaddafi has perpetuated for too long.
Read More of my content at www.rightsidewire.com. Follow us on twitter @arightside.
03/08/11
A new playing field in the Senate
BY: Armstrong Williams
A new playing field in the Senate
Tuesday, March 8 Blog
GOP fundraising firms and political operatives are smacking their chops lately over the playing field that is shaping up in the U.S. Senate come 2012. For many, the reality that five Democratic Senators would already hang up their spurs and ride off in the sunset never really crossed their minds.
Yet that is what’s happened in recent months. From Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a recovering Democrat who ran as an independent to Sens. Kent Conrad (ND), Daniel Akaka (HI), Jim Webb (VA) and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, many stalwarts of the chamber are packing it in.
A recent story inside the Beltway pegged the Senators as tired of “the grind” of every cycle, having to raise money and grip and grin through the election season. But I sense it’s more than that. After all, these folks belong to the most exclusive club in the world. Being in the Senate isn’t exactly retail politics, especially when you only have to run every six years, and fundraising is made all the more easy since every Senator chairs at least one committee or subcommittee. The constituencies are there to generate the cash.
No, this is much bigger, and much worse for the Democratic Party. They’re tired of defending the liberal agenda of President Obama. And the deck is stacked against them for the next 18 months.
For states such as Virginia, North Dakota and even now in Hawaii, it’s not so easy to kow-tow to an agenda as far left as Obama’s. They saw the writing on the wall, and I can’t say that I blame them for throwing in the towel so early when this president has seemingly doubled down on his blueprint.
At least two more are quietly mulling their future. Nebraska’s Ben Nelson and Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl have been rumored as pondering exits of their own. Nelson would certainly feel the heat in his home state, and not just from the Tea Party. Independents are scratching their hands over his votes in recent years, and what exactly this “free-thinker” was thinking when he cast AYE for so many of Obama’s plans.
A path is now open to that magical number of 51 in the Senate for Mitch McConnell. The stakes are much higher, on both sides. Majority Leader Reid can’t count on his party faithful to toe the line as regularly as before. This also means Sen. McConnell needs to pay more attention to how his House counterparts are faring on key items such as spending reductions. For soon, he could have the opportunity to move their actions forward in a body that now has no appetite for these conservative actions.
These next few months will spin an interesting tale of politics and policy. I’d watch for several more “mavericks” step out, and several new faces emerge to take leadership roles on both sides of the aisle.
www.rightsidewire.com
A new playing field in the Senate
BY: Armstrong Williams
A new playing field in the Senate
Tuesday, March 8 Blog
GOP fundraising firms and political operatives are smacking their chops lately over the playing field that is shaping up in the U.S. Senate come 2012. For many, the reality that five Democratic Senators would already hang up their spurs and ride off in the sunset never really crossed their minds.
Yet that is what’s happened in recent months. From Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a recovering Democrat who ran as an independent to Sens. Kent Conrad (ND), Daniel Akaka (HI), Jim Webb (VA) and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, many stalwarts of the chamber are packing it in.
A recent story inside the Beltway pegged the Senators as tired of “the grind” of every cycle, having to raise money and grip and grin through the election season. But I sense it’s more than that. After all, these folks belong to the most exclusive club in the world. Being in the Senate isn’t exactly retail politics, especially when you only have to run every six years, and fundraising is made all the more easy since every Senator chairs at least one committee or subcommittee. The constituencies are there to generate the cash.
No, this is much bigger, and much worse for the Democratic Party. They’re tired of defending the liberal agenda of President Obama. And the deck is stacked against them for the next 18 months.
For states such as Virginia, North Dakota and even now in Hawaii, it’s not so easy to kow-tow to an agenda as far left as Obama’s. They saw the writing on the wall, and I can’t say that I blame them for throwing in the towel so early when this president has seemingly doubled down on his blueprint.
At least two more are quietly mulling their future. Nebraska’s Ben Nelson and Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl have been rumored as pondering exits of their own. Nelson would certainly feel the heat in his home state, and not just from the Tea Party. Independents are scratching their hands over his votes in recent years, and what exactly this “free-thinker” was thinking when he cast AYE for so many of Obama’s plans.
A path is now open to that magical number of 51 in the Senate for Mitch McConnell. The stakes are much higher, on both sides. Majority Leader Reid can’t count on his party faithful to toe the line as regularly as before. This also means Sen. McConnell needs to pay more attention to how his House counterparts are faring on key items such as spending reductions. For soon, he could have the opportunity to move their actions forward in a body that now has no appetite for these conservative actions.
These next few months will spin an interesting tale of politics and policy. I’d watch for several more “mavericks” step out, and several new faces emerge to take leadership roles on both sides of the aisle.
www.rightsidewire.com
03/07/11
Unintended consequences
Unfortunately, President Obama does not understand the basic laws of physics. Isaac Newton's third law of motion states that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Nor does Mr. Obama understand the basic principles of economics, including the law of unintended consequences and creating a "moral hazard." A moral hazard is created when a person behaves differently from how he would have if he had to bear the risks of his behavior.
Every time Mr. Obama attempts to repair a problem by government intervention, he creates a more serious problem. An example of the law of unintended consequences is the president's attempt to solve the financial crises by increasing the regulation of the American financial system.
These attempts over time "to fix and regulate" the financial markets have resulted in the loss of U.S. dominance in the financial sector. The most recent egregious example of this loss is the potential German acquisition of the iconic New York Stock Exchange.
Another example of the law of unintended consequences includes the stimulus spending programs that fail to create jobs but result in the ballooning of our national debt. The stimulus spending took money from the efficiently run private sector in the form of higher taxes and reduced availability of debt and spent it in the inefficient public sector. Jobs created by public-sector spending merely displaced jobs lost by forgone private-sector spending. There are too many moving parts to the American economy for one individual, even a very smart one, to consistently predict the outcome of government intervention in the economy.
The president has created a number of moral hazards by trying to bail out Americans whose risky behavior got them into trouble. An example of the moral hazard being created in Washington is the attempt to relieve monthly payments of families in economic distress whose mortgages are under water. As a result of this program, taxpayers who lived modestly, saved and did not overextend themselves with mortgage debt are being asked to subsidize their profligate neighbors who bought bigger houses than they could afford.
No discussion about unintended consequences can fail to mention the health care bill. The president and congressional Democrats insisted that the bill, which they acknowledged not actually reading, decreases health insurance rates, providing affordable (or even "free") care for everyone. When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the initiative would make health care more expensive, the Democrats told the American people that the CBO was wrong and then insisted it check again. As if by magic, the CBO took another look and declared it was wrong and that the federal government would make money if it suddenly took over a third of the economy.
After the bill was enacted, major corporations suddenly started saying they would have to drop their health care benefits unless the government gave them a waiver. Health insurance companies announced that rates would be skyrocketing because of mandates in the law. And the CBO came back and stated that the revised findings were wrong and that Obamacare would cost $1 trillion over the next decade. Does that sound like a fiscally responsible bill when our country is $14 trillion in debt?
The most egregious moral hazard has been created in the financial and business sector where companies and banks that are "too big to fail" have been bailed out with taxpayer money. These institutions include General Motors, Chrysler, Citibank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Institutions that paid fat bonuses to executives and outrageous benefits to union workers were rescued by taxpayer money when they should have gone bankrupt. With an institution that is "too big to fail," it is "heads, I win" with risky behavior, and "tails," the taxpayer loses when risky behavior results in financial losses.
Of course, the president isn't the first to be struck with this malady, but it seems to affect politicians more than any other group. Part of the reason is that they are always beholden to their base and the interest groups that financially support them. This causes them to constantly overlook the ways policy harms the whole of society in favor of helping the small group. Then there is the fact that politicians regularly get upset when the CBO and independent commissions call them on the detrimental consequences of the latest policy. The politicians then respond in one of two ways: They either tell the CBO/commissions that the findings are wrong and to come back with another answer more suited to that politician's sensibilities, or they commit fraud and send inaccurate numbers (while hiding additional funding in other bills) in order to produce a more "pleasing" conclusion.
Is it too much to ask our president to consider all the ramifications before shoving another ill-advised policy down the throats of the American people? We've seen time and time again that Mr. Obama is slow to come to any conclusion or policy decision like in the Afghanistan surge and addressing the crises in Egypt and Libya. So why not take the time to examine all the outcomes first? Then have an honest discussion with the American public about the pros and the cons of a decision. Not only will it force the president to deal with unintended consequences, but it also would elevate the public discourse by creating a more informed electorate.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Unintended consequences
Unfortunately, President Obama does not understand the basic laws of physics. Isaac Newton's third law of motion states that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Nor does Mr. Obama understand the basic principles of economics, including the law of unintended consequences and creating a "moral hazard." A moral hazard is created when a person behaves differently from how he would have if he had to bear the risks of his behavior.
Every time Mr. Obama attempts to repair a problem by government intervention, he creates a more serious problem. An example of the law of unintended consequences is the president's attempt to solve the financial crises by increasing the regulation of the American financial system.
These attempts over time "to fix and regulate" the financial markets have resulted in the loss of U.S. dominance in the financial sector. The most recent egregious example of this loss is the potential German acquisition of the iconic New York Stock Exchange.
Another example of the law of unintended consequences includes the stimulus spending programs that fail to create jobs but result in the ballooning of our national debt. The stimulus spending took money from the efficiently run private sector in the form of higher taxes and reduced availability of debt and spent it in the inefficient public sector. Jobs created by public-sector spending merely displaced jobs lost by forgone private-sector spending. There are too many moving parts to the American economy for one individual, even a very smart one, to consistently predict the outcome of government intervention in the economy.
The president has created a number of moral hazards by trying to bail out Americans whose risky behavior got them into trouble. An example of the moral hazard being created in Washington is the attempt to relieve monthly payments of families in economic distress whose mortgages are under water. As a result of this program, taxpayers who lived modestly, saved and did not overextend themselves with mortgage debt are being asked to subsidize their profligate neighbors who bought bigger houses than they could afford.
No discussion about unintended consequences can fail to mention the health care bill. The president and congressional Democrats insisted that the bill, which they acknowledged not actually reading, decreases health insurance rates, providing affordable (or even "free") care for everyone. When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the initiative would make health care more expensive, the Democrats told the American people that the CBO was wrong and then insisted it check again. As if by magic, the CBO took another look and declared it was wrong and that the federal government would make money if it suddenly took over a third of the economy.
After the bill was enacted, major corporations suddenly started saying they would have to drop their health care benefits unless the government gave them a waiver. Health insurance companies announced that rates would be skyrocketing because of mandates in the law. And the CBO came back and stated that the revised findings were wrong and that Obamacare would cost $1 trillion over the next decade. Does that sound like a fiscally responsible bill when our country is $14 trillion in debt?
The most egregious moral hazard has been created in the financial and business sector where companies and banks that are "too big to fail" have been bailed out with taxpayer money. These institutions include General Motors, Chrysler, Citibank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Institutions that paid fat bonuses to executives and outrageous benefits to union workers were rescued by taxpayer money when they should have gone bankrupt. With an institution that is "too big to fail," it is "heads, I win" with risky behavior, and "tails," the taxpayer loses when risky behavior results in financial losses.
Of course, the president isn't the first to be struck with this malady, but it seems to affect politicians more than any other group. Part of the reason is that they are always beholden to their base and the interest groups that financially support them. This causes them to constantly overlook the ways policy harms the whole of society in favor of helping the small group. Then there is the fact that politicians regularly get upset when the CBO and independent commissions call them on the detrimental consequences of the latest policy. The politicians then respond in one of two ways: They either tell the CBO/commissions that the findings are wrong and to come back with another answer more suited to that politician's sensibilities, or they commit fraud and send inaccurate numbers (while hiding additional funding in other bills) in order to produce a more "pleasing" conclusion.
Is it too much to ask our president to consider all the ramifications before shoving another ill-advised policy down the throats of the American people? We've seen time and time again that Mr. Obama is slow to come to any conclusion or policy decision like in the Afghanistan surge and addressing the crises in Egypt and Libya. So why not take the time to examine all the outcomes first? Then have an honest discussion with the American public about the pros and the cons of a decision. Not only will it force the president to deal with unintended consequences, but it also would elevate the public discourse by creating a more informed electorate.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/07/11
Creating Moral Hazards
BY: Armstrong Williams
Creating Moral Hazards
President Obama has created a number of moral hazards by trying to bail out Americans whose risky behavior got them into trouble. An example of the moral hazard being created in Washington is the attempt to relieve monthly mortgage payments of families in economic distress whose mortgages are under water. As a result of this program, taxpayers who lived modestly, saved and did not over-extend themselves with excessive mortgage debt are being asked to subsidize their profligate neighbors who bought bigger houses than they could afford.
The most egregious moral hazard has been created in the financial and business sector where companies and banks that are “too big to fail” have been bailed out with taxpayer money. These institutions include GM, Chrysler, Citibank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Institutions that paid fat bonuses to executives and outrageous benefits to union workers were rescued by taxpayer money when they should have gone bankrupt. With an institution that is “too big to fail”, it is “heads, I win” with risky behavior; and “tails”, the taxpayer looses when risky behavior results in financial losses.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Creating Moral Hazards
BY: Armstrong Williams
Creating Moral Hazards
President Obama has created a number of moral hazards by trying to bail out Americans whose risky behavior got them into trouble. An example of the moral hazard being created in Washington is the attempt to relieve monthly mortgage payments of families in economic distress whose mortgages are under water. As a result of this program, taxpayers who lived modestly, saved and did not over-extend themselves with excessive mortgage debt are being asked to subsidize their profligate neighbors who bought bigger houses than they could afford.
The most egregious moral hazard has been created in the financial and business sector where companies and banks that are “too big to fail” have been bailed out with taxpayer money. These institutions include GM, Chrysler, Citibank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Institutions that paid fat bonuses to executives and outrageous benefits to union workers were rescued by taxpayer money when they should have gone bankrupt. With an institution that is “too big to fail”, it is “heads, I win” with risky behavior; and “tails”, the taxpayer looses when risky behavior results in financial losses.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/04/11
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves"
BY: Armstrong Williams
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves"
The popular uprisings of recent weeks are home-grown reactions to the oppression everyday people have suffered from successive governments going all the way back to the Ottoman Empire. They are an indication that theocracies as a form of government do not measure up to the realities of today’s world. The demonstrations thus viewed, denote the growing political maturity in the Arab world. With a relatively young population, they have access to the West through the television and the social media. They are eager to join the rest of the world and they admire American prosperity. The reigning regimes in much of the Arab world are holdovers from a bygone era. They came to power at a time in which the West was concerned about Soviet expansionism and Israel was concerned about Islamic extremism.
It is inconsistent with Christian ideals and values for America to cynically bolster political regimes in the Arab world that deny their people the basic freedoms that we almost take for granted in the West. One of our greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, famously said that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it." Our continued freedom is dependent upon fulfilling our moral duty to fight for the freedom of people in the Arab world. There are risks to taking a principled stand. As we know from our own revolutionary war, many people were afraid that radical elements within the American society would upset the order that had been established by the British. Not all colonial citizens supported the acts of the Constitutional Convention; and certainly the American nation that emerged was not without its flaws. There was and remains a crack in the liberty bell.
Unlike Egypt, however, America was blessed with the opportunity to grow and mature in ‘splendid isolation.’ We enjoyed an abundant land and a wide sea separating us from the political intrigue and factiousness of Europe and Asia. We had time to develop our nation – time Egypt and the Arab world unfortunately, may not have. The world is so interconnected that nascent democracies will be instantly burdened with the demands placed on mature nations. This is not yesterday’s American Revolution.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves"
BY: Armstrong Williams
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves"
The popular uprisings of recent weeks are home-grown reactions to the oppression everyday people have suffered from successive governments going all the way back to the Ottoman Empire. They are an indication that theocracies as a form of government do not measure up to the realities of today’s world. The demonstrations thus viewed, denote the growing political maturity in the Arab world. With a relatively young population, they have access to the West through the television and the social media. They are eager to join the rest of the world and they admire American prosperity. The reigning regimes in much of the Arab world are holdovers from a bygone era. They came to power at a time in which the West was concerned about Soviet expansionism and Israel was concerned about Islamic extremism.
It is inconsistent with Christian ideals and values for America to cynically bolster political regimes in the Arab world that deny their people the basic freedoms that we almost take for granted in the West. One of our greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, famously said that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it." Our continued freedom is dependent upon fulfilling our moral duty to fight for the freedom of people in the Arab world. There are risks to taking a principled stand. As we know from our own revolutionary war, many people were afraid that radical elements within the American society would upset the order that had been established by the British. Not all colonial citizens supported the acts of the Constitutional Convention; and certainly the American nation that emerged was not without its flaws. There was and remains a crack in the liberty bell.
Unlike Egypt, however, America was blessed with the opportunity to grow and mature in ‘splendid isolation.’ We enjoyed an abundant land and a wide sea separating us from the political intrigue and factiousness of Europe and Asia. We had time to develop our nation – time Egypt and the Arab world unfortunately, may not have. The world is so interconnected that nascent democracies will be instantly burdened with the demands placed on mature nations. This is not yesterday’s American Revolution.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/03/11
Why we might need a government shutdown
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why we might need a government shutdown
The cable daysides are chock full of stories lately over what Federal offices and monuments would close and what would remain open in the event of a government shutdown resulting from the budget showdown.
The usual cries abound over Social Security checks halting (not likely) and post offices closing (who cares).
But a closing of Federal doors for a few days, weeks, or even months – while it would have short-term consequences – might not be a bad thing in the long run.
Think about it, we are on a collision course with bankruptcy now. By that I mean we have more outstanding debts against us than we do money to pay for it. The Treasury might be able to move billions around to stave off the crisis for years at a time, but sooner or later, someone needs to get paid. It’s that real, and that serious.
Add to the equation that, all things being equal, this problem only exacerbates by the days and years. We’re not getting better, despite House Republicans’ best efforts. We’re getting worse – deeper into debt.
So the reality is, at some point, maybe not in our lifetimes, the government could easily shut down. Not because of partisan wrangling and weak threats of politicians walking away, but due to the simple fact that our creditors around the world come calling. It could happen sooner if they all decided to do it at once, but our diplomatic prowess would prevent such an effort.
So if the government shut down now, we as a nation would certainly feel its effects. It would be devastating. But what if a shutdown today meant that our leaders would get their butts into gear to prevent total collapse of the economy as we know it in say, 20 years? Because NO American, Democrat or Republican, would ever let the effects of a shutdown happen again. They would march on Washington by the hundreds of thousands.
It would be the financial equivalent of 3-mile Island – when the threat of a meltdown set the nuclear power race back by decades. It would crystalize in the minds of every American just how horrific and unnecessary such a crisis would be.
In other words, friends, we as a nation may need to SEE a shutdown to prevent the real, much worse, version from ever occurring in our country.
It’s sad that our nation’s leaders play a glorified game of chicken today surrounding such a serious issue, and yet they still don’t appreciate it enough to do anything about it.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Why we might need a government shutdown
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why we might need a government shutdown
The cable daysides are chock full of stories lately over what Federal offices and monuments would close and what would remain open in the event of a government shutdown resulting from the budget showdown.
The usual cries abound over Social Security checks halting (not likely) and post offices closing (who cares).
But a closing of Federal doors for a few days, weeks, or even months – while it would have short-term consequences – might not be a bad thing in the long run.
Think about it, we are on a collision course with bankruptcy now. By that I mean we have more outstanding debts against us than we do money to pay for it. The Treasury might be able to move billions around to stave off the crisis for years at a time, but sooner or later, someone needs to get paid. It’s that real, and that serious.
Add to the equation that, all things being equal, this problem only exacerbates by the days and years. We’re not getting better, despite House Republicans’ best efforts. We’re getting worse – deeper into debt.
So the reality is, at some point, maybe not in our lifetimes, the government could easily shut down. Not because of partisan wrangling and weak threats of politicians walking away, but due to the simple fact that our creditors around the world come calling. It could happen sooner if they all decided to do it at once, but our diplomatic prowess would prevent such an effort.
So if the government shut down now, we as a nation would certainly feel its effects. It would be devastating. But what if a shutdown today meant that our leaders would get their butts into gear to prevent total collapse of the economy as we know it in say, 20 years? Because NO American, Democrat or Republican, would ever let the effects of a shutdown happen again. They would march on Washington by the hundreds of thousands.
It would be the financial equivalent of 3-mile Island – when the threat of a meltdown set the nuclear power race back by decades. It would crystalize in the minds of every American just how horrific and unnecessary such a crisis would be.
In other words, friends, we as a nation may need to SEE a shutdown to prevent the real, much worse, version from ever occurring in our country.
It’s sad that our nation’s leaders play a glorified game of chicken today surrounding such a serious issue, and yet they still don’t appreciate it enough to do anything about it.
www.rightsidewire.com
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
03/02/11
Misguided Celebration
Many pundits celebrated the stock market rally as a sign of the return of consumer confidence. This was far from the case. The big ‘dumb’ money (as many Wall Street traders glibly refer to it) – institutional investors such as state pension funds and private insurance pools – could not survive on the near zero interest rates they earned on public debt, and were forced back into the street. Their actuarial models, the means by which they paid claims, assumed risk-adjusted returns averaging between 5-8%. They were now earning less than 2%. Not only had they lost upwards of 40% of their capital in the downturn, but the anemic, jobless recovery combined with the retiring baby boom population, placed serious strains on their resources. The risk of not crossing the street spelled certain failure, even as the unknown risks of crossing loomed.
www.rightsidewire.com
Misguided Celebration
Many pundits celebrated the stock market rally as a sign of the return of consumer confidence. This was far from the case. The big ‘dumb’ money (as many Wall Street traders glibly refer to it) – institutional investors such as state pension funds and private insurance pools – could not survive on the near zero interest rates they earned on public debt, and were forced back into the street. Their actuarial models, the means by which they paid claims, assumed risk-adjusted returns averaging between 5-8%. They were now earning less than 2%. Not only had they lost upwards of 40% of their capital in the downturn, but the anemic, jobless recovery combined with the retiring baby boom population, placed serious strains on their resources. The risk of not crossing the street spelled certain failure, even as the unknown risks of crossing loomed.
www.rightsidewire.com
03/01/11
Obama in search of a more pleasing conclusion
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama in search of a more pleasing conclusion.
President Barack Obama isn’t the first to be struck with the malady that he finds himself in, but it seems to affect politicians more than any other group. Part of the reason is that they are always beholden to their base and the interest groups that financially support them. This causes them to constantly overlook the ways policy harms the whole of society in favor of helping the small group. Then there is the fact that politicians regularly get upset when the Congressional Budget Office and independent commissions call them on the detrimental consequences of the latest policy. The politicians then respond in one of two ways- they either tell the CBO/commissions that the findings are wrong and to come back with another answer more suited to that politician’s sensibilities, or they commit fraud and send inaccurate numbers (while hiding additional funding in other bills) in order to produce a more… “pleasing” conclusion.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama in search of a more pleasing conclusion
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama in search of a more pleasing conclusion.
President Barack Obama isn’t the first to be struck with the malady that he finds himself in, but it seems to affect politicians more than any other group. Part of the reason is that they are always beholden to their base and the interest groups that financially support them. This causes them to constantly overlook the ways policy harms the whole of society in favor of helping the small group. Then there is the fact that politicians regularly get upset when the Congressional Budget Office and independent commissions call them on the detrimental consequences of the latest policy. The politicians then respond in one of two ways- they either tell the CBO/commissions that the findings are wrong and to come back with another answer more suited to that politician’s sensibilities, or they commit fraud and send inaccurate numbers (while hiding additional funding in other bills) in order to produce a more… “pleasing” conclusion.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/28/11
Principle Over Political Expediency
Some startling revelations have come out of the fracas going on in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled Legislature facing off against public-sector unions, namely the teachers union.
From 2001 to 2010, Wisconsin taxpayers paid more than $8 billion for state employee health care coverage, while state employees contributed $398 million, less than 5 percent of the total costs. From 2000 to 2009, taxpayers paid $12.6 billion for public employee pensions, while the employees contributed $55.4 million, less than 0.5 percent of the total cost.
Public employees are guaranteed final salaries for life. Not only that, you get to add on other positions for mega pensions. So if you were a firefighter and a teacher, you get two pensions at your last salary in both jobs. Retired public employees regularly receive pension in excess of $100,000, again — guaranteed for life. And who pays for these folks not to work? You and I, the taxpayers. We are their meal tickets for their entire lives, yet when times are tough and we ask them to share the burden, they yell and scream that they are entitled to every penny they never had to contribute.
And many will claim the disparity between private- and public-sector pay as a reason that public employees should receive such largesse.
However, study after study is showing that government employees are making more than their private-sector contemporaries, especially on the lower/middle part of the economic scale. So not only do they get paid better, they get annual cost-of-living increases, locality adjustments, inflation adjustments, full medical and, of course, the obscenely great pension.
Most people should be horrified and shocked by this terrible imbalance. Unions need to be cut down to some level of normalcy and reality. It's not that we're anti-union and they're bad people, it's just that taxpayers can ill afford to foot this bill.
The protests also have helped to shine a light on the inherent problems when public-sector unions negotiate with government. Public-sector unions give major contributions to elected officials with whom they negotiate. This is the same as if the Teamsters bribed and helped appoint the CEO of Southwest Airlines in order to then negotiate a better deal that would actually harm Southwest.
The other major difference is that if the hypothetical Teamster CEO gives into the union to the detriment of the company, the company goes bankrupt and everyone loses their job. The private-sector unions have incentives to compromise in order to guarantee the health of the company (GM, their union and government bailouts being the exception).
Politicians have no such incentive to generally oppose public union demands — they get re-election support and boot the real financial problems of such lousy contracts down the line to their eventual successors. That way they can lie and promise the world because they are never going to be truly held accountable when the whole Ponzi scheme falls apart. This is no different from what Bernie Madoff did, yet the public, and especially the progressives, liberals and union lackeys, lap it up and sanctimoniously justify it.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said it best the other day while addressing the New Jersey state firefighters convention. "Here's the deal: I understand you're angry, and I understand you're frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed." He continued, "For 20 years, governors have come into this room and lied to you, promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for, making promises they knew they couldn't keep, and just hoping that they wouldn't be the man or woman left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here's what I don't understand. Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth?
"The way we used to think about politics and, unfortunately, the way I fear they're thinking about politics still in Washington" incorporates "the old playbook, [which] says, 'Lie, deceive, obfuscate and make it to the next election.'"
After seeing a report noting that New Jerseys pensions will be insolvent by 2020, he was told not to worry about it because he wont be governor anymore. "That's the way politics has been practiced in our country for too long. … So I said to those firefighters, 'You may hate me now, but 15 years from now, when you have a pension to collect because of what I did, you'll be looking for my address on the Internet so you can send me a thank-you note."
It puzzles me to no end that the left (and, unfortunately, several on the right) cannot recognize that their agendas and ideas for foolishly spending taxpayers money is jeopardizing this country's future, plunging us into debt and attaching the strings that make us puppets to foreign masters. Public employee unions and their lavish guaranteed benefits are major causes of the coming collapse, yet too many would rather focus on what they perceive as their due today rather than assure they and their fellow Americans have something to share tomorrow.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Principle Over Political Expediency
Some startling revelations have come out of the fracas going on in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled Legislature facing off against public-sector unions, namely the teachers union.
From 2001 to 2010, Wisconsin taxpayers paid more than $8 billion for state employee health care coverage, while state employees contributed $398 million, less than 5 percent of the total costs. From 2000 to 2009, taxpayers paid $12.6 billion for public employee pensions, while the employees contributed $55.4 million, less than 0.5 percent of the total cost.
Public employees are guaranteed final salaries for life. Not only that, you get to add on other positions for mega pensions. So if you were a firefighter and a teacher, you get two pensions at your last salary in both jobs. Retired public employees regularly receive pension in excess of $100,000, again — guaranteed for life. And who pays for these folks not to work? You and I, the taxpayers. We are their meal tickets for their entire lives, yet when times are tough and we ask them to share the burden, they yell and scream that they are entitled to every penny they never had to contribute.
And many will claim the disparity between private- and public-sector pay as a reason that public employees should receive such largesse.
However, study after study is showing that government employees are making more than their private-sector contemporaries, especially on the lower/middle part of the economic scale. So not only do they get paid better, they get annual cost-of-living increases, locality adjustments, inflation adjustments, full medical and, of course, the obscenely great pension.
Most people should be horrified and shocked by this terrible imbalance. Unions need to be cut down to some level of normalcy and reality. It's not that we're anti-union and they're bad people, it's just that taxpayers can ill afford to foot this bill.
The protests also have helped to shine a light on the inherent problems when public-sector unions negotiate with government. Public-sector unions give major contributions to elected officials with whom they negotiate. This is the same as if the Teamsters bribed and helped appoint the CEO of Southwest Airlines in order to then negotiate a better deal that would actually harm Southwest.
The other major difference is that if the hypothetical Teamster CEO gives into the union to the detriment of the company, the company goes bankrupt and everyone loses their job. The private-sector unions have incentives to compromise in order to guarantee the health of the company (GM, their union and government bailouts being the exception).
Politicians have no such incentive to generally oppose public union demands — they get re-election support and boot the real financial problems of such lousy contracts down the line to their eventual successors. That way they can lie and promise the world because they are never going to be truly held accountable when the whole Ponzi scheme falls apart. This is no different from what Bernie Madoff did, yet the public, and especially the progressives, liberals and union lackeys, lap it up and sanctimoniously justify it.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said it best the other day while addressing the New Jersey state firefighters convention. "Here's the deal: I understand you're angry, and I understand you're frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed." He continued, "For 20 years, governors have come into this room and lied to you, promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for, making promises they knew they couldn't keep, and just hoping that they wouldn't be the man or woman left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here's what I don't understand. Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth?
"The way we used to think about politics and, unfortunately, the way I fear they're thinking about politics still in Washington" incorporates "the old playbook, [which] says, 'Lie, deceive, obfuscate and make it to the next election.'"
After seeing a report noting that New Jerseys pensions will be insolvent by 2020, he was told not to worry about it because he wont be governor anymore. "That's the way politics has been practiced in our country for too long. … So I said to those firefighters, 'You may hate me now, but 15 years from now, when you have a pension to collect because of what I did, you'll be looking for my address on the Internet so you can send me a thank-you note."
It puzzles me to no end that the left (and, unfortunately, several on the right) cannot recognize that their agendas and ideas for foolishly spending taxpayers money is jeopardizing this country's future, plunging us into debt and attaching the strings that make us puppets to foreign masters. Public employee unions and their lavish guaranteed benefits are major causes of the coming collapse, yet too many would rather focus on what they perceive as their due today rather than assure they and their fellow Americans have something to share tomorrow.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/25/11
Individuals assuming responsibility
BY: Armstrong Williams
Individual assuming responsibility.
Many Americans believe that the government can solve people's financial problems created by the Great Recession. The siren calls of President Obama and the liberal congressional democrats promise to ease their economic pains by having the government provide a blanket safety net insurance policy for all that may go wrong. Like any insurance policy, this safety net insurance policy comes at enormous costs. The upfront economic costs include higher taxes to fund larger government and the redistribution of income. The long term costs include economic stagnation and the loss of individual freedom. With the power of the purse, the politicians and government bureaucrats impose economic serfdom on Americans by deciding what is good and what is not good for the individual Americans.
The system works because individuals assume responsibility for themselves. If there is no incentive to benefit from the fruits of your labor or disincentive to suffer from indolence or risky behavior, why bother working at all? So that others may benefit? Most people are not built that way.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Individuals assuming responsibility
BY: Armstrong Williams
Individual assuming responsibility.
Many Americans believe that the government can solve people's financial problems created by the Great Recession. The siren calls of President Obama and the liberal congressional democrats promise to ease their economic pains by having the government provide a blanket safety net insurance policy for all that may go wrong. Like any insurance policy, this safety net insurance policy comes at enormous costs. The upfront economic costs include higher taxes to fund larger government and the redistribution of income. The long term costs include economic stagnation and the loss of individual freedom. With the power of the purse, the politicians and government bureaucrats impose economic serfdom on Americans by deciding what is good and what is not good for the individual Americans.
The system works because individuals assume responsibility for themselves. If there is no incentive to benefit from the fruits of your labor or disincentive to suffer from indolence or risky behavior, why bother working at all? So that others may benefit? Most people are not built that way.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/24/11
District needs its own Tea Party
District needs its own Tea Party
by Armstrong Williams
If you’ve been following the latest shenanigans of elected officials running the District of Columbia, it’s easy to understand why the city is so messed up. I’m referring, of course, to Lincoln-gate where DC City Council Chairman Kwame Brown ordered not one, but two 2011 Lincoln Navigator SUVs for his official use. Why two? Why not? Well, he didn’t like the color of the interior on the first one the city ordered at nearly $2,000 per month in leases.
It appears Mr. Brown wanted a “black on black” SUV and no other color combination would work. The reason he gave is that model “holds its value” longer than any other. So now the Chairman is cost-conscious? How pathetic. What Mr. Brown hopes readers don’t remember is his insistence that the SUV be “fully loaded”, including a DVD player in the back seat. I don’t even want to know the reason behind that request.
Late last week, the chairman saw the error of his ways and is now returning the vehicles. The sad irony here is we may never have learned of any of this – including Brown’s personal insistence on such minor (and meaningless) details – if not for a Freedom of Information Act request by area reporters.
Worse still, why do these politicians feel they can flaunt and fiddle with the trappings of office and use their public positions for personal gain? Is this town stuck in the Dark Ages when it comes to transparency and stewardship of the public coffers?
It’s time for a Tea Party movement to form in the District, and I’m not referring to the kind that leans right and votes conservative. We’ll never see that in my lifetime. No, we need a movement that is willing to stand up and wag a finger in the faces of the Kwame Browns who claim to “take full responsibility” and then walk away without justifying such a statement. One which asks why a city that’s $400 million in debt should even THINK about paying for a lease that’s over $1,900 a month when its residents struggle to make that in two months. One that’s tailor-made for this type of political corruption.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
District needs its own Tea Party
District needs its own Tea Party
by Armstrong Williams
If you’ve been following the latest shenanigans of elected officials running the District of Columbia, it’s easy to understand why the city is so messed up. I’m referring, of course, to Lincoln-gate where DC City Council Chairman Kwame Brown ordered not one, but two 2011 Lincoln Navigator SUVs for his official use. Why two? Why not? Well, he didn’t like the color of the interior on the first one the city ordered at nearly $2,000 per month in leases.
It appears Mr. Brown wanted a “black on black” SUV and no other color combination would work. The reason he gave is that model “holds its value” longer than any other. So now the Chairman is cost-conscious? How pathetic. What Mr. Brown hopes readers don’t remember is his insistence that the SUV be “fully loaded”, including a DVD player in the back seat. I don’t even want to know the reason behind that request.
Late last week, the chairman saw the error of his ways and is now returning the vehicles. The sad irony here is we may never have learned of any of this – including Brown’s personal insistence on such minor (and meaningless) details – if not for a Freedom of Information Act request by area reporters.
Worse still, why do these politicians feel they can flaunt and fiddle with the trappings of office and use their public positions for personal gain? Is this town stuck in the Dark Ages when it comes to transparency and stewardship of the public coffers?
It’s time for a Tea Party movement to form in the District, and I’m not referring to the kind that leans right and votes conservative. We’ll never see that in my lifetime. No, we need a movement that is willing to stand up and wag a finger in the faces of the Kwame Browns who claim to “take full responsibility” and then walk away without justifying such a statement. One which asks why a city that’s $400 million in debt should even THINK about paying for a lease that’s over $1,900 a month when its residents struggle to make that in two months. One that’s tailor-made for this type of political corruption.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/23/11
Choice isn't left or right.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Choice isn't left or right.
The biggest mistake Gov. Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans are making is that they are only taking on Democrat friendly public employee unions (namely the teachers’ union) while laying off typical GOP supported unions like the firefighters and police. He is also not cutting the pensions of elected officials. Thus, making the current budget/union fight look more like a GOP powerplay than a legitimate attempt to solve a budget problem.
If Gov. Walker had started by cutting elected and appointed government officials’ benefits first and foremost, he would have shown the mark a truly leader by sharing in the sacrifice. Then, he needed to include all other public employee union- police, firefighters, teachers, etc- in order to demonstrate this was an issue that went beyond politics. With the added legitimacy of his own sacrifice established, he could have truly made the case that “we are all in it together.”
The choice right now isn’t left or right, it’s whether we come together and overcome our budget plight or fight against each other while America falls.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Choice isn't left or right.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Choice isn't left or right.
The biggest mistake Gov. Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans are making is that they are only taking on Democrat friendly public employee unions (namely the teachers’ union) while laying off typical GOP supported unions like the firefighters and police. He is also not cutting the pensions of elected officials. Thus, making the current budget/union fight look more like a GOP powerplay than a legitimate attempt to solve a budget problem.
If Gov. Walker had started by cutting elected and appointed government officials’ benefits first and foremost, he would have shown the mark a truly leader by sharing in the sacrifice. Then, he needed to include all other public employee union- police, firefighters, teachers, etc- in order to demonstrate this was an issue that went beyond politics. With the added legitimacy of his own sacrifice established, he could have truly made the case that “we are all in it together.”
The choice right now isn’t left or right, it’s whether we come together and overcome our budget plight or fight against each other while America falls.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/22/11
Symbolic death of American finance
BY: Armstrong Williams
Symbolic death of American finance.
The Liberals should now be very happy. They have finally chased the symbol of American capitalism out of the United States. Over the past few days the New York Stock exchange has been negotiating to sell itself to Deutsche Borse, a German company. Over the past decade the number of international IPO's have significantly declined. The number of foreign company's choosing to list their shares on American exchanges significantly declined. This is a direct result of four major trends in our country.
1. Excessive taxes. The US corporate tax is th highest in the world.
2. Excessive regulation. Sarbanes/Oxley put the final shackles on the security industry, making it much more expensive to be a public company in the USA.
3. Excessive litigation. America derivative action lawsuits enabled shyster lawyers to continually harass public companies in an attempt to extort money for minor infractions.
The Financial community symbolizes by the NYSE was the driving force of a successful American capitalistic economy for over 200 years. It was the driving force of New York's economy. It provided financing for numerous American companies seeking capital. Thanks to the Liberal impulse to over tax, over regulate, and over litigage American business will be force to go off shore in seeking capital.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Symbolic death of American finance
BY: Armstrong Williams
Symbolic death of American finance.
The Liberals should now be very happy. They have finally chased the symbol of American capitalism out of the United States. Over the past few days the New York Stock exchange has been negotiating to sell itself to Deutsche Borse, a German company. Over the past decade the number of international IPO's have significantly declined. The number of foreign company's choosing to list their shares on American exchanges significantly declined. This is a direct result of four major trends in our country.
1. Excessive taxes. The US corporate tax is th highest in the world.
2. Excessive regulation. Sarbanes/Oxley put the final shackles on the security industry, making it much more expensive to be a public company in the USA.
3. Excessive litigation. America derivative action lawsuits enabled shyster lawyers to continually harass public companies in an attempt to extort money for minor infractions.
The Financial community symbolizes by the NYSE was the driving force of a successful American capitalistic economy for over 200 years. It was the driving force of New York's economy. It provided financing for numerous American companies seeking capital. Thanks to the Liberal impulse to over tax, over regulate, and over litigage American business will be force to go off shore in seeking capital.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/22/11
The question about Wisconsin
Two points jump out at me as I watch the union protests in Wisconsin.
First, the "new era of civility" is over, and second, union myrmidons continue to put their self-interests above the rest of the taxpayers and the nation.
If you recall after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona Democrat, was shot Jan. 8, the left was quick to vilify the right for so-called vitriol and hostile rhetoric. They claimed suspected gunman Jared Loughner to be the poster child for what happens to normal folks who listen too much to conservative radio or television hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Except, we found out that was all a red herring; Mr. Loughner turned out to be a fairly apolitical nut job. Still, CNN, President Obama and others demanded that we "tone down the rhetoric."
Yet now I see Mr. Obama accuse Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, of an "assault on unions." Sounds like violent rhetoric to me. I also see that the union protesters are carrying signs comparing Mr. Walker and other Republicans to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the Nazis, as well as several with Mr. Walker in target cross hairs.
Well, I guess it was a nice, "civil" three weeks. Civility is not the main concern that the protests reveal, but I do find it amusing and disappointing at the same time.
The most glaring issue that these protests demonstrate is a classic case of "good enough for thee but not for me." Union members and their leaders don't care if folks in the private sector are suffering from the bad economy. They don't care if state and federal budgets are running major deficits and are at the tipping point of collapse. Nope, they just want the pensions and benefits to which they believe they are "entitled."
No matter that their insanely great benefits will be downgraded to insanely good (still light-years better than you'll find in the private sector). They claim they are shutting down schools to help the children, yet are totally ignoring the fact that they are saddling these children with unmanageable debt as well as not performing their job to educate kids and wasting tax dollars. Yep, you sure are caring and unselfish when you think paying in 12 percent into your retirement plan is a grossly unfair burden, but forcing your kids to pay higher taxes, receive less services and have a generally lower quality of life because you helped bankrupt America is perfectly kosher.
What happens if the rest of Americans, those not on the public pension dole, get sick of the unions' whining and start counterprotesting. In hard times, don't the progressives preach that we need to share the burden, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? I guess such lofty sentiments apply only as long as you aren't the one having to give up something for the good of society.
Some are calling the Wisconsin Democrats patriots for fleeing the state rather than attempting to debate or negotiate the bill. Imagine the screams of such a cowardly and childish act if the Republicans left Washington to prevent passage of Obamacare? I guess this is what Mr. Obama meant when he said those not on board with his agenda should "take their ball and go home," except it's his supporters who must employ such tactics rather than man their posts and attempt to sway Republicans that this bill might not be the best way to help the budget and their constituents.
While the left is busy heralding the protesters, I want to sing the praises of the few politicians who are actually trying to practice fiscal responsibility rather than give it the usual lip service. Mr. Obama and the Republican legislators could learn something from Mr. Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, California Gov. Jerry Brown, etc. — we are living in a time of tough choices, and we cannot sustain the entitlement spending. Of the cuts the administration and Republicans are endorsing for the federal budget, zero is cut from Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Instead, they keep shaving from discretionary spending.
Do you realize that they could cut 100 percent of discretionary spending and we would still have a deficit? Did you know that if they cut not only all discretionary spending but also 100 percent of the defense budget we would still run only a minuscule surplus? That's how much the government is paying in entitlements and debt — nearly 100 percent of its income. It's like giving a cow a haircut and expecting to get a fat-free steak as a result.
Fiscal responsibility has to come from somewhere. It sure isn't coming from Washington, despite the November elections and the unmistakable demand for financial accountability. That's why any governor who is willing to publicize the burden that unions and entitlements are placing on the states and countries needs to be commended rather than scorned.
Maybe the unions should put down their "GOP=Nazi" placards and spend more time actually working with the government and Republicans to hammer out a compromise that puts America first instead of demanding that things stay the same while whining and protesting about their own selfish needs and entitlements.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook-http://www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/arightside.
The question about Wisconsin
Two points jump out at me as I watch the union protests in Wisconsin.
First, the "new era of civility" is over, and second, union myrmidons continue to put their self-interests above the rest of the taxpayers and the nation.
If you recall after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona Democrat, was shot Jan. 8, the left was quick to vilify the right for so-called vitriol and hostile rhetoric. They claimed suspected gunman Jared Loughner to be the poster child for what happens to normal folks who listen too much to conservative radio or television hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Except, we found out that was all a red herring; Mr. Loughner turned out to be a fairly apolitical nut job. Still, CNN, President Obama and others demanded that we "tone down the rhetoric."
Yet now I see Mr. Obama accuse Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, of an "assault on unions." Sounds like violent rhetoric to me. I also see that the union protesters are carrying signs comparing Mr. Walker and other Republicans to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the Nazis, as well as several with Mr. Walker in target cross hairs.
Well, I guess it was a nice, "civil" three weeks. Civility is not the main concern that the protests reveal, but I do find it amusing and disappointing at the same time.
The most glaring issue that these protests demonstrate is a classic case of "good enough for thee but not for me." Union members and their leaders don't care if folks in the private sector are suffering from the bad economy. They don't care if state and federal budgets are running major deficits and are at the tipping point of collapse. Nope, they just want the pensions and benefits to which they believe they are "entitled."
No matter that their insanely great benefits will be downgraded to insanely good (still light-years better than you'll find in the private sector). They claim they are shutting down schools to help the children, yet are totally ignoring the fact that they are saddling these children with unmanageable debt as well as not performing their job to educate kids and wasting tax dollars. Yep, you sure are caring and unselfish when you think paying in 12 percent into your retirement plan is a grossly unfair burden, but forcing your kids to pay higher taxes, receive less services and have a generally lower quality of life because you helped bankrupt America is perfectly kosher.
What happens if the rest of Americans, those not on the public pension dole, get sick of the unions' whining and start counterprotesting. In hard times, don't the progressives preach that we need to share the burden, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? I guess such lofty sentiments apply only as long as you aren't the one having to give up something for the good of society.
Some are calling the Wisconsin Democrats patriots for fleeing the state rather than attempting to debate or negotiate the bill. Imagine the screams of such a cowardly and childish act if the Republicans left Washington to prevent passage of Obamacare? I guess this is what Mr. Obama meant when he said those not on board with his agenda should "take their ball and go home," except it's his supporters who must employ such tactics rather than man their posts and attempt to sway Republicans that this bill might not be the best way to help the budget and their constituents.
While the left is busy heralding the protesters, I want to sing the praises of the few politicians who are actually trying to practice fiscal responsibility rather than give it the usual lip service. Mr. Obama and the Republican legislators could learn something from Mr. Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, California Gov. Jerry Brown, etc. — we are living in a time of tough choices, and we cannot sustain the entitlement spending. Of the cuts the administration and Republicans are endorsing for the federal budget, zero is cut from Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Instead, they keep shaving from discretionary spending.
Do you realize that they could cut 100 percent of discretionary spending and we would still have a deficit? Did you know that if they cut not only all discretionary spending but also 100 percent of the defense budget we would still run only a minuscule surplus? That's how much the government is paying in entitlements and debt — nearly 100 percent of its income. It's like giving a cow a haircut and expecting to get a fat-free steak as a result.
Fiscal responsibility has to come from somewhere. It sure isn't coming from Washington, despite the November elections and the unmistakable demand for financial accountability. That's why any governor who is willing to publicize the burden that unions and entitlements are placing on the states and countries needs to be commended rather than scorned.
Maybe the unions should put down their "GOP=Nazi" placards and spend more time actually working with the government and Republicans to hammer out a compromise that puts America first instead of demanding that things stay the same while whining and protesting about their own selfish needs and entitlements.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook-http://www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/21/11
Peculiar politics in Minnesota
BY: Armstrong Williams
Peculiar politics in Minnesota
Reeling from deficits and future shortfalls, Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota has proposed a bold (or downright stupid) plan that would tax his state’s wealthiest denizens more punitively than many others across the country, and certainly more than his neighbors.
The Democrat governor’s plan would impose nearly an 11% income tax rate, along with a 3% income surtax on those with incomes over $500,000, followed by even higher property taxes on their homes. In his infinite wisdom, the governor is taking a page out of Obamanomics where he believes the wealthy contain all the solutions to what ails the Democrats’ spending problems – or at least their money does.
Apparently, Gov. Dayton believes in the old saw, “give til it hurts.” To hear his office respond, the governor is simply trying to balance the budget. So does he succeed with such a confiscatory scheme? Uh, no. You heard right, folks. Even with the punitive taxes, and the near certain reality that many of these folks will simply slip across the borders should such a plan go through, Gov. Dayton’s plan would only trim his state’s deficit by half. Half. Jacking taxes to the levels only seen in France and Germany, and this so-called budget can’t even eliminate his own state’s deficit? C’mon.
But think about it: even then, this shortfall gap he’s trying to close is only for one year! There may be spending cuts, but the tax hikes will remain. What does the governor propose for future years?
The point here is, once again, Democrats only want to treat the symptoms, never the problems of their spending disease. More taxes aren’t the answer; not at those levels, and not singling out specific elements of society. It only stokes the flames of class warfare that will take years to douse. It’s no wonder the House Republican Speaker called the plan “pathetic.” One would think the governor would approach such a serious problem with more serious ideas and workable solutions.
His plan is naive and counterproductive . Most wealthy people create their wealth not through jobs located at a particular location, but by creating value added to the economy. This is in the form of entrepreneurial activity, creativity, hardwork, and constant motivation. These attributes are easily transportable out of state to the detriment of the remainding state citizens who are deficient in these skills. Consequently with the movement of these wealthy people, they not only take the income, but also the jobs they create and the support of the civic activities. I am certain the governor's of Florida, TX, and Tennessee who have no income taxes, would welcome the wealthy tax refugees from Minnesota.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Peculiar politics in Minnesota
BY: Armstrong Williams
Peculiar politics in Minnesota
Reeling from deficits and future shortfalls, Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota has proposed a bold (or downright stupid) plan that would tax his state’s wealthiest denizens more punitively than many others across the country, and certainly more than his neighbors.
The Democrat governor’s plan would impose nearly an 11% income tax rate, along with a 3% income surtax on those with incomes over $500,000, followed by even higher property taxes on their homes. In his infinite wisdom, the governor is taking a page out of Obamanomics where he believes the wealthy contain all the solutions to what ails the Democrats’ spending problems – or at least their money does.
Apparently, Gov. Dayton believes in the old saw, “give til it hurts.” To hear his office respond, the governor is simply trying to balance the budget. So does he succeed with such a confiscatory scheme? Uh, no. You heard right, folks. Even with the punitive taxes, and the near certain reality that many of these folks will simply slip across the borders should such a plan go through, Gov. Dayton’s plan would only trim his state’s deficit by half. Half. Jacking taxes to the levels only seen in France and Germany, and this so-called budget can’t even eliminate his own state’s deficit? C’mon.
But think about it: even then, this shortfall gap he’s trying to close is only for one year! There may be spending cuts, but the tax hikes will remain. What does the governor propose for future years?
The point here is, once again, Democrats only want to treat the symptoms, never the problems of their spending disease. More taxes aren’t the answer; not at those levels, and not singling out specific elements of society. It only stokes the flames of class warfare that will take years to douse. It’s no wonder the House Republican Speaker called the plan “pathetic.” One would think the governor would approach such a serious problem with more serious ideas and workable solutions.
His plan is naive and counterproductive . Most wealthy people create their wealth not through jobs located at a particular location, but by creating value added to the economy. This is in the form of entrepreneurial activity, creativity, hardwork, and constant motivation. These attributes are easily transportable out of state to the detriment of the remainding state citizens who are deficient in these skills. Consequently with the movement of these wealthy people, they not only take the income, but also the jobs they create and the support of the civic activities. I am certain the governor's of Florida, TX, and Tennessee who have no income taxes, would welcome the wealthy tax refugees from Minnesota.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/18/11
America to Wisconsin: President & Democrats declares war against fiscal responsibility
BY: Armstrong Williams
America to Wisconsin: President & Democrats declares war against fiscal responsibility
Some are calling the Wisconsin democrats patriots for fleeing the
state rather than attempting to debate or negotiate the bill. Imagine
the screams of such a cowardly and childish act if the Republicans had
left DC to prevent passage of ObamaCare? I guess this is what Obama
meant when he said those not on board with his agenda should “take
their ball and go home,” except its his supporters that must employ
such tactics rather than man their posts and attempt to sway
Republicans that this bill might not be the best way to help the
budget and their constituents.
While the left is busy heralding the protesters, I want to sing the
praises of the few politicians that are actually trying to practice
fiscal responsibility rather than give it the usual lip service.
President Obama and the Republican legislators could learn something
from Gov. Walker, Gov. Christie, Gov. Jerry Brown, etc.- we are living
in a time of tough choices, we cannot sustain the entitlement
spending.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
America to Wisconsin: President & Democrats declares war against fiscal responsibility
BY: Armstrong Williams
America to Wisconsin: President & Democrats declares war against fiscal responsibility
Some are calling the Wisconsin democrats patriots for fleeing the
state rather than attempting to debate or negotiate the bill. Imagine
the screams of such a cowardly and childish act if the Republicans had
left DC to prevent passage of ObamaCare? I guess this is what Obama
meant when he said those not on board with his agenda should “take
their ball and go home,” except its his supporters that must employ
such tactics rather than man their posts and attempt to sway
Republicans that this bill might not be the best way to help the
budget and their constituents.
While the left is busy heralding the protesters, I want to sing the
praises of the few politicians that are actually trying to practice
fiscal responsibility rather than give it the usual lip service.
President Obama and the Republican legislators could learn something
from Gov. Walker, Gov. Christie, Gov. Jerry Brown, etc.- we are living
in a time of tough choices, we cannot sustain the entitlement
spending.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/18/11
The purpose of mass education
BY: Armstrong Williams
The purpose of Mass Education
Mass education has two components. The first is to impart knowledge to children that they need to effectively function as a member of society. This includes literacy, basic arithmetic, and a basic understanding of civics in order to participate in our republic. At a higher level this imparts technical knowledge to various professionals, technicians, and artisans.
The second function is a sifting process, designed to separate the wheat from the shaft. It recognizes that not everyone can become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. It gives employers a basis for choosing the most appropriate employees for various jobs.
Generally speaking no matter how much you educate the population, human intelligence and skills are distributed along a bell curve. The talented ten will tend to land the best jobs while the least talented at the other end of the curve will get the least desirable jobs
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The purpose of mass education
BY: Armstrong Williams
The purpose of Mass Education
Mass education has two components. The first is to impart knowledge to children that they need to effectively function as a member of society. This includes literacy, basic arithmetic, and a basic understanding of civics in order to participate in our republic. At a higher level this imparts technical knowledge to various professionals, technicians, and artisans.
The second function is a sifting process, designed to separate the wheat from the shaft. It recognizes that not everyone can become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. It gives employers a basis for choosing the most appropriate employees for various jobs.
Generally speaking no matter how much you educate the population, human intelligence and skills are distributed along a bell curve. The talented ten will tend to land the best jobs while the least talented at the other end of the curve will get the least desirable jobs
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/13/11
National anthem is more than a song
I've read (and maybe even said) some incendiary things through the years that were designed to elicit a response or stoke the ire of readers in order to initiate a frank conversation. But a recent piece by national columnist Kevin Blackistone makes even the seasoned political watcher cringe.
In his recent missive titled "Time to Turn Off National Anthem Before Sports Events," Mr. Blackistone argues that the singing of the national anthem at sporting events has outlived its purpose. He submits that very few Americans even know the song and suggests that still fewer can recall why the words were written in the first place. There's nothing about playing T-ball that should hearken memories of a lopsided British attack on Fort McHenry during the War of 1812.
"Sports," Mr. Blackistone writes, "have and continue to ritualize [the anthem] with barely a shred of relevance."
Singing a song about soldiers raising a flag following hours of cannon bombardment may have little to do with the indoor soccer game parents are watching, but that same song does remind everyone at that game that they stand there because of American sacrifice.
Blood was shed so that we might be free. When we say that soldiers "will never be forgotten," shouldn't we mean it? We honor and commemorate their lives and the sacrifices they made for us by remembering them. That's why we sing the national anthem at sporting events. We don't do it because there's some underlying connection between the American Revolution and sports, but because sports bring us together to enjoy something as a group. It unites us beyond our cultural and political differences. The stockbroker sits next to the dockworker, and both are united by their devotion to the local team. Isn't that the perfect time to celebrate the nation that embodies that very idea?
Yes, pop icon Christina Aguilera flubbed the anthem on America's grandest sports stage, but to use that episode to argue that the lyrics and meaning of the song have gone the way of 8-track tapes is ludicrous.
Many can't recite even the preamble to the Constitution. Still fewer can tell you on what day the Declaration of Independence was signed, let alone who actually declared independence and from what oppressive land. Would Mr. Blackistone suggest we toss such documents into the trash? Or not have them hanging in our institutions of government simply because the magistrate can't recall their every word?
I suspect the author has a hidden agenda - a beef with war in general. He almost betrays his true feelings when he writes, "Sports framed by the politics of militarism has nothing to do with football, baseball or a NASCAR race." The politics of militarism? What happened to his original, simpler point that we should abandon the song because a cute pop icon didn't know the words?
Now the national anthem is offensive because it smacks of militarism, whatever that means? There's an immense difference between singing a song that recalls the unlikely victory of our upstart nation against a powerful oppressor and promoting "militarism." It's the same difference between a man who enjoys a romantic wedding anniversary with his beloved spouse and another man who heads to a bar to "romance" the women he finds there. Can't Mr. Blackistone see the distinction?
Our national anthem is sung and remembered at most major events because it is the pre-eminent song of our country. Just as we have a national bird, a national banner (Old Glory), a national tree and other reminders of what makes us distinctly American.
When you begin to tear down one of these symbols, in the name of practicality, you devalue the thing it represents: freedom. Sure, we can shave three extra minutes off of the World Series and get to the action, but at what cost? Why would you rob a father of the moment when his son asks why Dad took off his hat "during that song?"
These are the teachable moments of life - the living history of our nation as we hand down tradition not through an iPod, but person to person, to be set in stone through repetition and example. Why cheat us of that, simply because someone thinks it's political militarism. We're a nation with a proud story of overcoming great odds to win our own freedom. Shouldn't we celebrate that in some way when we gather together?
All gave some. Some gave all. We honor those soldiers, sailors and airmen who sacrificed what they had in the name of freedom. Because they fought and died for liberty, we don't have to. Instead, we get to enjoy a Sunday afternoon game, watching the boys of fall on the gridiron. I think I can hum a few bars and think of Old Glory in exchange for such a privilege.
- Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
National anthem is more than a song
I've read (and maybe even said) some incendiary things through the years that were designed to elicit a response or stoke the ire of readers in order to initiate a frank conversation. But a recent piece by national columnist Kevin Blackistone makes even the seasoned political watcher cringe.
In his recent missive titled "Time to Turn Off National Anthem Before Sports Events," Mr. Blackistone argues that the singing of the national anthem at sporting events has outlived its purpose. He submits that very few Americans even know the song and suggests that still fewer can recall why the words were written in the first place. There's nothing about playing T-ball that should hearken memories of a lopsided British attack on Fort McHenry during the War of 1812.
"Sports," Mr. Blackistone writes, "have and continue to ritualize [the anthem] with barely a shred of relevance."
Singing a song about soldiers raising a flag following hours of cannon bombardment may have little to do with the indoor soccer game parents are watching, but that same song does remind everyone at that game that they stand there because of American sacrifice.
Blood was shed so that we might be free. When we say that soldiers "will never be forgotten," shouldn't we mean it? We honor and commemorate their lives and the sacrifices they made for us by remembering them. That's why we sing the national anthem at sporting events. We don't do it because there's some underlying connection between the American Revolution and sports, but because sports bring us together to enjoy something as a group. It unites us beyond our cultural and political differences. The stockbroker sits next to the dockworker, and both are united by their devotion to the local team. Isn't that the perfect time to celebrate the nation that embodies that very idea?
Yes, pop icon Christina Aguilera flubbed the anthem on America's grandest sports stage, but to use that episode to argue that the lyrics and meaning of the song have gone the way of 8-track tapes is ludicrous.
Many can't recite even the preamble to the Constitution. Still fewer can tell you on what day the Declaration of Independence was signed, let alone who actually declared independence and from what oppressive land. Would Mr. Blackistone suggest we toss such documents into the trash? Or not have them hanging in our institutions of government simply because the magistrate can't recall their every word?
I suspect the author has a hidden agenda - a beef with war in general. He almost betrays his true feelings when he writes, "Sports framed by the politics of militarism has nothing to do with football, baseball or a NASCAR race." The politics of militarism? What happened to his original, simpler point that we should abandon the song because a cute pop icon didn't know the words?
Now the national anthem is offensive because it smacks of militarism, whatever that means? There's an immense difference between singing a song that recalls the unlikely victory of our upstart nation against a powerful oppressor and promoting "militarism." It's the same difference between a man who enjoys a romantic wedding anniversary with his beloved spouse and another man who heads to a bar to "romance" the women he finds there. Can't Mr. Blackistone see the distinction?
Our national anthem is sung and remembered at most major events because it is the pre-eminent song of our country. Just as we have a national bird, a national banner (Old Glory), a national tree and other reminders of what makes us distinctly American.
When you begin to tear down one of these symbols, in the name of practicality, you devalue the thing it represents: freedom. Sure, we can shave three extra minutes off of the World Series and get to the action, but at what cost? Why would you rob a father of the moment when his son asks why Dad took off his hat "during that song?"
These are the teachable moments of life - the living history of our nation as we hand down tradition not through an iPod, but person to person, to be set in stone through repetition and example. Why cheat us of that, simply because someone thinks it's political militarism. We're a nation with a proud story of overcoming great odds to win our own freedom. Shouldn't we celebrate that in some way when we gather together?
All gave some. Some gave all. We honor those soldiers, sailors and airmen who sacrificed what they had in the name of freedom. Because they fought and died for liberty, we don't have to. Instead, we get to enjoy a Sunday afternoon game, watching the boys of fall on the gridiron. I think I can hum a few bars and think of Old Glory in exchange for such a privilege.
- Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook-www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/10/11
A Housing Crisis Germinating for decades
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Housing Crisis Germinating for decades
When will Bernanke and Congress admit that the housing crisis will continue in the foreseeable future?
Why? American consumers were encouraged to buy homes whether they could afford them or not. Homeowners were also lulled into believing that home ownership was an investment and not a housing expense. The annual costs of home ownership with mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance can be more than 10 percent of the value of a home. That means a home has to appreciate more than 10 percent annually in order for a home to be a good investment. These housing policies significantly contributed to driving up the prices of residential real estate over the past 20 years. They also contributed to over leveraged homeowners and more risky mortgage loans held by banks and investors.
This reduction in capital causes banks to make fewer loans. Fewer loans mean potential homeowners cannot buy or refinance homes.
Under the economic laws of supply and demand, the reduced purchasing power of home buyers means home prices drop to clear the market. When home prices drop, the collateral supporting loans drops and banks are required to write down additional loans and further reduce their capital. Reduced capital results in even fewer loans. The vicious cycle then gets worse for homeowners and the financial community by further reducing real-estate prices and liquidity. When liquidity becomes a problem for financial institutions, the run on the bank begins and a financial meltdown occurs.
This is how a financial meltdown became the unintended consequence of laudable housing and financial policies. The fault belongs to Republican and Democratic politicians, financial regulators, Wall Street and, yes, overextended homeowners. The seeds of this financial crisis have been germinating for decades.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A Housing Crisis Germinating for decades
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Housing Crisis Germinating for decades
When will Bernanke and Congress admit that the housing crisis will continue in the foreseeable future?
Why? American consumers were encouraged to buy homes whether they could afford them or not. Homeowners were also lulled into believing that home ownership was an investment and not a housing expense. The annual costs of home ownership with mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance can be more than 10 percent of the value of a home. That means a home has to appreciate more than 10 percent annually in order for a home to be a good investment. These housing policies significantly contributed to driving up the prices of residential real estate over the past 20 years. They also contributed to over leveraged homeowners and more risky mortgage loans held by banks and investors.
This reduction in capital causes banks to make fewer loans. Fewer loans mean potential homeowners cannot buy or refinance homes.
Under the economic laws of supply and demand, the reduced purchasing power of home buyers means home prices drop to clear the market. When home prices drop, the collateral supporting loans drops and banks are required to write down additional loans and further reduce their capital. Reduced capital results in even fewer loans. The vicious cycle then gets worse for homeowners and the financial community by further reducing real-estate prices and liquidity. When liquidity becomes a problem for financial institutions, the run on the bank begins and a financial meltdown occurs.
This is how a financial meltdown became the unintended consequence of laudable housing and financial policies. The fault belongs to Republican and Democratic politicians, financial regulators, Wall Street and, yes, overextended homeowners. The seeds of this financial crisis have been germinating for decades.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/07/11
What would Reagan do?
By: Armstrong Williams
What would Reagan do?
For countless times in the past 15, even 20 years, policymakers on the right would pause and ask an almost spiritual question: What would Reagan do?
There’s nothing more special about today and the troubles we face as a country in this tumultuous world, and yet the question seems more in need than ever before. It certainly is appropriate as America remembers the 100th birthday of one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Much has been written about Reagan’s uncanny sense of leadership, his giant-sized sense of humor, and his eternal faith that the U.S. was predestinated for greatness, and to inspire greatness in all who came in contact with her.
But let’s return to this question of “What would Reagan do?” in 2011. More specifically , let’s apply that standard to entitlement spending. For it is evident as the years go by, and our nation’s deficits and debt grow, and policymakers seemingly turn into ostriches, that entitlement spending will be the death of us financially if we’re not careful. Yes, folks, we need a Reagan-type leader to stand up and take this problem by the horns.
I don’t need to run through the insurmountable calculations and the glorified Ponzi schemes we’ve backed ourselves into to avoid tough decisions. That’s behind us.
But we do need to get serious about our future. Think about it, not since Ronald Reagan formed the Greenspan Commission in 1981 and then forced the Congress, both Republican and Democrat, to step up and address a Social Security program that was tipping into bankruptcy, have we had a serious attempt to fix these runaway programs.
1983. That was the last time both parties put their respective necks on the line – and their political futures – and tackled the toughest of issues. Ronald Reagan inspired that movement. And maybe, just maybe, on that legend’s 100th birthday, we can have similar bipartisanship and courageousness.
I’m not optimistic, but I do know this: the answer to the question we started this column with is clear. Ronald Reagan would address Social Security. He was that large of a man. We would do well to emulate such leadership in this town.
What would Reagan do?
By: Armstrong Williams
What would Reagan do?
For countless times in the past 15, even 20 years, policymakers on the right would pause and ask an almost spiritual question: What would Reagan do?
There’s nothing more special about today and the troubles we face as a country in this tumultuous world, and yet the question seems more in need than ever before. It certainly is appropriate as America remembers the 100th birthday of one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Much has been written about Reagan’s uncanny sense of leadership, his giant-sized sense of humor, and his eternal faith that the U.S. was predestinated for greatness, and to inspire greatness in all who came in contact with her.
But let’s return to this question of “What would Reagan do?” in 2011. More specifically , let’s apply that standard to entitlement spending. For it is evident as the years go by, and our nation’s deficits and debt grow, and policymakers seemingly turn into ostriches, that entitlement spending will be the death of us financially if we’re not careful. Yes, folks, we need a Reagan-type leader to stand up and take this problem by the horns.
I don’t need to run through the insurmountable calculations and the glorified Ponzi schemes we’ve backed ourselves into to avoid tough decisions. That’s behind us.
But we do need to get serious about our future. Think about it, not since Ronald Reagan formed the Greenspan Commission in 1981 and then forced the Congress, both Republican and Democrat, to step up and address a Social Security program that was tipping into bankruptcy, have we had a serious attempt to fix these runaway programs.
1983. That was the last time both parties put their respective necks on the line – and their political futures – and tackled the toughest of issues. Ronald Reagan inspired that movement. And maybe, just maybe, on that legend’s 100th birthday, we can have similar bipartisanship and courageousness.
I’m not optimistic, but I do know this: the answer to the question we started this column with is clear. Ronald Reagan would address Social Security. He was that large of a man. We would do well to emulate such leadership in this town.
02/03/11
China's Economic forward thinking
BY: Armstrong Williams
China's Economic forward thinking
A closer look at China in the post-cold war years reveals a much different picture: it reveals a country facing inward to develop the brains, heart and courage to make the most of the modern world.
While China’s inexorable economic advance over the past two decades has made it now a force to be reckoned with, doubts about its true strength have remained prevalent. Despite evidence to the contrary, Westerner’s assumed that China’s economy would not really thrive unless it began to adopt Western-style democracy, observe international human rights conventions, and develop the technological proficiency to begin producing specialized, non-commodity goods.
All of this has proven to be false. Not only has China built a world-leading economy on the back of steel, paper, textiles and lumber, it has been able to effectively manage an empire that contains almost a fifth of the entire world’s population. This feat has been largely underappreciated in the West; but its centralized government, draconian regulations on population growth, and state-managed economy were able to impose some degree of order and standardization in a relatively short period of time, on an absolutely astounding scale. It has now become clear that the Chinese communist party, despite its many weaknesses, is far from naïve. Its decision to crack down on cultural expression, religion and human rights was tactical rather than ideological.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
China's Economic forward thinking
BY: Armstrong Williams
China's Economic forward thinking
A closer look at China in the post-cold war years reveals a much different picture: it reveals a country facing inward to develop the brains, heart and courage to make the most of the modern world.
While China’s inexorable economic advance over the past two decades has made it now a force to be reckoned with, doubts about its true strength have remained prevalent. Despite evidence to the contrary, Westerner’s assumed that China’s economy would not really thrive unless it began to adopt Western-style democracy, observe international human rights conventions, and develop the technological proficiency to begin producing specialized, non-commodity goods.
All of this has proven to be false. Not only has China built a world-leading economy on the back of steel, paper, textiles and lumber, it has been able to effectively manage an empire that contains almost a fifth of the entire world’s population. This feat has been largely underappreciated in the West; but its centralized government, draconian regulations on population growth, and state-managed economy were able to impose some degree of order and standardization in a relatively short period of time, on an absolutely astounding scale. It has now become clear that the Chinese communist party, despite its many weaknesses, is far from naïve. Its decision to crack down on cultural expression, religion and human rights was tactical rather than ideological.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/02/11
Careful what you wish for
BY: Armstrong Williams
Careful what you wish for
Egyptian President Mubarak took to the airwaves today to publicly state he will not seek the office of the presidency any more, thus ending over three decades of rule. There is a reason Mubarak enjoyed such a lengthy tenure, and he has the United States to thank in some small measure.
Let’s not kid ourselves. It was in our national interests to have Mubarak in power. His government, no matter how flawed and sometimes oppressive, was predictable, which is a rare commodity in the Middle East. In many respects, Egypt was an oasis of calm in an otherwise tumultuous part of the world. And we have Mubarak to thank in part for that relative peace.
Now a greater force is calling – one of democracy. And the president and parties on both sides are applauding these protests.
But who exactly will fill this political vacuum created by Mubarak’s departure? Are we so sure? Does the State Department know who can and will capably step in and restore some semblance of order? More importantly, will the people of Egypt recognize this new leader, or will we be back to square one with more riots in the streets and more unrest?
The answers to these questions are less clear. But one thing is certain, the world must be wary of the Muslim Brotherhood. This faction is a radical, extremist group that is both well-organized in the country and has many followers. No one is alleging they have terrorist tendencies...yet. But should they somehow ascend one of their own to power, we could be facing a “democratic solution” with dire consequences.
Now the Obama Administration’s job becomes even tougher. They must in some small way engage in a little bit of nation-building to ensure peace is restored in Alexandria. This president has done a nice job of walking the line of diplomacy in this complicated part of the world. And he has done so with grace – American style.
It’s reassuring that some parts of the world still look to the U.S. as a voice of reason. We should leverage that respect and use it as an opportunity to sow even stronger ties within the region.
But first things first – make sure the Muslim Brotherhood is not the head of this new government.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Careful what you wish for
BY: Armstrong Williams
Careful what you wish for
Egyptian President Mubarak took to the airwaves today to publicly state he will not seek the office of the presidency any more, thus ending over three decades of rule. There is a reason Mubarak enjoyed such a lengthy tenure, and he has the United States to thank in some small measure.
Let’s not kid ourselves. It was in our national interests to have Mubarak in power. His government, no matter how flawed and sometimes oppressive, was predictable, which is a rare commodity in the Middle East. In many respects, Egypt was an oasis of calm in an otherwise tumultuous part of the world. And we have Mubarak to thank in part for that relative peace.
Now a greater force is calling – one of democracy. And the president and parties on both sides are applauding these protests.
But who exactly will fill this political vacuum created by Mubarak’s departure? Are we so sure? Does the State Department know who can and will capably step in and restore some semblance of order? More importantly, will the people of Egypt recognize this new leader, or will we be back to square one with more riots in the streets and more unrest?
The answers to these questions are less clear. But one thing is certain, the world must be wary of the Muslim Brotherhood. This faction is a radical, extremist group that is both well-organized in the country and has many followers. No one is alleging they have terrorist tendencies...yet. But should they somehow ascend one of their own to power, we could be facing a “democratic solution” with dire consequences.
Now the Obama Administration’s job becomes even tougher. They must in some small way engage in a little bit of nation-building to ensure peace is restored in Alexandria. This president has done a nice job of walking the line of diplomacy in this complicated part of the world. And he has done so with grace – American style.
It’s reassuring that some parts of the world still look to the U.S. as a voice of reason. We should leverage that respect and use it as an opportunity to sow even stronger ties within the region.
But first things first – make sure the Muslim Brotherhood is not the head of this new government.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
02/01/11
Our nation's Future?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Our nation's future.
Isn't it ironic that healthcare reform and the validity of the U.S Constitution now stand conversely in the debate over our nation's future. The central issue is the scope to which government has the right to control and manipulate our lives. One of the ingenious aspects of the Constitution involves the fact that our founding father's knew that there would be a growing tendency for government to expand in size and in power. They also knew that the expansion of power can be very corrupting; therefore, they placed safe guards in the document, which are now being challenged. Over time, the power of the government to influence our lives has crept unabated; however, this time the politicians have gone too far and the Constitution is our last refuge. If our government can mandate that we the people buy any product or service, such as healthcare, then what else will they mandate in the future? This is not a slippery slope, it is an avalanche; people must waken from their stupor before it's too late.
It is necessary for us to consider, as individuals, what we want in our lives vs. what the government can and should provide for us. One of the burdens of freedom is that you must make decisions on how to run your own life. If you're willing to concede the decision making ability to the federal government or anyone else, then you are embracing behavior contrary to the original intent of this nation.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Our nation's Future?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Our nation's future.
Isn't it ironic that healthcare reform and the validity of the U.S Constitution now stand conversely in the debate over our nation's future. The central issue is the scope to which government has the right to control and manipulate our lives. One of the ingenious aspects of the Constitution involves the fact that our founding father's knew that there would be a growing tendency for government to expand in size and in power. They also knew that the expansion of power can be very corrupting; therefore, they placed safe guards in the document, which are now being challenged. Over time, the power of the government to influence our lives has crept unabated; however, this time the politicians have gone too far and the Constitution is our last refuge. If our government can mandate that we the people buy any product or service, such as healthcare, then what else will they mandate in the future? This is not a slippery slope, it is an avalanche; people must waken from their stupor before it's too late.
It is necessary for us to consider, as individuals, what we want in our lives vs. what the government can and should provide for us. One of the burdens of freedom is that you must make decisions on how to run your own life. If you're willing to concede the decision making ability to the federal government or anyone else, then you are embracing behavior contrary to the original intent of this nation.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/31/11
Playing Chicken with the Debt Ceiling
While Congress prepares its budget for this year, threatening deep cuts to a $14 trillion debt, the first real test of the GOP's fiscal constitution is shaping up to come in the form of whether to raise the debt ceiling.
Years ago, no one wanted to talk about expanding the credit line of the U.S. government. It was such a stark reminder of how bad a hole we were in that both parties built the significant vote as a procedural move with other votes. In other words, they tried to bury the thing in hopes members would not have to rise in defense of an ever-growing nightmare.
What profiles in courage — both parties were part of the Ostrich Caucus — sticking their collective heads in the sand on some of the most important issues of the day.
And now here we are again: Republicans are at the helm, and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and his minions are screaming like Chicken Little that if their opponents don't "do the right thing," then the U.S. will default on its debt obligations.
Keep in mind that this story barely made a ripple back in February 2010 — the last time the nation's debt ceiling was to be raised. President Obama couldn't be bothered with such distractions, and the White House was all too eager to revert to rule No. 1 of its administration: Blame George W. Bush.
Now that Republicans control the House, Democrats are eager to see what degree of hypocrisy they'll commit on raising the debt ceiling.
It just kills me that the party not in power is so eager to hug the bible of fiscal discipline. Take Mr. Geithner's comments this month: "Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs."
Pretty scary, huh? The funny thing is this line could have been written decades ago when Democrats took us down this path, or even more recently when Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama piled on to the deficits.
There's no sense in assigning blame because each side will wag its finger at the other for eternity. The question now for House Republicans is: Will you blink first?
Will House Speaker John A. Boehner and the scores of members who were voted in on the fiscal discipline mantle allow this golden opportunity to slip them by?
I agree: No one wants to default on our debts. But folks, we're in default now. Simply raising the credit limit on your Visa credit card doesn't keep you solvent. It just means you'll have a more difficult time repaying such debts.
The consensus coming out of the GOP is that it will have to agree to raise the debt ceiling, but only by a smaller increment and accompanied by the Democrats and administration of corresponding spending cuts. In other words, use the vote as leverage to pass cuts such as the $2.5 trillion the GOP proposed the other week.
Others, like Rep. Michele Bachman, Minnesota Republican, and Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, are steadfast in their refusal to give the Fed any more debt leeway. This begs the question of what, in fact, would happen if we don't raise the ceiling. Contrary to popular belief, the government won't suddenly go into default once the debt ceiling is reached. The fact of the matter is that there is enough cash coming in to pay its commitments for the next several months.
The government would not actually default unless Congress and the president refuse to agree on passage of a law requiring the Treasury to concentrate our spending and prioritize paying the interest and principle of our debt.
This makes all the Chicken Little "sky is falling" talk even more absurd. It is nothing but a ploy to scare the America people into turning on the Republicans and blaming them no matter what they do.
In 2006, a freshman senator said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills."
I'm sure you could guess that the senator I quoted is now our president. I realize that things look different when you sit in the executive seat as opposed to the legislative seat, but President Obama needs to heed the message of Sen. Obama. It is a failure in leadership if we indiscriminately keep raising our debt ceiling without cutting the tremendous bloat in which our government continues to blindly wallow.
We need to take a serious look at what causes us to borrow and spend 55 cents of every dollar in this country. There's simply no other way of looking at it. And defense, Medicare and Social Security — the Holy Trinity of government programs and spending — must be chief among those options. Even the GOP's $2.5 trillion in cuts didn't dare touch those programs, but we must if we truly want to get this ship righted.
There is a blessing in this fiscal tragedy that faces us collectively. The only way to get either party's policymakers to face the cold reality of financial doom is to back them up against a wall and force them to make tough decisions. Raising the debt ceiling is that wall.
Sooner or later, if we continue to ask for more money, the world will stop lending it to us. Every time this vote comes due, Washington needs to be constantly reminded of just how close to peril we stand. Only by drawing a line in the sand now will we have a chance to pull out of this mess.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/
arightside.
Playing Chicken with the Debt Ceiling
While Congress prepares its budget for this year, threatening deep cuts to a $14 trillion debt, the first real test of the GOP's fiscal constitution is shaping up to come in the form of whether to raise the debt ceiling.
Years ago, no one wanted to talk about expanding the credit line of the U.S. government. It was such a stark reminder of how bad a hole we were in that both parties built the significant vote as a procedural move with other votes. In other words, they tried to bury the thing in hopes members would not have to rise in defense of an ever-growing nightmare.
What profiles in courage — both parties were part of the Ostrich Caucus — sticking their collective heads in the sand on some of the most important issues of the day.
And now here we are again: Republicans are at the helm, and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and his minions are screaming like Chicken Little that if their opponents don't "do the right thing," then the U.S. will default on its debt obligations.
Keep in mind that this story barely made a ripple back in February 2010 — the last time the nation's debt ceiling was to be raised. President Obama couldn't be bothered with such distractions, and the White House was all too eager to revert to rule No. 1 of its administration: Blame George W. Bush.
Now that Republicans control the House, Democrats are eager to see what degree of hypocrisy they'll commit on raising the debt ceiling.
It just kills me that the party not in power is so eager to hug the bible of fiscal discipline. Take Mr. Geithner's comments this month: "Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs."
Pretty scary, huh? The funny thing is this line could have been written decades ago when Democrats took us down this path, or even more recently when Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama piled on to the deficits.
There's no sense in assigning blame because each side will wag its finger at the other for eternity. The question now for House Republicans is: Will you blink first?
Will House Speaker John A. Boehner and the scores of members who were voted in on the fiscal discipline mantle allow this golden opportunity to slip them by?
I agree: No one wants to default on our debts. But folks, we're in default now. Simply raising the credit limit on your Visa credit card doesn't keep you solvent. It just means you'll have a more difficult time repaying such debts.
The consensus coming out of the GOP is that it will have to agree to raise the debt ceiling, but only by a smaller increment and accompanied by the Democrats and administration of corresponding spending cuts. In other words, use the vote as leverage to pass cuts such as the $2.5 trillion the GOP proposed the other week.
Others, like Rep. Michele Bachman, Minnesota Republican, and Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, are steadfast in their refusal to give the Fed any more debt leeway. This begs the question of what, in fact, would happen if we don't raise the ceiling. Contrary to popular belief, the government won't suddenly go into default once the debt ceiling is reached. The fact of the matter is that there is enough cash coming in to pay its commitments for the next several months.
The government would not actually default unless Congress and the president refuse to agree on passage of a law requiring the Treasury to concentrate our spending and prioritize paying the interest and principle of our debt.
This makes all the Chicken Little "sky is falling" talk even more absurd. It is nothing but a ploy to scare the America people into turning on the Republicans and blaming them no matter what they do.
In 2006, a freshman senator said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills."
I'm sure you could guess that the senator I quoted is now our president. I realize that things look different when you sit in the executive seat as opposed to the legislative seat, but President Obama needs to heed the message of Sen. Obama. It is a failure in leadership if we indiscriminately keep raising our debt ceiling without cutting the tremendous bloat in which our government continues to blindly wallow.
We need to take a serious look at what causes us to borrow and spend 55 cents of every dollar in this country. There's simply no other way of looking at it. And defense, Medicare and Social Security — the Holy Trinity of government programs and spending — must be chief among those options. Even the GOP's $2.5 trillion in cuts didn't dare touch those programs, but we must if we truly want to get this ship righted.
There is a blessing in this fiscal tragedy that faces us collectively. The only way to get either party's policymakers to face the cold reality of financial doom is to back them up against a wall and force them to make tough decisions. Raising the debt ceiling is that wall.
Sooner or later, if we continue to ask for more money, the world will stop lending it to us. Every time this vote comes due, Washington needs to be constantly reminded of just how close to peril we stand. Only by drawing a line in the sand now will we have a chance to pull out of this mess.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/
arightside.
01/31/11
The rule of law
BY: Armstrong Williams
The rule of law
What stood out in your mind as you witnessed the weekend’s events in Egypt? How the entire country stood on the edge of anarchy, largely because its people had been denied basic conditions, treatment and rights to redress their grievances by a heavy-handed president.
I don’t pen this blog to challenge Egyptian President Mubarak’s behavior through his three decades in power. His conduct, and the people’s response to it, are by now well documented.
But the situation in Egypt stands as a stark reminder of the basic tenets we as Americans have grown perhaps accustomed to, and we would do well to remind ourselves that the freedoms we enjoy are derived through daily struggles and challenges.
It begins with the rule of law. Throughout the world today, citizens of countries struggle with their governments for the consistency and certainty of national laws. Newspapers are riddled with examples where government officials skirt public laws, inconsistently applying them not for the people’s benefit, but their own.
To these regimes, laws are meant to protect their tenuous grip on power. To the many, laws are meant to be abided by and obeyed. To the few in power, they can be redirected for their own selfish purposes.
Just look to countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, China, even Russia.
Something’s wrong when a country’s leader can stand in the middle of a market square, with television cameras rolling, and declare in the name of some authority that he is claiming private property on behalf of “the people of Venezuela.” Yet this is exactly what happens with Hugo Chavez.
Even still, violations of the rule of law are sometimes less obvious.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The rule of law
BY: Armstrong Williams
The rule of law
What stood out in your mind as you witnessed the weekend’s events in Egypt? How the entire country stood on the edge of anarchy, largely because its people had been denied basic conditions, treatment and rights to redress their grievances by a heavy-handed president.
I don’t pen this blog to challenge Egyptian President Mubarak’s behavior through his three decades in power. His conduct, and the people’s response to it, are by now well documented.
But the situation in Egypt stands as a stark reminder of the basic tenets we as Americans have grown perhaps accustomed to, and we would do well to remind ourselves that the freedoms we enjoy are derived through daily struggles and challenges.
It begins with the rule of law. Throughout the world today, citizens of countries struggle with their governments for the consistency and certainty of national laws. Newspapers are riddled with examples where government officials skirt public laws, inconsistently applying them not for the people’s benefit, but their own.
To these regimes, laws are meant to protect their tenuous grip on power. To the many, laws are meant to be abided by and obeyed. To the few in power, they can be redirected for their own selfish purposes.
Just look to countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, China, even Russia.
Something’s wrong when a country’s leader can stand in the middle of a market square, with television cameras rolling, and declare in the name of some authority that he is claiming private property on behalf of “the people of Venezuela.” Yet this is exactly what happens with Hugo Chavez.
Even still, violations of the rule of law are sometimes less obvious.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/28/11
Why we need tort reform in the U.S.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why we need tort reform in the U.S.
We live in a litigious society. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Only in America can a woman order a hot cup of coffee, clumsily spill it on herself, and then turn around and sue the vendor for millions in damages and WIN! It’s ridiculous, and it needs to stop.
Such frivolous actions only detract from the real episodes when lawsuits are the only answer – to punish and send a message that the behavior cannot occur again. When we as a society allow the inane to occur, we begin to empty the action of any value and meaning. That helps no one in the long run.
You would think that our members of Congress would subscribe to the same principle. That they would eagerly rise and echo our claims as a people that “there ought to be a law” to prevent such actions.
And yet, the latest example of such frivolity is one perpetrated by a congressman himself – Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). It seems the fella bit into a sandwich in the congressional cafeteria and broke a tooth on an olive pit.
Okay, how unfortunate. So maybe, just maybe, he complains to management and they work out a deal where the cafeteria covers the congressman’s dental bills. Even then, I’m scratching my head, because aren’t members of Congress supposed to have the best health care in the country? Do they really need help in getting proper health care?
But Kucinich doesn’t want just compensation, he wants damages -- $150,000 worth. The olive apparently caused “serious and permanent injuries” as well as “loss of enjoyment.” There you have it, Americans. Enjoyment to an elected official is apparently worth six figures. Give me a break.
I guess I should be surprised by his actions, but I’m not. Kucinich is one of the most liberal members of the House. And yet, he has to know that his actions could lead to the loss of jobs for the workers in the cafeteria.
The $150,000 has to come from somewhere. And as much as the congressman will cry that the money will come from “Big Insurance Companies,” someone at the cafeteria vending company will still need to pay the bill. That means lost revenues, lost profits, and less in the till to dole to employees.
This is why we need tort reform in this country, folks. If elected policymakers think that even they can make a quick buck off the backs of America’s private sector, then we’re all in for a world of hurt…
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Why we need tort reform in the U.S.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why we need tort reform in the U.S.
We live in a litigious society. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Only in America can a woman order a hot cup of coffee, clumsily spill it on herself, and then turn around and sue the vendor for millions in damages and WIN! It’s ridiculous, and it needs to stop.
Such frivolous actions only detract from the real episodes when lawsuits are the only answer – to punish and send a message that the behavior cannot occur again. When we as a society allow the inane to occur, we begin to empty the action of any value and meaning. That helps no one in the long run.
You would think that our members of Congress would subscribe to the same principle. That they would eagerly rise and echo our claims as a people that “there ought to be a law” to prevent such actions.
And yet, the latest example of such frivolity is one perpetrated by a congressman himself – Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). It seems the fella bit into a sandwich in the congressional cafeteria and broke a tooth on an olive pit.
Okay, how unfortunate. So maybe, just maybe, he complains to management and they work out a deal where the cafeteria covers the congressman’s dental bills. Even then, I’m scratching my head, because aren’t members of Congress supposed to have the best health care in the country? Do they really need help in getting proper health care?
But Kucinich doesn’t want just compensation, he wants damages -- $150,000 worth. The olive apparently caused “serious and permanent injuries” as well as “loss of enjoyment.” There you have it, Americans. Enjoyment to an elected official is apparently worth six figures. Give me a break.
I guess I should be surprised by his actions, but I’m not. Kucinich is one of the most liberal members of the House. And yet, he has to know that his actions could lead to the loss of jobs for the workers in the cafeteria.
The $150,000 has to come from somewhere. And as much as the congressman will cry that the money will come from “Big Insurance Companies,” someone at the cafeteria vending company will still need to pay the bill. That means lost revenues, lost profits, and less in the till to dole to employees.
This is why we need tort reform in this country, folks. If elected policymakers think that even they can make a quick buck off the backs of America’s private sector, then we’re all in for a world of hurt…
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/27/11
Honor Killings. Have we returned to the Dark Ages.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Barbaric Honor Killings. Have we returned to the Dark Ages?
Americans have been found guilty of performing reprehensible acts throughout it's history. The Salem Witch Trials are a case in point. Members of the Puritan community in pre-revolutionary Massachusetts were convicted and executed solely on the basis of the testimony of suspicious neighbors and the accusations of teenage girls. And yes, many of them were killed in horrific fashion.
The United States and the greater international community have, for the most part, come to a greater understanding of the value of human rights and the importance of protecting them. Much of this is based upon the individual’s conscience developing past a point to where it is strong enough to stand up against the mores of society if it goes against ones core values and beliefs which are rooted in doing what is best for society overall.
Now for the cultural relativist, honor killings are a part of the idea of protecting the greater society overall. After all, and I will only continue to use radical Islam in order to be consistent with past arguments, members of radical Islam are performing these killings in order to protect the order of things. They feel that sin, in any way shape or form, is a form of contamination to their religion. And in their case, at least for the individual, their greater duty is to protect their community of believers –regardless if it means killing their own daughter or mother. In such respects, not only does the perpetrator receive honor from the greater community, and a sense of gratitude for protecting them from sin, but also the individual will be honored by their God for doing a work which is considered righteous.
I have no problem drawing the line in such a case. Something must clearly be done in order to protect basic human rights; all which I believe to be developed at an early age within the family unit. Again, and it is an understanding of these basic rights which help formulate the conscience of the individual. Now there are some who believe that honor killings and other notorious acts are basis for the grounds of going to war. If they happen on a large scale, then I would have to agree. There are others who would like to convert these people to a whole other way of thinking. Both solutions are a little too much in most cases. However, we must establish a set code of human rights that would be enforced internationally. I don’t recommend that these human rights be contained in a sophisticated and detailed document. Rather, it should consist of well written and enforced statements that everyone can understand and adhere to. It also should allow room for cultural differences. But it must be clear about its fundamental purpose – Its most important purpose is protecting individuals so that they can go through life without the fear of being tortured or killed in a senless and inhumane manner. It is barbaric to kill family members in this day and age because of religious or ideological differences.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Honor Killings. Have we returned to the Dark Ages.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Barbaric Honor Killings. Have we returned to the Dark Ages?
Americans have been found guilty of performing reprehensible acts throughout it's history. The Salem Witch Trials are a case in point. Members of the Puritan community in pre-revolutionary Massachusetts were convicted and executed solely on the basis of the testimony of suspicious neighbors and the accusations of teenage girls. And yes, many of them were killed in horrific fashion.
The United States and the greater international community have, for the most part, come to a greater understanding of the value of human rights and the importance of protecting them. Much of this is based upon the individual’s conscience developing past a point to where it is strong enough to stand up against the mores of society if it goes against ones core values and beliefs which are rooted in doing what is best for society overall.
Now for the cultural relativist, honor killings are a part of the idea of protecting the greater society overall. After all, and I will only continue to use radical Islam in order to be consistent with past arguments, members of radical Islam are performing these killings in order to protect the order of things. They feel that sin, in any way shape or form, is a form of contamination to their religion. And in their case, at least for the individual, their greater duty is to protect their community of believers –regardless if it means killing their own daughter or mother. In such respects, not only does the perpetrator receive honor from the greater community, and a sense of gratitude for protecting them from sin, but also the individual will be honored by their God for doing a work which is considered righteous.
I have no problem drawing the line in such a case. Something must clearly be done in order to protect basic human rights; all which I believe to be developed at an early age within the family unit. Again, and it is an understanding of these basic rights which help formulate the conscience of the individual. Now there are some who believe that honor killings and other notorious acts are basis for the grounds of going to war. If they happen on a large scale, then I would have to agree. There are others who would like to convert these people to a whole other way of thinking. Both solutions are a little too much in most cases. However, we must establish a set code of human rights that would be enforced internationally. I don’t recommend that these human rights be contained in a sophisticated and detailed document. Rather, it should consist of well written and enforced statements that everyone can understand and adhere to. It also should allow room for cultural differences. But it must be clear about its fundamental purpose – Its most important purpose is protecting individuals so that they can go through life without the fear of being tortured or killed in a senless and inhumane manner. It is barbaric to kill family members in this day and age because of religious or ideological differences.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/26/11
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Forgive them, for they know not what they're doing.
Coming out of the dot.com debacle, government policy tried to improve the economy by spurring spending and production. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates, attempting to encourage borrowing and investment in productive enterprise. The Clinton administration had bolstered the power of the quasi-governmental lending organizations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, charging them with the task of helping home ownership become more accessible, especially by targeting low income families.
The low income family was the perfect target. They were expected to not read the disclosers about what an ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) would do and more importantly, they were easy to sell on the American dream of home ownership. After all, with interest rates so low, one could move into a home for the same monthly price as renting an apartment. It was that easy. The mortgage giants, though privately owned, wore the glow of Federal endorsement, if not an implicit guarantee on their risk taking activities.
Meanwhile regulations to ensure fair lending (anti-redlining) were strengthened and enforced. Public programs designed to help people with home ownership proliferated. People were taught very good skills initially – how to save more money for down payments, how to establish and maintain good credit, and how to access government-related mortgage subsidies.
As time went on, however, unscrupulous mortgage lenders began to operate in a differerent way – they taught and coached individuals how to game the system. In fact, it became standard practice by home buyers to lie on loan documents in order to qualify for a mortgage. It is standard axiom that the limits of lending are generally set by the lender, and not the borrower – as the borrower is only too happy to spend now and think about paying later.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Forgive them, for they know not what they're doing.
Coming out of the dot.com debacle, government policy tried to improve the economy by spurring spending and production. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates, attempting to encourage borrowing and investment in productive enterprise. The Clinton administration had bolstered the power of the quasi-governmental lending organizations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, charging them with the task of helping home ownership become more accessible, especially by targeting low income families.
The low income family was the perfect target. They were expected to not read the disclosers about what an ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) would do and more importantly, they were easy to sell on the American dream of home ownership. After all, with interest rates so low, one could move into a home for the same monthly price as renting an apartment. It was that easy. The mortgage giants, though privately owned, wore the glow of Federal endorsement, if not an implicit guarantee on their risk taking activities.
Meanwhile regulations to ensure fair lending (anti-redlining) were strengthened and enforced. Public programs designed to help people with home ownership proliferated. People were taught very good skills initially – how to save more money for down payments, how to establish and maintain good credit, and how to access government-related mortgage subsidies.
As time went on, however, unscrupulous mortgage lenders began to operate in a differerent way – they taught and coached individuals how to game the system. In fact, it became standard practice by home buyers to lie on loan documents in order to qualify for a mortgage. It is standard axiom that the limits of lending are generally set by the lender, and not the borrower – as the borrower is only too happy to spend now and think about paying later.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/25/11
DEBT CEILING DOUBLE TALK
BY: Armstrong Williams
DEBT CEILING DOUBLE TALK.
While Congress prepares its budget for this year, threatening deep cuts to a $14 trillion debt, the first real test of the GOP’s fiscal constitution is shaping up to come in the form of whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.
Years ago, no one wanted to talk about expanding the credit line of the U.S. Government. It was such a stark reminder of how bad a hole we were in, that both parties built the significant vote as a procedural move with other votes. In other words, they tried to bury the thing in hopes members would not have to rise in defense of an ever-growing nightmare.
What profiles in courage – both parties were part of the Ostrich Caucus – sticking their collective heads in the sand on some of the most important issues of the day.
And now here we are again, Republicans are at the helm, and Treasury Secretary Geithner and his minions are screaming like Chicken Little that if their opponents don’t “do the right thing” then the U.S. will default on its debt obligations.
Keep in mind this story barely made a ripple back in Feb 2010 – the last time the nation’s debt ceiling was to be raised. President Obama couldn’t be bothered with such distractions, and the White House was all too eager to revert to Rule #1 of its administration – blame Bush.
Now that Republicans control the House, Democrats are eager to see what degree of hypocrisy they’ll commit on raising the debt ceiling.
It just kills me that the party not in power is so eager to hug the bible of fiscal discipline. Take Sec. Geithner’s comments earlier this month: “Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs.” Pretty scary huh? The funny thing is this line could have been written decades ago when Democrats took us down this path, or even more recently when Presidents Bush and Obama piled on to the deficits.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
DEBT CEILING DOUBLE TALK
BY: Armstrong Williams
DEBT CEILING DOUBLE TALK.
While Congress prepares its budget for this year, threatening deep cuts to a $14 trillion debt, the first real test of the GOP’s fiscal constitution is shaping up to come in the form of whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.
Years ago, no one wanted to talk about expanding the credit line of the U.S. Government. It was such a stark reminder of how bad a hole we were in, that both parties built the significant vote as a procedural move with other votes. In other words, they tried to bury the thing in hopes members would not have to rise in defense of an ever-growing nightmare.
What profiles in courage – both parties were part of the Ostrich Caucus – sticking their collective heads in the sand on some of the most important issues of the day.
And now here we are again, Republicans are at the helm, and Treasury Secretary Geithner and his minions are screaming like Chicken Little that if their opponents don’t “do the right thing” then the U.S. will default on its debt obligations.
Keep in mind this story barely made a ripple back in Feb 2010 – the last time the nation’s debt ceiling was to be raised. President Obama couldn’t be bothered with such distractions, and the White House was all too eager to revert to Rule #1 of its administration – blame Bush.
Now that Republicans control the House, Democrats are eager to see what degree of hypocrisy they’ll commit on raising the debt ceiling.
It just kills me that the party not in power is so eager to hug the bible of fiscal discipline. Take Sec. Geithner’s comments earlier this month: “Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs.” Pretty scary huh? The funny thing is this line could have been written decades ago when Democrats took us down this path, or even more recently when Presidents Bush and Obama piled on to the deficits.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/24/11
Coming Collapse of State Pensions
When I go over my personal budget, I have to make sacrifices. Perhaps I don't eat out as often, or I turn my thermostat down, or even limit my purchasing of non-necessity items. We all do this because we know we can't live in the red for long without collection agencies and banks taking our possessions away.
Yet, for federal and state governments, overspending and not balancing their checkbooks is a way of life. We all know about the federal deficit, but one thing that has gone unnoticed that could sink the federal budget more than the banking meltdown of late 2008 is the state budget deficits stemming from overreaching state-employee pension and benefits programs.
Nationwide, it's estimated that state and local governments are short on paying future claims to the tune of $1 trillion to $3 trillion. If current trends continue (which, of course they won't) and if we assume an 8 percent return on investment rate for the pension funds (which we can't) states will begin running out of money by 2018, with Illinois being the first, and 20 states by 2025. Of course, government being what it is, we can expect states to spend too much in boom cycles, and well, spend to much in bust cycles, too, so 2018 might actually be 2013 unless politicians radically change there ways.
Let's look at California, the world's fifth-largest economy. It currently has a deficit of $28 billion. Eighty percent of all state spending goes toward pensions and benefits. The liberals that have controlled the state since Prohibition are all about raising taxes to compensate. The fact of the matter is they cannot raise taxes high enough to make up the difference, and if they try too hard to do so, they will see even greater flight by white-collar workers from the Golden State. The only people immigrating to California are illegal aliens from south of the border, and they don't pay any taxes anyway.
Even Jerry Brown, the state's returning Democratic governor, has said that the budget will be full of drastic cuts. Of course, any time a politician speaks truth about financial issues, the same union hacks stand up and yell about how that no one better cut their pensions and benefits because they deserve them.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is all over YouTube confronting such announcements with the hard truth that nothing is guaranteed, that state union employees must be willing to sacrifice in order to make sure other necessary government activities can remain functional.
I feel for the state and federal employee. I really do. What was once taken for granted, is now uncertain. State government employees generally have no desire to share in this pain, but who likes hearing that promises made to them are void? Some say they gave up higher wages for a cushy pension; others simply think the state should live up to the promises that it made, and some think simply that they are entitled to the pension for having served faithfully. And you know what? They are right. It is their money, and they should get it. Unfortunately, years of mismanagement by both parties — failures to properly save the money that was designated for retirement, instead spending it on other projects — has doomed the nest eggs of millions.
In the rest of the private sector, most nest eggs plummeted. Those who invested smartly are still OK, but many retirees have to go back to work. Some of the solutions for the pension crisis are to raise the retirement age or reduce benefits. Both suggestions are ardently opposed. But just like I said, the employees were correct in that they deserved what they were promised, and the state governments and the general population are right to demand that state union employees share in the pain. For a state government to go bankrupt owing to overbearing debt, or, the federal government bailing out the states yet again, plummeting it into even greater foreign debt while at the same time extracting more state sovereignty in exchange for the bailout, is not a feasible solution either.
The solution is easy but painful: State employees (and current retirees) must accept cuts and the raising of the retirement age. The pension plans must be revised so that retirees are not earning more than what they did when they were employed, which is the case for many formerly high-ranking officials and politicians. After all, you're supposed to need less when you retire, not more. For state governments, they must be held accountable. Other public projects are going to have to suffer and be shut down until this crisis passes.
But all governments need to learn from the debt fiasco of the past several years. Remember during the 2000 presidential debates? George W. Bush and Al Gore kept talking about a lockbox for Social Security so the government would not spend money already guaranteed for others. Yet Mr. Bush failed to enact a lockbox after he failed to pass legislation partially privatizing Social Security. He was derelict in his duty to the current and future seniors … but no more so than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and others were. For some reason, politicians of both stripes fail basic accounting.
Another thing we must do is to quit appointing and electing politicians with no accounting or investing experience to positions requiring such ability. I don't hire a lawyer to do my books and taxes, or take out my appendix, yet the government does this constantly. We have bean counters for a reason, and it's time to start letting them have the final word on the budget, independent of the politicians.
We also need to start setting realistic expectations for how much interest such pension plans can draw. Most states assume 8 percent to 10 percent annual return. That is a phenomenal return, and can't be done consistently without taking big risks. However, when dealing with the retirement of millions of Americans, you have to be smart and conservative. Politicians need to start looking for a more realistic and safer 3 percent to 5 percent return and budget accordingly.
Now, I am a private businessman, responsible for my own retirement. I know I have to save in order to have that money when I am no longer working. I know that I can't turn around and spend it to buy a new TV or car just because that money is sitting there seemingly unused at the time. It's called discipline and foresight.
Is it too much to ask that the state and federal governments take the same responsibility? If the people we elect are too foolish to grasp this concept, then laws must be enacted to protect them and their descendants from making the same shortsighted mistakes. We must require that all incoming taxes designated for Social Security, Medicare, retirement, etc., go specifically to that fund and are locked away from being used for anything but those specific programs. This isn't rocket science.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook (facebook.com/arightside,) and follow him on Twitter @twitter.com/arightside.
Coming Collapse of State Pensions
When I go over my personal budget, I have to make sacrifices. Perhaps I don't eat out as often, or I turn my thermostat down, or even limit my purchasing of non-necessity items. We all do this because we know we can't live in the red for long without collection agencies and banks taking our possessions away.
Yet, for federal and state governments, overspending and not balancing their checkbooks is a way of life. We all know about the federal deficit, but one thing that has gone unnoticed that could sink the federal budget more than the banking meltdown of late 2008 is the state budget deficits stemming from overreaching state-employee pension and benefits programs.
Nationwide, it's estimated that state and local governments are short on paying future claims to the tune of $1 trillion to $3 trillion. If current trends continue (which, of course they won't) and if we assume an 8 percent return on investment rate for the pension funds (which we can't) states will begin running out of money by 2018, with Illinois being the first, and 20 states by 2025. Of course, government being what it is, we can expect states to spend too much in boom cycles, and well, spend to much in bust cycles, too, so 2018 might actually be 2013 unless politicians radically change there ways.
Let's look at California, the world's fifth-largest economy. It currently has a deficit of $28 billion. Eighty percent of all state spending goes toward pensions and benefits. The liberals that have controlled the state since Prohibition are all about raising taxes to compensate. The fact of the matter is they cannot raise taxes high enough to make up the difference, and if they try too hard to do so, they will see even greater flight by white-collar workers from the Golden State. The only people immigrating to California are illegal aliens from south of the border, and they don't pay any taxes anyway.
Even Jerry Brown, the state's returning Democratic governor, has said that the budget will be full of drastic cuts. Of course, any time a politician speaks truth about financial issues, the same union hacks stand up and yell about how that no one better cut their pensions and benefits because they deserve them.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is all over YouTube confronting such announcements with the hard truth that nothing is guaranteed, that state union employees must be willing to sacrifice in order to make sure other necessary government activities can remain functional.
I feel for the state and federal employee. I really do. What was once taken for granted, is now uncertain. State government employees generally have no desire to share in this pain, but who likes hearing that promises made to them are void? Some say they gave up higher wages for a cushy pension; others simply think the state should live up to the promises that it made, and some think simply that they are entitled to the pension for having served faithfully. And you know what? They are right. It is their money, and they should get it. Unfortunately, years of mismanagement by both parties — failures to properly save the money that was designated for retirement, instead spending it on other projects — has doomed the nest eggs of millions.
In the rest of the private sector, most nest eggs plummeted. Those who invested smartly are still OK, but many retirees have to go back to work. Some of the solutions for the pension crisis are to raise the retirement age or reduce benefits. Both suggestions are ardently opposed. But just like I said, the employees were correct in that they deserved what they were promised, and the state governments and the general population are right to demand that state union employees share in the pain. For a state government to go bankrupt owing to overbearing debt, or, the federal government bailing out the states yet again, plummeting it into even greater foreign debt while at the same time extracting more state sovereignty in exchange for the bailout, is not a feasible solution either.
The solution is easy but painful: State employees (and current retirees) must accept cuts and the raising of the retirement age. The pension plans must be revised so that retirees are not earning more than what they did when they were employed, which is the case for many formerly high-ranking officials and politicians. After all, you're supposed to need less when you retire, not more. For state governments, they must be held accountable. Other public projects are going to have to suffer and be shut down until this crisis passes.
But all governments need to learn from the debt fiasco of the past several years. Remember during the 2000 presidential debates? George W. Bush and Al Gore kept talking about a lockbox for Social Security so the government would not spend money already guaranteed for others. Yet Mr. Bush failed to enact a lockbox after he failed to pass legislation partially privatizing Social Security. He was derelict in his duty to the current and future seniors … but no more so than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and others were. For some reason, politicians of both stripes fail basic accounting.
Another thing we must do is to quit appointing and electing politicians with no accounting or investing experience to positions requiring such ability. I don't hire a lawyer to do my books and taxes, or take out my appendix, yet the government does this constantly. We have bean counters for a reason, and it's time to start letting them have the final word on the budget, independent of the politicians.
We also need to start setting realistic expectations for how much interest such pension plans can draw. Most states assume 8 percent to 10 percent annual return. That is a phenomenal return, and can't be done consistently without taking big risks. However, when dealing with the retirement of millions of Americans, you have to be smart and conservative. Politicians need to start looking for a more realistic and safer 3 percent to 5 percent return and budget accordingly.
Now, I am a private businessman, responsible for my own retirement. I know I have to save in order to have that money when I am no longer working. I know that I can't turn around and spend it to buy a new TV or car just because that money is sitting there seemingly unused at the time. It's called discipline and foresight.
Is it too much to ask that the state and federal governments take the same responsibility? If the people we elect are too foolish to grasp this concept, then laws must be enacted to protect them and their descendants from making the same shortsighted mistakes. We must require that all incoming taxes designated for Social Security, Medicare, retirement, etc., go specifically to that fund and are locked away from being used for anything but those specific programs. This isn't rocket science.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook (facebook.com/arightside,) and follow him on Twitter @twitter.com/arightside.
01/21/11
Making money is a skill and discipline
BY: Armstrong Williams
Money making is a skill and discipline.
As with everything else in life, money making is a skill. People who have it and work
for it learn how to get it and learn how to get more of it. People who don’t, do not. It
is absolutely imperative that anyone who is hoping to become an entrepreneur learn
how to work for others. That’s right, if you’re ever going to work for yourself, first
you have to learn how to work for others, because eventually you will be providing a
service or commodity for someone else to purchase, that’s how you generate revenue. So
if you don’t know how to work for others and structure deals or even understand what
they want or need, then how are you going to generate revenue? There is not a single
wealthy person I know who didn’t work, and work hard. Not only that, they worked
hard for someone else. Then some of them eventually realized that they could work
for themselves. Another key point is that if you’re not working, then no job is beneath
you, there are people who have worked as janitors and have become CEOs of large
companies. Through work ethic, a desire to learn and determination, one can still make
this country what so many foreigners have come to call it: a land of opportunity.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Making money is a skill and discipline
BY: Armstrong Williams
Money making is a skill and discipline.
As with everything else in life, money making is a skill. People who have it and work
for it learn how to get it and learn how to get more of it. People who don’t, do not. It
is absolutely imperative that anyone who is hoping to become an entrepreneur learn
how to work for others. That’s right, if you’re ever going to work for yourself, first
you have to learn how to work for others, because eventually you will be providing a
service or commodity for someone else to purchase, that’s how you generate revenue. So
if you don’t know how to work for others and structure deals or even understand what
they want or need, then how are you going to generate revenue? There is not a single
wealthy person I know who didn’t work, and work hard. Not only that, they worked
hard for someone else. Then some of them eventually realized that they could work
for themselves. Another key point is that if you’re not working, then no job is beneath
you, there are people who have worked as janitors and have become CEOs of large
companies. Through work ethic, a desire to learn and determination, one can still make
this country what so many foreigners have come to call it: a land of opportunity.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/20/11
Why Obama holds the cards on health reform
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Obama holds the cards on health reform
The House of Representatives voted yesterday to repeal the centerpiece of President Obama’s first term in office. To hear congressional Republicans tell it, health care reform is well on its way to repeal. The voters certainly dislike the landmark law, and if their voices carry to the corridors of the Senate and that body votes for repeal, the Congress will have spoken.
And yet, that’s where it will end. In fact, few in this town believe the legislation will ever get to the other side of the Dome. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) still controls that chamber’s calendar, and no one sees him bringing up the bill any time soon.
Dream a little more and say the Senate does the unthinkable. There’s no way Obama signs the bill to repeal his own measure.
Suspend belief for a moment and imagine a scenario where Republicans are in a position to alter this new law and change some of its most despised features.
Even then, the task is herculean. Obama still holds the upper hand in this debate. Why? Special interests will not turn against this administration on health care, particularly not the health care lobbyists. Yep, the same associations and health care trade groups who gave us the famed “Harry and Louise” ads along with labyrinth-like flow charts and all the opposition firepower will keep their guns silent in this effort.
They have no choice. For the reality is Obama’s health plan is now the law of the land. And the President’s own Health and Human Services Department is responsible for doling out tens of billions in new grants, funding, and other resources. The department is also in charge of drafting thousands of pages of regulations – guidelines with the force of law that will dictate winners and losers in the new universe that is called health reform.
No entity – from medical device manufacturers to insurance companies to prescription drug makers – will want to run up against a Department that can quietly and effectively make their respective industries miserable.
In effect, these health trade associations and their armies of lobbyists have been neutralized. To follow their desires and side with Republicans on even one area the Obama administration disagrees with could spell ruin for the scores of other regulations they need HHS’s help with. By the same token, these groups cannot get too cozy with Obama and his Democrats because Speaker John Boehner is the new sheriff in town, and he’s going to run things far differently than his predecessors.
Watch this mosaic of separate issues begin to form in the coming months. You’ll find that the agendas of these health associations will be meek in how they approach the biggest circus in town so far.
That scene will continue well into the 2012 election cycle, where I predict health care will remain front and center for both parties as they try to finish what was started at the beginning of the 112th Congress.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Why Obama holds the cards on health reform
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Obama holds the cards on health reform
The House of Representatives voted yesterday to repeal the centerpiece of President Obama’s first term in office. To hear congressional Republicans tell it, health care reform is well on its way to repeal. The voters certainly dislike the landmark law, and if their voices carry to the corridors of the Senate and that body votes for repeal, the Congress will have spoken.
And yet, that’s where it will end. In fact, few in this town believe the legislation will ever get to the other side of the Dome. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) still controls that chamber’s calendar, and no one sees him bringing up the bill any time soon.
Dream a little more and say the Senate does the unthinkable. There’s no way Obama signs the bill to repeal his own measure.
Suspend belief for a moment and imagine a scenario where Republicans are in a position to alter this new law and change some of its most despised features.
Even then, the task is herculean. Obama still holds the upper hand in this debate. Why? Special interests will not turn against this administration on health care, particularly not the health care lobbyists. Yep, the same associations and health care trade groups who gave us the famed “Harry and Louise” ads along with labyrinth-like flow charts and all the opposition firepower will keep their guns silent in this effort.
They have no choice. For the reality is Obama’s health plan is now the law of the land. And the President’s own Health and Human Services Department is responsible for doling out tens of billions in new grants, funding, and other resources. The department is also in charge of drafting thousands of pages of regulations – guidelines with the force of law that will dictate winners and losers in the new universe that is called health reform.
No entity – from medical device manufacturers to insurance companies to prescription drug makers – will want to run up against a Department that can quietly and effectively make their respective industries miserable.
In effect, these health trade associations and their armies of lobbyists have been neutralized. To follow their desires and side with Republicans on even one area the Obama administration disagrees with could spell ruin for the scores of other regulations they need HHS’s help with. By the same token, these groups cannot get too cozy with Obama and his Democrats because Speaker John Boehner is the new sheriff in town, and he’s going to run things far differently than his predecessors.
Watch this mosaic of separate issues begin to form in the coming months. You’ll find that the agendas of these health associations will be meek in how they approach the biggest circus in town so far.
That scene will continue well into the 2012 election cycle, where I predict health care will remain front and center for both parties as they try to finish what was started at the beginning of the 112th Congress.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/18/11
The Credit Market has evaporated?
The Credit Market has evaporated ?
By Armstrong Williams
January 18, 2011
America spends more than it earns or saves, and thus faces a
situation in which the credit system has been overextended. This starts with
individuals and extends to the largest financial institutions. As regulators scratch their
heads trying to figure a way out of this mess, they keep confronting the same problem.
Sure, they can save the banks if they restrict lending and tighten the rules; but that leaves
unsolved the problem of how individuals and businesses will be able to finance current
spending as credit markets evaporate.
No one seems to want to suggest the obvious. The last thing depositors should do is
remove their money from banks. It might sound somewhat counterintuitive, but keeping
money in the banks, and in fact increasing the amount we save will get us out of this
crisis sooner than any Washington politician with their magic wand. Americans feel the
truth in their guts. While the government wants us to believe that a tax stimulus check
will increase spending enough to save the economy, it might just amount to pouring fuel
on the fire by discouraging individual savings and austerity measures.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot spend our way out of this crisis. The Federal
Reserve has done all it can to make money cheap by lowering the reserve rate. That
money has already cycled through the economy, and those individuals and institutions
that are on healthy footing have already renegotiated their credit terms. The problem is
that a period of restricted spending is the only viable remedy for both inflation and credit
insolvency.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Credit Market has evaporated?
The Credit Market has evaporated ?
By Armstrong Williams
January 18, 2011
America spends more than it earns or saves, and thus faces a
situation in which the credit system has been overextended. This starts with
individuals and extends to the largest financial institutions. As regulators scratch their
heads trying to figure a way out of this mess, they keep confronting the same problem.
Sure, they can save the banks if they restrict lending and tighten the rules; but that leaves
unsolved the problem of how individuals and businesses will be able to finance current
spending as credit markets evaporate.
No one seems to want to suggest the obvious. The last thing depositors should do is
remove their money from banks. It might sound somewhat counterintuitive, but keeping
money in the banks, and in fact increasing the amount we save will get us out of this
crisis sooner than any Washington politician with their magic wand. Americans feel the
truth in their guts. While the government wants us to believe that a tax stimulus check
will increase spending enough to save the economy, it might just amount to pouring fuel
on the fire by discouraging individual savings and austerity measures.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot spend our way out of this crisis. The Federal
Reserve has done all it can to make money cheap by lowering the reserve rate. That
money has already cycled through the economy, and those individuals and institutions
that are on healthy footing have already renegotiated their credit terms. The problem is
that a period of restricted spending is the only viable remedy for both inflation and credit
insolvency.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/18/11
Will the market always correct itself?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will the market always correct itself?
Each year the big firms welcome in its new pack of young, cooler-than-thou first
year accountants and attorneys to their new jobs on Wall Street. The scene starts with a
lavish gesture of the firm’s wealth: swank hotel ballroom, shimmering ice sculptures of
short, plump firm executives, generous small talk from 2nd tier managers who will spend
the next two years screaming expletives at you (“wow, what nice incisors you have.”)
Then, somewhere along the line, someone explains how things are: your office has a bed
in it. You will work 17 hours a day. After the first year you will be evaluated. If you earn
more than the person to your immediate left or right, you will get a raise. The other half
of you will be fired. The same thing happens after your third year. If you make it that far
you will have enough money to own your own air force.
The army does a version of the same act—you break down a new recruit’s will and
restructure it as a killing machine. On Wall Street, you get to wash down fish eggs with
white wine in between brainwashing, but the techniques are basically the same: alternate
fear and love with a disarming lack of sleep while inculcating new recruits with a self-
sustaining mantra: the market will always correct itself; your job is to poach as much as
you can.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Will the market always correct itself?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Will the market always correct itself?
Each year the big firms welcome in its new pack of young, cooler-than-thou first
year accountants and attorneys to their new jobs on Wall Street. The scene starts with a
lavish gesture of the firm’s wealth: swank hotel ballroom, shimmering ice sculptures of
short, plump firm executives, generous small talk from 2nd tier managers who will spend
the next two years screaming expletives at you (“wow, what nice incisors you have.”)
Then, somewhere along the line, someone explains how things are: your office has a bed
in it. You will work 17 hours a day. After the first year you will be evaluated. If you earn
more than the person to your immediate left or right, you will get a raise. The other half
of you will be fired. The same thing happens after your third year. If you make it that far
you will have enough money to own your own air force.
The army does a version of the same act—you break down a new recruit’s will and
restructure it as a killing machine. On Wall Street, you get to wash down fish eggs with
white wine in between brainwashing, but the techniques are basically the same: alternate
fear and love with a disarming lack of sleep while inculcating new recruits with a self-
sustaining mantra: the market will always correct itself; your job is to poach as much as
you can.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/17/11
America's Race Progress
BY: Armstrong Williams
America's Race Progress
When it comes to race relations, we of course would not be returning to virtues of a golden era of racial understanding; rather, we are overcoming our past failings. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, but looking through human history, we see examples of groups of people not treating other groups equally. As Americans, we act like “it only happens here,” for better or worse, and hear people all over the world berating America’s sordid, racially divided past. But guess what- most countries are much, much worse. Australia’s discrimination of Aborigines, France and Germany’s treatment of Muslim immigrants, Africans wholesale slaughter of fellow Africans from other tribes, China’s oppression of it’s non- Han minorities, Japan’s underlying prejudice against all gaijin, and so on and so forth.
This doesn’t excuse America’s past or current behaviors; instead, it serves as an illustration that this is a long-standing human problem, one that America addresses quite publicly for the world to see, and a problem we have overcome quite remarkably. America has been upfront about its race problems, even if it makes us uncomfortable. This is commendable, and demonstrates that America continues to address her problems and has used the ideal that “All men are created equal,” as our ultimate goal, expanding the idea well past its original scope [how is that possible? The original scope says “all men,” which is “the entirety of humanity”] to include the entirety of humanity.
The virtues we learn from evils of racism are tolerance and patience. Tolerance for others and patience in realizing that no matter how far we’ve come, there’s still work to do, and patience in not falling into the depressing belief that everything is worse today than it was or should be.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
America's Race Progress
BY: Armstrong Williams
America's Race Progress
When it comes to race relations, we of course would not be returning to virtues of a golden era of racial understanding; rather, we are overcoming our past failings. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, but looking through human history, we see examples of groups of people not treating other groups equally. As Americans, we act like “it only happens here,” for better or worse, and hear people all over the world berating America’s sordid, racially divided past. But guess what- most countries are much, much worse. Australia’s discrimination of Aborigines, France and Germany’s treatment of Muslim immigrants, Africans wholesale slaughter of fellow Africans from other tribes, China’s oppression of it’s non- Han minorities, Japan’s underlying prejudice against all gaijin, and so on and so forth.
This doesn’t excuse America’s past or current behaviors; instead, it serves as an illustration that this is a long-standing human problem, one that America addresses quite publicly for the world to see, and a problem we have overcome quite remarkably. America has been upfront about its race problems, even if it makes us uncomfortable. This is commendable, and demonstrates that America continues to address her problems and has used the ideal that “All men are created equal,” as our ultimate goal, expanding the idea well past its original scope [how is that possible? The original scope says “all men,” which is “the entirety of humanity”] to include the entirety of humanity.
The virtues we learn from evils of racism are tolerance and patience. Tolerance for others and patience in realizing that no matter how far we’ve come, there’s still work to do, and patience in not falling into the depressing belief that everything is worse today than it was or should be.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/12/11
A Nation's Need For Blame
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Nation’s Need For Blame
There are times when even the capture of the culprit fails to quench people’s thirst for justice. This usually happens in the wake of horrific, mind-bending crimes like the shooting in Arizona last week that killed six people and injured scores of others. The gunman’s intended target, a congresswoman, has barely escaped with her life, for now.
But in the heated aftermath – sparked by comments by the Tucson Sherriff who was a close friend of two of the victims – there seems to be a wider indictment being brought by some in the media. He suggested that a general political climate of intolerance caused these events. These comments seem to be inspired more by grief over losing a couple of close friends than any actual evidence that publicly disclose about the motivation for these crimes. Following suit, pundits and commentators began to blame everyone from Sarah Palin, to Rush Limbaugh to Arizona’s gun law and even the gunman’s poor parents for what happened. Almost everyone is taking the blame except, of course, for the gunman himself. Of the scant evidence that has emerged about the troubled shooter thus far, he seems to be a mentally unbalanced loner with a sick celebrity obsession and a penchant for violence. This act does not bear the markings of a rational person with any coherent political viewpoint or party affiliation.
It might almost have been better had the gunman escaped and was now the subject of an international manhunt – like Osama Bin Laden. Only then, in his absence, would he have born the blame for his acts. Instead, the nation’s desire for retribution has not been quenched. It was almost too easy to catch the actual criminal. The lynch mob is on the march for more blood. And even an innocent bystander can be falsely blamed.
On a broader level, however, perhaps the desire to lay blame on the Tucson event points to a collective desire to reconcile the abnormal. Every effect must have a cause, and usually when events such as this catch our national attention, we assume the causes must also be societal. Yes, the gunman bought the gun legally at a gun store. Yes, we live in an age where political rhetoric – sometimes inflammatory rhetoric – fills the airways. And yes, we live in a society where the mentally insane are not imprisoned before they commit crimes. All of these factors could have contributed in some way to the very specific event that happened in Tucson.
But before going on the lynch mob, we must ask ourselves whether the alternatives could, in any even remotely foreseeable way, lead to similarly horrible outcomes.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A Nation's Need For Blame
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Nation’s Need For Blame
There are times when even the capture of the culprit fails to quench people’s thirst for justice. This usually happens in the wake of horrific, mind-bending crimes like the shooting in Arizona last week that killed six people and injured scores of others. The gunman’s intended target, a congresswoman, has barely escaped with her life, for now.
But in the heated aftermath – sparked by comments by the Tucson Sherriff who was a close friend of two of the victims – there seems to be a wider indictment being brought by some in the media. He suggested that a general political climate of intolerance caused these events. These comments seem to be inspired more by grief over losing a couple of close friends than any actual evidence that publicly disclose about the motivation for these crimes. Following suit, pundits and commentators began to blame everyone from Sarah Palin, to Rush Limbaugh to Arizona’s gun law and even the gunman’s poor parents for what happened. Almost everyone is taking the blame except, of course, for the gunman himself. Of the scant evidence that has emerged about the troubled shooter thus far, he seems to be a mentally unbalanced loner with a sick celebrity obsession and a penchant for violence. This act does not bear the markings of a rational person with any coherent political viewpoint or party affiliation.
It might almost have been better had the gunman escaped and was now the subject of an international manhunt – like Osama Bin Laden. Only then, in his absence, would he have born the blame for his acts. Instead, the nation’s desire for retribution has not been quenched. It was almost too easy to catch the actual criminal. The lynch mob is on the march for more blood. And even an innocent bystander can be falsely blamed.
On a broader level, however, perhaps the desire to lay blame on the Tucson event points to a collective desire to reconcile the abnormal. Every effect must have a cause, and usually when events such as this catch our national attention, we assume the causes must also be societal. Yes, the gunman bought the gun legally at a gun store. Yes, we live in an age where political rhetoric – sometimes inflammatory rhetoric – fills the airways. And yes, we live in a society where the mentally insane are not imprisoned before they commit crimes. All of these factors could have contributed in some way to the very specific event that happened in Tucson.
But before going on the lynch mob, we must ask ourselves whether the alternatives could, in any even remotely foreseeable way, lead to similarly horrible outcomes.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/11/11
The White House's problem with the "wealthy"
BY: Armstrong Williams
The White House's problem with the "wealthy"
I just can’t let this slip by, folks, without commenting on the recent announcement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that he’s leaving his post very soon.
Apparently, Gibbs is burnt out, and he needs to recharge his batteries in anticipation of a major slug-fest come 2012. There’s no question Gibbs is good, and one of the best defenders of this president and his administration’s policies. He’s probably due some time away from the heat lamp that is the White House briefing room.
In fact, I laughed when I noticed that not any prominent Republican I could think of batted an eye when they heard about Gibbs’ departure, and maybe even the prospects that he’ll make more money. That is after all, the American way, right? Social and economic mobility? Doing better one year than the year prior, for the good of one’s family and household?
Even President Obama seemed to agree, admitting in a recent interview that Gibbs has “been going 24/7 with relatively modest pay.”
And that’s when the Social Welfare Vindicator-in-Chief messed up. To anyone outside the Beltway, Gibbs’ pay is not “modest.” He makes $172,200 per year, putting him in the top 8 percent of all American households.
And guess what that makes Gibbs? He’s among the nation’s most super wealthy! According to the Left’s doctrine, Gibbs should now be forced to “sacrifice” more than any other; he must give more from his income, all in the name of what is good and fair and just in the world.
And yet he won’t. It didn’t even dawn on the President that many on his staff are citizens of the social class he loves to rail against.
Do I have a problem with Gibbs making $170,000 per year? Of course not. In fact, let him make more, if the market will bear it and he’s earned it.
The problem I have is, if liberal apologists want to confiscate the last red cent of every individual who happens to make over a certain threshold of money (whatever that amount is any given year), then they should be first in line to give.
Did any of Obama’s White House staffers volunteer to take a pay cut when they signed up for their jobs? Did the President? Why not? There’s no law that says you can’t deny a portion of your paycheck. And if White House officials want to “set the example” for the rest of the country to see, then good on them. After all, didn’t this president ask that bankers forego their bonuses in 2010? A different situation, but isn’t the principle the same? If someone else is more deserving, then by all means, you give first if you have more?
Do you see the folly in such logic?
The president and the Left should use this small parable for a larger lesson – we can’t as a nation begrudge those who want to enhance their station in life. We can’t criminalize it or treat it as if the wealthy somehow stole their money, while the liberals who chastise somehow “earned” theirs.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The White House's problem with the "wealthy"
BY: Armstrong Williams
The White House's problem with the "wealthy"
I just can’t let this slip by, folks, without commenting on the recent announcement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that he’s leaving his post very soon.
Apparently, Gibbs is burnt out, and he needs to recharge his batteries in anticipation of a major slug-fest come 2012. There’s no question Gibbs is good, and one of the best defenders of this president and his administration’s policies. He’s probably due some time away from the heat lamp that is the White House briefing room.
In fact, I laughed when I noticed that not any prominent Republican I could think of batted an eye when they heard about Gibbs’ departure, and maybe even the prospects that he’ll make more money. That is after all, the American way, right? Social and economic mobility? Doing better one year than the year prior, for the good of one’s family and household?
Even President Obama seemed to agree, admitting in a recent interview that Gibbs has “been going 24/7 with relatively modest pay.”
And that’s when the Social Welfare Vindicator-in-Chief messed up. To anyone outside the Beltway, Gibbs’ pay is not “modest.” He makes $172,200 per year, putting him in the top 8 percent of all American households.
And guess what that makes Gibbs? He’s among the nation’s most super wealthy! According to the Left’s doctrine, Gibbs should now be forced to “sacrifice” more than any other; he must give more from his income, all in the name of what is good and fair and just in the world.
And yet he won’t. It didn’t even dawn on the President that many on his staff are citizens of the social class he loves to rail against.
Do I have a problem with Gibbs making $170,000 per year? Of course not. In fact, let him make more, if the market will bear it and he’s earned it.
The problem I have is, if liberal apologists want to confiscate the last red cent of every individual who happens to make over a certain threshold of money (whatever that amount is any given year), then they should be first in line to give.
Did any of Obama’s White House staffers volunteer to take a pay cut when they signed up for their jobs? Did the President? Why not? There’s no law that says you can’t deny a portion of your paycheck. And if White House officials want to “set the example” for the rest of the country to see, then good on them. After all, didn’t this president ask that bankers forego their bonuses in 2010? A different situation, but isn’t the principle the same? If someone else is more deserving, then by all means, you give first if you have more?
Do you see the folly in such logic?
The president and the Left should use this small parable for a larger lesson – we can’t as a nation begrudge those who want to enhance their station in life. We can’t criminalize it or treat it as if the wealthy somehow stole their money, while the liberals who chastise somehow “earned” theirs.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/10/11
Affixing blame in the AZ shootings
BY: Armstrong Williams
Affixing blame in the AZ shootings
I promised myself I wouldn't write about the tragic shooting over the weekend that leaves Rep. Giffords clinging to life and other families mourning the loss of their family and loved ones. It's a profound tragedy, and words cannot describe such senseless violence.
But here in Washington, operatives with little decency, even of the political kind, are quick to affix blame. And I want to say just one thing.
Please, for the memory and love of those who perished, do not cheapen this criminal act with political charges. The shooter was crazy. Pure and simple. He echoed and acted on behalf of the devil himself - pure evil. Not a political party. To think otherwise drags the memory of those into the ditch where it need not go.
If this truly were some political hit indirectly ordered and dispatched on those at that corner this weekend, then why were Democrat operatives cunningly recommending the White House "deftly pin this on the tea partiers." That's a direct quote, folks. "Deftly pin this..." If this shooter (to even mention his name is to move him into some status other than the obscurity he should remain) were really acting as an agent of the Tea Party movement as some have boldly implied, there would be no need to "try and pin" this on anyone. The nation would have known. When someone or some group is culpable for actions on such a stage as this, the accountability is clear. Here it is not; for the simple reason that this deranged kid acted in a random piece of violence.
Further, news accounts on Sunday were using the badge and office held by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as the final authority that in fact this shooting was politically charged, and hence, tea party activists are responsible. Please. Again, if the evidence were so obvious, then let our nation's time-honored courts exact such justice. Sheriff Dupnik is an elected Democrat. Do I care? Only when he makes ignorant statements because someone stuck a camera in his face and this is his moment to wax political about which he knows little of. And neither should any American care of his rhetoric, so long as the sheriff does his job, and that is bring the lawless to apprehension.
Kudos to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. (Bet you thought I'd never say that!) The newscaster took to the airwaves on Saturday night, not to inflame the chatter, but rather to call for some peace and calm in this maelstrom. It is time to revive a little more civil debate in this town and in the words we speak and write. That should begin with the President not taking the bait of the likes of Emmanuel-inspired admonishments to "never let a crisis go to waste." We should indeed let this crisis go to waste, out of respect for the fallen.
To everything there is a season. As tempting as it may be, we cannot - we must not - allow this terrible episode of violence to meander down the path of simple-minded fools.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Affixing blame in the AZ shootings
BY: Armstrong Williams
Affixing blame in the AZ shootings
I promised myself I wouldn't write about the tragic shooting over the weekend that leaves Rep. Giffords clinging to life and other families mourning the loss of their family and loved ones. It's a profound tragedy, and words cannot describe such senseless violence.
But here in Washington, operatives with little decency, even of the political kind, are quick to affix blame. And I want to say just one thing.
Please, for the memory and love of those who perished, do not cheapen this criminal act with political charges. The shooter was crazy. Pure and simple. He echoed and acted on behalf of the devil himself - pure evil. Not a political party. To think otherwise drags the memory of those into the ditch where it need not go.
If this truly were some political hit indirectly ordered and dispatched on those at that corner this weekend, then why were Democrat operatives cunningly recommending the White House "deftly pin this on the tea partiers." That's a direct quote, folks. "Deftly pin this..." If this shooter (to even mention his name is to move him into some status other than the obscurity he should remain) were really acting as an agent of the Tea Party movement as some have boldly implied, there would be no need to "try and pin" this on anyone. The nation would have known. When someone or some group is culpable for actions on such a stage as this, the accountability is clear. Here it is not; for the simple reason that this deranged kid acted in a random piece of violence.
Further, news accounts on Sunday were using the badge and office held by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as the final authority that in fact this shooting was politically charged, and hence, tea party activists are responsible. Please. Again, if the evidence were so obvious, then let our nation's time-honored courts exact such justice. Sheriff Dupnik is an elected Democrat. Do I care? Only when he makes ignorant statements because someone stuck a camera in his face and this is his moment to wax political about which he knows little of. And neither should any American care of his rhetoric, so long as the sheriff does his job, and that is bring the lawless to apprehension.
Kudos to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. (Bet you thought I'd never say that!) The newscaster took to the airwaves on Saturday night, not to inflame the chatter, but rather to call for some peace and calm in this maelstrom. It is time to revive a little more civil debate in this town and in the words we speak and write. That should begin with the President not taking the bait of the likes of Emmanuel-inspired admonishments to "never let a crisis go to waste." We should indeed let this crisis go to waste, out of respect for the fallen.
To everything there is a season. As tempting as it may be, we cannot - we must not - allow this terrible episode of violence to meander down the path of simple-minded fools.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/09/11
Austerity New Reality of '11
We are a week and a few days into 2011, but it's not simply a new year. The end of 2010 marked the passing of the first decade of this new century. It's only fitting we look back and look for lessons learned.
There's no question this nation and the world were rocked early on. Sept. 11 caused many to question just what age of man we were truly entering. A new era of fear? An era of power centers shifting to meet this terrorist scourge?
In the wake of that horrific day came a simple yet powerful thought — a motivation to prevent another attack on American soil, no matter the cost. Quickly, that mindset spread to other sectors in our government, and our own way of life. Not surprisingly, the U.S. and, indeed the world's, economy was turned upside down. President George W. Bush and opponents alike were quick to reassure the public. The calming words? "Whatever it takes."
When airlines were reeling because of new security guidelines; when states were forced to post state troopers at capital buildings and major landmarks; when our leaders vowed to hunt down the enemy, even if it meant fighting two wars, at every turn, the answer was the same — whatever the cost.
It was easy to say such a phrase. Yes, our nation was in supreme debt, but security knows no price tag, or so the line went, and we needed to take these extraordinary steps to return to normal.
Fast-forward a few years to the fall of 2008; the mortgage and credit markets crashed, piling on more fears and concerns, especially of a sector that promised a return of American domination on the world stage.
To hear then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put it, we were on the verge of a financial meltdown that would reverberate throughout the globe. We would need to fix this mess, whatever it takes.
And so, after a decade of "whatever the cost" and "whatever it takes," it is now time for a different frame of mind, for no other reason than we simply cannot afford to say these words and not feel the consequences.
Our nation and the world are not teetering, but rather we are in the beginning stages of a global default on our financial obligations. I don't need to recite the statistics to prove to you the shadow of debt and its punitive consequences are at our nation's door.
As we enter this second decade of the 21st century, it is time for the United States to embark on a new path. Call it the Reality of Austerity — a new deal of sorts in which policy makers, voters and workers alike wake up from the fitful spending we've mindlessly pursued in these gluttonous years and return to some semblance of living within our means.
Other nations are not waiting for the world's lone economic superpower. Greece, Germany, Ireland, France, Britain, each of these nations is facing the reality of austerity with their own unique approach. Some are working better than others. All have riotous villagers storming the castles. But austerity has come, and it's here to stay.
For the first time in generations, our children and grandchildren will know firsthand what it means when government can no longer meet its obligations. Until now, such talk was the subject of government bean counters and doomsday economists.
We can no longer convince ourselves that such calamity is only "on paper." No, this threat is real, and it will rock the very foundation of our country more powerfully than any terrorist or enemy of the state could ever hope or imagine.
This reality of austerity will have an impact on each of us, and we must prepare for it and recognize it is for the greater good of our nation.
No more can we hope for a 1936 New Deal or a 1964 Great Society renaissance. No, this must be fixed from the top down, and the bottom up. We will all share in its pain.
We have spent more money in the first decade of the 21st century than during all of the decades since this nation's founding combined. And what do we have to show for it?
One in six Americans still faces hunger each day. One in eight lives in poverty, while the number of Americans living in extreme poverty (those with incomes below half the poverty line) is more than 17 million — the highest level on record since data first became available in 1975.
Despite these dire numbers, every year, Congress adds more programs in the War on Poverty. Are we any better? The numbers prove otherwise.
My point here is that no government program alone can ever hope to solve what ails us as a people. And until we stop putting our faith, and our dollars, into those hands, we will continue in this whirlpool of debt.
The nation's governors will lead the way to austerity. Already, state CEOs such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, are squaring off against state bureaucrats and worker unions, worried their perennial salaries and bloated size are only exacerbating attempts to trim budgets.
There's even talk from state Democrats of doing the same. Just look at New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is staring at the reality of unsustainable deficits and recognizing he, too, must trim the Empire State's public work force.
Party labels don't hold the same sway at the state level as they do in Washington, because at the end of the day, these office holders must clear their ledger books of the red ink. They can't simply print more money, or move items "off-budget" and pledge to deal with them at a later date.
At the same time, governors are increasingly wary of heading to Washington with their hats in hand and asking for federal bailouts. They recognize additional "stimulus" funds such as enhanced Medicaid dollars and other federal infusions only tie the states to more mandates. Further, the federal dollars cloud the true fiscal health of each state, elevating baselines of budgets in one year and raising expectations from the state electorate those same dollars will be there again in subsequent years.
Simply put, we are entering a new reality — the Reality of Austerity. Our government must heed the call of the electorate from this past November and force itself to lay off the pork, decrease the bloat, stopping making promises it has no way to fund, get its checkbook balanced, and save for when the economy isn't booming.
If we learned anything in the first decade of the new millennium, it's that we truly can't have our cake and eat it, too; we cannot spend as if tomorrow will be as fruitful as today. Instead of "whatever the cost" and "whatever it takes," we must start planning and implementing long-term budgets and solutions and stick to them rather than falsely believing short-term growth is here to stay in perpetuity.
This second decade will be rougher than the first, much less the '80s and '90s, but if we can adhere to this rediscovered fiscal discipline, we will come out better and stronger than ever.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Austerity New Reality of '11
We are a week and a few days into 2011, but it's not simply a new year. The end of 2010 marked the passing of the first decade of this new century. It's only fitting we look back and look for lessons learned.
There's no question this nation and the world were rocked early on. Sept. 11 caused many to question just what age of man we were truly entering. A new era of fear? An era of power centers shifting to meet this terrorist scourge?
In the wake of that horrific day came a simple yet powerful thought — a motivation to prevent another attack on American soil, no matter the cost. Quickly, that mindset spread to other sectors in our government, and our own way of life. Not surprisingly, the U.S. and, indeed the world's, economy was turned upside down. President George W. Bush and opponents alike were quick to reassure the public. The calming words? "Whatever it takes."
When airlines were reeling because of new security guidelines; when states were forced to post state troopers at capital buildings and major landmarks; when our leaders vowed to hunt down the enemy, even if it meant fighting two wars, at every turn, the answer was the same — whatever the cost.
It was easy to say such a phrase. Yes, our nation was in supreme debt, but security knows no price tag, or so the line went, and we needed to take these extraordinary steps to return to normal.
Fast-forward a few years to the fall of 2008; the mortgage and credit markets crashed, piling on more fears and concerns, especially of a sector that promised a return of American domination on the world stage.
To hear then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put it, we were on the verge of a financial meltdown that would reverberate throughout the globe. We would need to fix this mess, whatever it takes.
And so, after a decade of "whatever the cost" and "whatever it takes," it is now time for a different frame of mind, for no other reason than we simply cannot afford to say these words and not feel the consequences.
Our nation and the world are not teetering, but rather we are in the beginning stages of a global default on our financial obligations. I don't need to recite the statistics to prove to you the shadow of debt and its punitive consequences are at our nation's door.
As we enter this second decade of the 21st century, it is time for the United States to embark on a new path. Call it the Reality of Austerity — a new deal of sorts in which policy makers, voters and workers alike wake up from the fitful spending we've mindlessly pursued in these gluttonous years and return to some semblance of living within our means.
Other nations are not waiting for the world's lone economic superpower. Greece, Germany, Ireland, France, Britain, each of these nations is facing the reality of austerity with their own unique approach. Some are working better than others. All have riotous villagers storming the castles. But austerity has come, and it's here to stay.
For the first time in generations, our children and grandchildren will know firsthand what it means when government can no longer meet its obligations. Until now, such talk was the subject of government bean counters and doomsday economists.
We can no longer convince ourselves that such calamity is only "on paper." No, this threat is real, and it will rock the very foundation of our country more powerfully than any terrorist or enemy of the state could ever hope or imagine.
This reality of austerity will have an impact on each of us, and we must prepare for it and recognize it is for the greater good of our nation.
No more can we hope for a 1936 New Deal or a 1964 Great Society renaissance. No, this must be fixed from the top down, and the bottom up. We will all share in its pain.
We have spent more money in the first decade of the 21st century than during all of the decades since this nation's founding combined. And what do we have to show for it?
One in six Americans still faces hunger each day. One in eight lives in poverty, while the number of Americans living in extreme poverty (those with incomes below half the poverty line) is more than 17 million — the highest level on record since data first became available in 1975.
Despite these dire numbers, every year, Congress adds more programs in the War on Poverty. Are we any better? The numbers prove otherwise.
My point here is that no government program alone can ever hope to solve what ails us as a people. And until we stop putting our faith, and our dollars, into those hands, we will continue in this whirlpool of debt.
The nation's governors will lead the way to austerity. Already, state CEOs such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, are squaring off against state bureaucrats and worker unions, worried their perennial salaries and bloated size are only exacerbating attempts to trim budgets.
There's even talk from state Democrats of doing the same. Just look at New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is staring at the reality of unsustainable deficits and recognizing he, too, must trim the Empire State's public work force.
Party labels don't hold the same sway at the state level as they do in Washington, because at the end of the day, these office holders must clear their ledger books of the red ink. They can't simply print more money, or move items "off-budget" and pledge to deal with them at a later date.
At the same time, governors are increasingly wary of heading to Washington with their hats in hand and asking for federal bailouts. They recognize additional "stimulus" funds such as enhanced Medicaid dollars and other federal infusions only tie the states to more mandates. Further, the federal dollars cloud the true fiscal health of each state, elevating baselines of budgets in one year and raising expectations from the state electorate those same dollars will be there again in subsequent years.
Simply put, we are entering a new reality — the Reality of Austerity. Our government must heed the call of the electorate from this past November and force itself to lay off the pork, decrease the bloat, stopping making promises it has no way to fund, get its checkbook balanced, and save for when the economy isn't booming.
If we learned anything in the first decade of the new millennium, it's that we truly can't have our cake and eat it, too; we cannot spend as if tomorrow will be as fruitful as today. Instead of "whatever the cost" and "whatever it takes," we must start planning and implementing long-term budgets and solutions and stick to them rather than falsely believing short-term growth is here to stay in perpetuity.
This second decade will be rougher than the first, much less the '80s and '90s, but if we can adhere to this rediscovered fiscal discipline, we will come out better and stronger than ever.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/07/11
Time for Rep. Shuler to step into the spotlight
Time for Rep. Shuler to step into the spotlight
I read with interest the press coverage of yesterday’s vote count for Speaker of the House. If you didn’t catch it in The Hill, you need to study the implications of what those votes that were cast AGAINST Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) meant for her future as the Democratic leader in the House.
All told, 18 of the 193 Democrats voted for someone other than Pelosi. Historically, the minority party knows it cannot possibly nominate its choice for Speaker, so they all throw their vote behind their best choice. With one-tenth of her caucus voting against her in a process that actually means nothing says something.
Rep. Heath Shuler out of North Carolina received the most votes. This is consistent with his candidacy to replace Pelosi as the new leader of Democrats for the 112th Congress. Now it’s time for Shuler to continue his role through 2011 and beyond.
Even if he lacks the authority to move his fellow members through the muscle of committee assignments, etc, Shuler has the power to force the media to take note when many join him and buck their current leader.
And make no mistake, Democrats – feeling the heat that is sure to come in 2012 – will be presented with many opportunities to buck Pelosi. Nothing about her liberal agenda has changed. And she is unapologetic. That sets the stage for some major internal strife and struggles with her colleagues; many of which we may never see.
Enter Shuler. He can openly work with Republicans and Democrats alike to form mini-coalitions and move specific items of legislation. Mind you, this is not meant to back-stab Pelosi, but rather execute what virtually every rank-and-file Democrat knows in his/her heart – they must change the way this process is running. For if they don’t, they’ll be run over.
Rep. Shuler must seize this moment, and think creatively of how he can delicately work across party lines to push for meaningful legislation. I believe Republicans will be open to such gestures, for the onus is on them to actually pass bills. Shuler’s glory will come, if he doesn’t worry about who gets the credit. But right now, he’s the only Democrat I can see who has any respect from a silent majority of his caucus to take up this mantle.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Time for Rep. Shuler to step into the spotlight
Time for Rep. Shuler to step into the spotlight
I read with interest the press coverage of yesterday’s vote count for Speaker of the House. If you didn’t catch it in The Hill, you need to study the implications of what those votes that were cast AGAINST Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) meant for her future as the Democratic leader in the House.
All told, 18 of the 193 Democrats voted for someone other than Pelosi. Historically, the minority party knows it cannot possibly nominate its choice for Speaker, so they all throw their vote behind their best choice. With one-tenth of her caucus voting against her in a process that actually means nothing says something.
Rep. Heath Shuler out of North Carolina received the most votes. This is consistent with his candidacy to replace Pelosi as the new leader of Democrats for the 112th Congress. Now it’s time for Shuler to continue his role through 2011 and beyond.
Even if he lacks the authority to move his fellow members through the muscle of committee assignments, etc, Shuler has the power to force the media to take note when many join him and buck their current leader.
And make no mistake, Democrats – feeling the heat that is sure to come in 2012 – will be presented with many opportunities to buck Pelosi. Nothing about her liberal agenda has changed. And she is unapologetic. That sets the stage for some major internal strife and struggles with her colleagues; many of which we may never see.
Enter Shuler. He can openly work with Republicans and Democrats alike to form mini-coalitions and move specific items of legislation. Mind you, this is not meant to back-stab Pelosi, but rather execute what virtually every rank-and-file Democrat knows in his/her heart – they must change the way this process is running. For if they don’t, they’ll be run over.
Rep. Shuler must seize this moment, and think creatively of how he can delicately work across party lines to push for meaningful legislation. I believe Republicans will be open to such gestures, for the onus is on them to actually pass bills. Shuler’s glory will come, if he doesn’t worry about who gets the credit. But right now, he’s the only Democrat I can see who has any respect from a silent majority of his caucus to take up this mantle.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/06/11
Overleveraging financially marginal homeowners
BY: Armstrong Williams
Overleveraging financially marginal homeowners
Until the recent market crisis, banks in the past few years often made mortgage loans with 0% to 5% cash down coupled with 95% to 100% of borrowed money. The relaxation of mortgage underwriting standards declined for a number of reasons but foremost among them was government policy. Over the past 20 years, government housing policies encouraged universal homeownership and, as an unintended consequence, lower credit standards. The loose lending standards were exacerbated by exceptionally low interest rates, which drove additional demand from would be homeowners. In addition, banks packaged and sold many of their mortgage loans to government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and as CMO’s to Wall Street. Even though the originating bank kept a small subordinated interest in the CMO, it no longer had the same interest in the integrity of the loan. The bank made its money from the origination and servicing fees - not from the interest and principal paid on the mortgage.
When homeowners had 20% plus equity in their homes, a decline in real estate values rarely resulted in negative home equity. Homeowners were much less likely to default on their mortgages because they had something to loose. On the other hand, a house purchased with little or no money down was a deal that many homeowners could not refuse; whether or not they could afford the mortgage payments. These homeowners had much less to loose by defaulting on their mortgage.
The concept of real estate mortgage margin requirements conflicts with government policies encouraging of universal home ownership. Perhaps government should explore other policy alternatives to create universal homeownership rather than overleveraging financially marginal homeowners.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Overleveraging financially marginal homeowners
BY: Armstrong Williams
Overleveraging financially marginal homeowners
Until the recent market crisis, banks in the past few years often made mortgage loans with 0% to 5% cash down coupled with 95% to 100% of borrowed money. The relaxation of mortgage underwriting standards declined for a number of reasons but foremost among them was government policy. Over the past 20 years, government housing policies encouraged universal homeownership and, as an unintended consequence, lower credit standards. The loose lending standards were exacerbated by exceptionally low interest rates, which drove additional demand from would be homeowners. In addition, banks packaged and sold many of their mortgage loans to government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and as CMO’s to Wall Street. Even though the originating bank kept a small subordinated interest in the CMO, it no longer had the same interest in the integrity of the loan. The bank made its money from the origination and servicing fees - not from the interest and principal paid on the mortgage.
When homeowners had 20% plus equity in their homes, a decline in real estate values rarely resulted in negative home equity. Homeowners were much less likely to default on their mortgages because they had something to loose. On the other hand, a house purchased with little or no money down was a deal that many homeowners could not refuse; whether or not they could afford the mortgage payments. These homeowners had much less to loose by defaulting on their mortgage.
The concept of real estate mortgage margin requirements conflicts with government policies encouraging of universal home ownership. Perhaps government should explore other policy alternatives to create universal homeownership rather than overleveraging financially marginal homeowners.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/04/11
Foretelling What?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Foretelling What?
The invention of science and statistics has replaced old-school fortune telling in very insidious ways. Now, while careful to disclaim – past performance is no guarantee of future results – hucksters of all sorts try to sell us stuff by pointing to long term trends. In fact, America’s current state of economic recession was caused by a confidence born of scientific analysis. Supposedly, we all believed, housing prices would never fall. After all, they had risen steadily for over eighty years. Very few people alive and relevant today remembered the last time when the U.S. housing market went bust. Those people who lost their homes in 1933 are no longer around to delivery any cautionary tales.
So today’s fortune tellers – the economists and statisticians – delivered cryptic pronouncements from their isolated Ivy League lairs, declaring it mathematically impossible that we could experience a complete meltdown in the housing markets. Hindsight would reveal that they were all wrong. Everyone, from the oracle at Phila-Delphi, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to today’s Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke not only disavowed the likelihood of a housing market crash, but actually dismissed the possibility that a downturn in housing would spill over to the broader economy. America bet the house, quite literally, on this turning out to be true. As history would have it, even Oracles can be wrong.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Foretelling What?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Foretelling What?
The invention of science and statistics has replaced old-school fortune telling in very insidious ways. Now, while careful to disclaim – past performance is no guarantee of future results – hucksters of all sorts try to sell us stuff by pointing to long term trends. In fact, America’s current state of economic recession was caused by a confidence born of scientific analysis. Supposedly, we all believed, housing prices would never fall. After all, they had risen steadily for over eighty years. Very few people alive and relevant today remembered the last time when the U.S. housing market went bust. Those people who lost their homes in 1933 are no longer around to delivery any cautionary tales.
So today’s fortune tellers – the economists and statisticians – delivered cryptic pronouncements from their isolated Ivy League lairs, declaring it mathematically impossible that we could experience a complete meltdown in the housing markets. Hindsight would reveal that they were all wrong. Everyone, from the oracle at Phila-Delphi, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to today’s Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke not only disavowed the likelihood of a housing market crash, but actually dismissed the possibility that a downturn in housing would spill over to the broader economy. America bet the house, quite literally, on this turning out to be true. As history would have it, even Oracles can be wrong.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/03/11
Foretelling the future
The science of foretelling was apparently revered by the ancients.
Examples abound of oracles divining the fates of wise men and kings. Mighty warriors, Odysseus and Agamemnon would not dare sally forth lest the portents augured in their favor. The balance of chances measured in scattered bones, animal entrails or the position of the firmament still live on in today's folklore. But in most of the Western world, fortune telling has lost its potency — that is, unless the fortune teller happens to be a scientist, pollster or economist.
The invention of science and statistics has replaced old-school fortune telling in very insidious ways. Now, while careful to disclaim — past performance is no guarantee of future results — hucksters of all sorts try to sell us stuff by pointing to long-term trends. In fact, America's current state of economic recession was caused by a confidence born of scientific analysis. Supposedly, we all thought, housing prices would never fall. After all, they had risen steadily for more than 80 years. Very few people alive and relevant today remember the last time when the U.S. housing market went bust. Those people who lost their homes in 1933 are no longer around to deliver any cautionary tales.
So today's fortune tellers — the economists and statisticians — delivered cryptic pronouncements from their isolated Ivy League lairs, declaring it mathematically impossible that we could experience a complete meltdown in the housing markets. Hindsight would reveal that they were all wrong. Everyone, from the oracle at Phila-Delphi, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, to today's Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, not only disavowed the likelihood of a housing-market crash, but actually dismissed the possibility that a downturn in housing would spill over to the broader economy. America bet the house, quite literally, on this turning out to be true. As history would have it, even oracles can be wrong.
Perhaps the problem is that despite the disclaimers, most of us do base future predictions on past events. After all, doesn't it make sense that if something has happened consistently in the past, it is likely to happen consistently in the future? Well, not really.
For a couple of reasons, the past does not equal the future.
First of all, the time periods that we call the past — usually epochs of between five and 500 years, may not be statistically significant enough to draw any real conclusions from. It took millions of years for dinosaurs to die off. It took billions of years for life to evolve on Earth. No 500-year period would have been sufficient to determine what would become of the species. In other words, an observation of home values during the past 80 years — without any other information — cannot possibly be enough information to base one's decision about home values for the next 80 years. Statistics can be very misleading in this way.
The second reason predicting the future often fails is because of what economist and mathematician Nassim Taleb calls the "Black Swan" problem: The inability of statistics to accurately predict improbable events. No statistical model could predict declining housing prices, precisely because there was little, if any data with which to compute such a likelihood. Furthermore, since major events tend to be both rare and highly impactful, statistics is ill-equipped to determine future states of being on a grand scale.
But that's precisely what they're used to do. The problem is not so much that one bets $100 on the one-in-six chance that rolled dice will land on a certain number. It's easy to determine the exact probability in games of chance where the outcomes are constrained. In the real world, the outcomes are varied and often unquantifiable, especially when there are people who manipulate the balance of chances set out to purposefully mislead the masses. It's often those events that change the world.
Perhaps the desire to know why something happened leads to generalities about what may happen in the future. The human mind, it seems, cannot long endure a quandary. It has to make sense of what it encounters. So, historians and scientists observing the past usually concoct a story with a causal element to try and explain why something happened. These causal elements are usually broad and abstract — such as the notion that nationalism was responsible for World War I. Be that as it may. But neither the term "nationalism," nor the possibility of such a large war, were in any way apparent to the would-be participants at the time. In fact, the very invention of the concept was an outcome — not a cause of the war.
But still, when it comes down to the end of the year, many people start making predictions about what will happen in the next year. Basically, those predictions tend to mirror the general mood, or events that have happened in the recent past. It's amazing how many people predicted another terrorist attack in the years following 9/11. It got to a point that almost any act of violence wherever it occurred and for whatever reason was called terrorism. It's similarly the case this year that dire predictions of economic calamity dominate the national psyche. People are playing it safe, hunkering down and fearing the worst. Others see the possibility of renewal, change and growth.
Optimism and pessimism usually stays somewhere in the realm of remembered history. Almost no one predicts that 2011 will be the year when the American empire crumbles and becomes a relic of past glory like Rome and Greece. No one predicts that Europe's current economic woes could spill into America and cause a massive death-spiral in the U.S. economy. Conversely, very few optimists dare dream that 2011 will be the year that America returns to its former glory and becomes the shining beacon of economic success and of freedom it once was. Few believe in the resurgence of a Manifest Destiny.
Either way, it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Foretelling the future
The science of foretelling was apparently revered by the ancients.
Examples abound of oracles divining the fates of wise men and kings. Mighty warriors, Odysseus and Agamemnon would not dare sally forth lest the portents augured in their favor. The balance of chances measured in scattered bones, animal entrails or the position of the firmament still live on in today's folklore. But in most of the Western world, fortune telling has lost its potency — that is, unless the fortune teller happens to be a scientist, pollster or economist.
The invention of science and statistics has replaced old-school fortune telling in very insidious ways. Now, while careful to disclaim — past performance is no guarantee of future results — hucksters of all sorts try to sell us stuff by pointing to long-term trends. In fact, America's current state of economic recession was caused by a confidence born of scientific analysis. Supposedly, we all thought, housing prices would never fall. After all, they had risen steadily for more than 80 years. Very few people alive and relevant today remember the last time when the U.S. housing market went bust. Those people who lost their homes in 1933 are no longer around to deliver any cautionary tales.
So today's fortune tellers — the economists and statisticians — delivered cryptic pronouncements from their isolated Ivy League lairs, declaring it mathematically impossible that we could experience a complete meltdown in the housing markets. Hindsight would reveal that they were all wrong. Everyone, from the oracle at Phila-Delphi, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, to today's Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, not only disavowed the likelihood of a housing-market crash, but actually dismissed the possibility that a downturn in housing would spill over to the broader economy. America bet the house, quite literally, on this turning out to be true. As history would have it, even oracles can be wrong.
Perhaps the problem is that despite the disclaimers, most of us do base future predictions on past events. After all, doesn't it make sense that if something has happened consistently in the past, it is likely to happen consistently in the future? Well, not really.
For a couple of reasons, the past does not equal the future.
First of all, the time periods that we call the past — usually epochs of between five and 500 years, may not be statistically significant enough to draw any real conclusions from. It took millions of years for dinosaurs to die off. It took billions of years for life to evolve on Earth. No 500-year period would have been sufficient to determine what would become of the species. In other words, an observation of home values during the past 80 years — without any other information — cannot possibly be enough information to base one's decision about home values for the next 80 years. Statistics can be very misleading in this way.
The second reason predicting the future often fails is because of what economist and mathematician Nassim Taleb calls the "Black Swan" problem: The inability of statistics to accurately predict improbable events. No statistical model could predict declining housing prices, precisely because there was little, if any data with which to compute such a likelihood. Furthermore, since major events tend to be both rare and highly impactful, statistics is ill-equipped to determine future states of being on a grand scale.
But that's precisely what they're used to do. The problem is not so much that one bets $100 on the one-in-six chance that rolled dice will land on a certain number. It's easy to determine the exact probability in games of chance where the outcomes are constrained. In the real world, the outcomes are varied and often unquantifiable, especially when there are people who manipulate the balance of chances set out to purposefully mislead the masses. It's often those events that change the world.
Perhaps the desire to know why something happened leads to generalities about what may happen in the future. The human mind, it seems, cannot long endure a quandary. It has to make sense of what it encounters. So, historians and scientists observing the past usually concoct a story with a causal element to try and explain why something happened. These causal elements are usually broad and abstract — such as the notion that nationalism was responsible for World War I. Be that as it may. But neither the term "nationalism," nor the possibility of such a large war, were in any way apparent to the would-be participants at the time. In fact, the very invention of the concept was an outcome — not a cause of the war.
But still, when it comes down to the end of the year, many people start making predictions about what will happen in the next year. Basically, those predictions tend to mirror the general mood, or events that have happened in the recent past. It's amazing how many people predicted another terrorist attack in the years following 9/11. It got to a point that almost any act of violence wherever it occurred and for whatever reason was called terrorism. It's similarly the case this year that dire predictions of economic calamity dominate the national psyche. People are playing it safe, hunkering down and fearing the worst. Others see the possibility of renewal, change and growth.
Optimism and pessimism usually stays somewhere in the realm of remembered history. Almost no one predicts that 2011 will be the year when the American empire crumbles and becomes a relic of past glory like Rome and Greece. No one predicts that Europe's current economic woes could spill into America and cause a massive death-spiral in the U.S. economy. Conversely, very few optimists dare dream that 2011 will be the year that America returns to its former glory and becomes the shining beacon of economic success and of freedom it once was. Few believe in the resurgence of a Manifest Destiny.
Either way, it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/03/11
A Window into the soul of the immigration debate
BY: Armstrong Williams
A window into the soul of the immigration debate
I’m sure some of my readers have heard this story, but it is so compelling, I thought I would tell it again. Late last year, a 101 year old woman by the name of Eulalia Garcia-Maturey celebrated a milestone. No, it wasn’t her birthday, though many would eagerly congratulate her on such a feat. Eulalia was marking the century-old anniversary of her crossing into the U.S. from Mexico.
In 1909, the months-old Garcia-Maturey and her mother crossed the border into Brownsville, Texas, looking for a better life. Decades later in 1941, she received a “Certificate of Lawful Entry” card, which was then part of the World War II alien registration laws. Eulalia kept that card through the years, which helped to establish her citizenship in October 2010.
What’s truly awesome about her story is that Eulalia understood what an honor it is to be called a United States citizen. And even though she may have entered this country under questionable means, when the time came, she knew she wanted to make it right and apply for her right to live here legally. Her quote said it all last year: “I want to spend the rest of my days in this life living legally in the United States. I was raised here, and I want to die here.”
What a tremendous example of the mindset that policymakers and current illegals should have when addressing the U.S.’s immigration laws today. No matter what, those who entered this country through any means other than legally should want to do the right thing and apply for residency and/or their citizenship. How many more Eulalia’s are eager to come to this blessed land and leave such a God-fearing legacy for her family and friends, yet they are denied or forced to wait because so many illegal immigrants have clogged our country and prevented a rational solution to such a desperate problem.
America is the greatest nation on earth because of how she welcomed those from foreign lands. But there is a right way and a wrong way to structure the rules by which we let them in. If we are to truly solve this burgeoning problem, we need the attitude that Eulalia Garcia-Maturey exhibited so many decades ago.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A Window into the soul of the immigration debate
BY: Armstrong Williams
A window into the soul of the immigration debate
I’m sure some of my readers have heard this story, but it is so compelling, I thought I would tell it again. Late last year, a 101 year old woman by the name of Eulalia Garcia-Maturey celebrated a milestone. No, it wasn’t her birthday, though many would eagerly congratulate her on such a feat. Eulalia was marking the century-old anniversary of her crossing into the U.S. from Mexico.
In 1909, the months-old Garcia-Maturey and her mother crossed the border into Brownsville, Texas, looking for a better life. Decades later in 1941, she received a “Certificate of Lawful Entry” card, which was then part of the World War II alien registration laws. Eulalia kept that card through the years, which helped to establish her citizenship in October 2010.
What’s truly awesome about her story is that Eulalia understood what an honor it is to be called a United States citizen. And even though she may have entered this country under questionable means, when the time came, she knew she wanted to make it right and apply for her right to live here legally. Her quote said it all last year: “I want to spend the rest of my days in this life living legally in the United States. I was raised here, and I want to die here.”
What a tremendous example of the mindset that policymakers and current illegals should have when addressing the U.S.’s immigration laws today. No matter what, those who entered this country through any means other than legally should want to do the right thing and apply for residency and/or their citizenship. How many more Eulalia’s are eager to come to this blessed land and leave such a God-fearing legacy for her family and friends, yet they are denied or forced to wait because so many illegal immigrants have clogged our country and prevented a rational solution to such a desperate problem.
America is the greatest nation on earth because of how she welcomed those from foreign lands. But there is a right way and a wrong way to structure the rules by which we let them in. If we are to truly solve this burgeoning problem, we need the attitude that Eulalia Garcia-Maturey exhibited so many decades ago.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
01/01/11
Uncertainty is the Mother of Hope
BY: Armstrong Williams
Uncertainty is the Mother of Hope
In 2011 it is important to become better stewards of the many blessings we continuously squander. We must realize that our lives are for a very short time and take the time to appreciate those few moments and the people we share them with. None of us are promised tomorrow and yet we should set something aside for a rainy day. Appreciating the present while preparing for the future is the mark of a well balanced, wise, and thoughtful individual. We must return to the basic virtues upon which this nation was founded. And that is a faith born – not from what was seen (America was not always a world leader) – but for what was hoped for. For many people, 2010 has been fraught with uncertainties – what will happen with your investments and job prospects, and whether the country and the world would get back to business again. For many people, the uncertainty was painful because we have for so long relied upon economic forecasts and the myth of increasing American prosperity. Now, in 2011 we must embrace the uncertainty, for it is what keeps us alert, alive and ready to tackle the road ahead.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Uncertainty is the Mother of Hope
BY: Armstrong Williams
Uncertainty is the Mother of Hope
In 2011 it is important to become better stewards of the many blessings we continuously squander. We must realize that our lives are for a very short time and take the time to appreciate those few moments and the people we share them with. None of us are promised tomorrow and yet we should set something aside for a rainy day. Appreciating the present while preparing for the future is the mark of a well balanced, wise, and thoughtful individual. We must return to the basic virtues upon which this nation was founded. And that is a faith born – not from what was seen (America was not always a world leader) – but for what was hoped for. For many people, 2010 has been fraught with uncertainties – what will happen with your investments and job prospects, and whether the country and the world would get back to business again. For many people, the uncertainty was painful because we have for so long relied upon economic forecasts and the myth of increasing American prosperity. Now, in 2011 we must embrace the uncertainty, for it is what keeps us alert, alive and ready to tackle the road ahead.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/31/10
Obama's Cuba problem
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Cuba problem
As 2010 rapidly closes, I can’t help but notice how the Obama Administration tried to quietly slip past the media and the general public a recent de-classified report on the current status of detainees formerly held at Guantanamo Bay.
You’ll recall then-candidate Obama made it a top priority of his campaign that he would seek to close Gitmo. Then once assuming the office of Commander-in-Chief, someone in the White House had the bone-headed idea that maybe we should charter a plane for these terrorists and try them in a domestic court.
Clearly this administration is not up to speed on the optics of the detainees and how the public relations war has worked against them at every turn.
Released quietly earlier this month, a memo written by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reported that of the former detainees released or transferred to other nations, many have returned to a life of crimes against the world.
Of the close to 600 detainees released to date, 13% are confirmed and another 12% are suspected of “reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities after transfer” according to the report. Nearly one quarter of these prisoners that we know about returned to terrorism. And we need to listen to the White House that they were held without cause or somehow unlawfully? Please.
So what has the Obama White House done with this information? In classic form, they blamed their predecessor for the mess. Yet a closer look at detainees released since Obama took office shows five are either confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorist activities.
If the president’s policies of closing Gitmo, no questions asked, had been implemented, heaven only knows what that could have led to.
The point here is we need to take the bad guys seriously, and recognize that there are those in this world hell-bent on destroying our way of life. You can give these suspects no quarter. They will hide behind any protections they are afforded just to kill innocent humans.
I’m not saying we should compromise our principles and the rule of law. Let’s just be damn sure before we release any more, we know 1) where they are going; and 2) they truly are no longer a threat to the U.S. and her allies.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's Cuba problem
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Cuba problem
As 2010 rapidly closes, I can’t help but notice how the Obama Administration tried to quietly slip past the media and the general public a recent de-classified report on the current status of detainees formerly held at Guantanamo Bay.
You’ll recall then-candidate Obama made it a top priority of his campaign that he would seek to close Gitmo. Then once assuming the office of Commander-in-Chief, someone in the White House had the bone-headed idea that maybe we should charter a plane for these terrorists and try them in a domestic court.
Clearly this administration is not up to speed on the optics of the detainees and how the public relations war has worked against them at every turn.
Released quietly earlier this month, a memo written by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reported that of the former detainees released or transferred to other nations, many have returned to a life of crimes against the world.
Of the close to 600 detainees released to date, 13% are confirmed and another 12% are suspected of “reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities after transfer” according to the report. Nearly one quarter of these prisoners that we know about returned to terrorism. And we need to listen to the White House that they were held without cause or somehow unlawfully? Please.
So what has the Obama White House done with this information? In classic form, they blamed their predecessor for the mess. Yet a closer look at detainees released since Obama took office shows five are either confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorist activities.
If the president’s policies of closing Gitmo, no questions asked, had been implemented, heaven only knows what that could have led to.
The point here is we need to take the bad guys seriously, and recognize that there are those in this world hell-bent on destroying our way of life. You can give these suspects no quarter. They will hide behind any protections they are afforded just to kill innocent humans.
I’m not saying we should compromise our principles and the rule of law. Let’s just be damn sure before we release any more, we know 1) where they are going; and 2) they truly are no longer a threat to the U.S. and her allies.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/29/10
Time to let Homeland Panel run DHS
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to let Homeland Panel run DHS
Incoming House Republican Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has been trailblazing a path for reforms, particularly at the committee levels, denying some who felt it was their “turn” to chair a panel, when clearly they were the wrong choice for the post, then structuring them with an eye toward true bipartisan input.
Yet there is one committee that continues to be hamstrung by jurisdictional politics and old habits that die hard. I’m referring to the Homeland Security Committee and the simple fact that it must share jurisdictional control over the Department.
Even before the panel was created – and in the wake of the 9/11 attacks – it was clear Congress needed to exert its oversight powers over a mammoth new department being created by the Bush Administration. Yet old dogs of the House and Senate refused to give up the powers they exerted over the newly-created panel that merged over 40 different agency functions such as the Coast Guard, FEMA, airport security, customs and border protections.
What has occurred in the aftermath of such wrangling is a patchwork of requests from various chairmen and members of random committees to the Department that it’s almost paralyzed from so many congressional requests. Of course, it’s not as bad as when the agency was first created, yet talking with officials on the inside, many still spend day after day running down various congressional inquiries, some duplicative and a waste of time.
Moving all of these functions under the Homeland Security panels in the Congress takes leadership and courage – something both John Boehner and Harry Reid have plenty of. Yes, feathers will be ruffled, but isn’t it worth it in the name of streamlining processes and efficient behaviors?
Do we really need to stroke more congressional egos simply because someone may be losing a bit of power if the country as a whole benefits?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Time to let Homeland Panel run DHS
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to let Homeland Panel run DHS
Incoming House Republican Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has been trailblazing a path for reforms, particularly at the committee levels, denying some who felt it was their “turn” to chair a panel, when clearly they were the wrong choice for the post, then structuring them with an eye toward true bipartisan input.
Yet there is one committee that continues to be hamstrung by jurisdictional politics and old habits that die hard. I’m referring to the Homeland Security Committee and the simple fact that it must share jurisdictional control over the Department.
Even before the panel was created – and in the wake of the 9/11 attacks – it was clear Congress needed to exert its oversight powers over a mammoth new department being created by the Bush Administration. Yet old dogs of the House and Senate refused to give up the powers they exerted over the newly-created panel that merged over 40 different agency functions such as the Coast Guard, FEMA, airport security, customs and border protections.
What has occurred in the aftermath of such wrangling is a patchwork of requests from various chairmen and members of random committees to the Department that it’s almost paralyzed from so many congressional requests. Of course, it’s not as bad as when the agency was first created, yet talking with officials on the inside, many still spend day after day running down various congressional inquiries, some duplicative and a waste of time.
Moving all of these functions under the Homeland Security panels in the Congress takes leadership and courage – something both John Boehner and Harry Reid have plenty of. Yes, feathers will be ruffled, but isn’t it worth it in the name of streamlining processes and efficient behaviors?
Do we really need to stroke more congressional egos simply because someone may be losing a bit of power if the country as a whole benefits?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/28/10
Economic Forecast - 2011 the Year of the U.S.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Economic Forecast – 2011 the Year of the U.S.
Jim O’Neill is a smart fella. The head of Goldman Sachs’s Asset Management division has made the company and investors hundreds of millions through his savvy predictions of market movement through the years. Now his colleagues are hoping O’Neill can do what no politician or Fed chairman has been able to in recent months – successfully call the end of this numbing recession.
That’s a tall order, especially given what’s been tried in recent months. The stimulus all but failed us, and piled on further debt. Bank bailouts only seemed to help the banks – as the financial institutions are hoarding their cash in hopes of brighter outlooks. It seems there is plenty of pent up horsepower ready to unleash on this economy, but no one entity seems willing to take the first step.
Either way, O’Neill is bullish on 2011, saying recently the new year “[W]ill be the beginning of a new era in which the U.S. has strong GDP growth.” He bases this on increased exports among other things. And if the U.S. can get serious about its trade policies, then perhaps they will be the catalyst for growth on the world stage.
I’m worried, however, about the employment rate. This is quickly shaping up to be a jobless recovery, and the U.S. cannot afford to have another economic rebound where Americans don’t benefit and unemployment remains above 9 percent, even if GDP spikes at 4% as economists are now predicting.
Regardless, the best long-term remedy for this nation’s woes is debt reduction. We cannot spend our way to prosperity. In the same vein, we cannot continue to borrow 41 cents of every dollar our federal government spends and not believe there will be consequences.
So I hope Jim O’Neill is accurate in his predictions for 2011 as the “Year of the U.S.” But if we want the next decade to be similarly successful, then we must begin a commitment to austerity, Republican and Democrat alike.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Economic Forecast - 2011 the Year of the U.S.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Economic Forecast – 2011 the Year of the U.S.
Jim O’Neill is a smart fella. The head of Goldman Sachs’s Asset Management division has made the company and investors hundreds of millions through his savvy predictions of market movement through the years. Now his colleagues are hoping O’Neill can do what no politician or Fed chairman has been able to in recent months – successfully call the end of this numbing recession.
That’s a tall order, especially given what’s been tried in recent months. The stimulus all but failed us, and piled on further debt. Bank bailouts only seemed to help the banks – as the financial institutions are hoarding their cash in hopes of brighter outlooks. It seems there is plenty of pent up horsepower ready to unleash on this economy, but no one entity seems willing to take the first step.
Either way, O’Neill is bullish on 2011, saying recently the new year “[W]ill be the beginning of a new era in which the U.S. has strong GDP growth.” He bases this on increased exports among other things. And if the U.S. can get serious about its trade policies, then perhaps they will be the catalyst for growth on the world stage.
I’m worried, however, about the employment rate. This is quickly shaping up to be a jobless recovery, and the U.S. cannot afford to have another economic rebound where Americans don’t benefit and unemployment remains above 9 percent, even if GDP spikes at 4% as economists are now predicting.
Regardless, the best long-term remedy for this nation’s woes is debt reduction. We cannot spend our way to prosperity. In the same vein, we cannot continue to borrow 41 cents of every dollar our federal government spends and not believe there will be consequences.
So I hope Jim O’Neill is accurate in his predictions for 2011 as the “Year of the U.S.” But if we want the next decade to be similarly successful, then we must begin a commitment to austerity, Republican and Democrat alike.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/27/10
It's a 'race to bottom' among airlines
Considering how much I travel abroad and domestically, I'm actually surprised how much I hate and resent the thought of flying.
It's not the fear of heights, or the turbulence, or even the perpetual fear of a terrorist attack. No, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the airlines. Also, the utter agony and different standards for every airport of what can and can't pass through security screening is baffling.
Think about it. Every major industry today is progressing. Auto manufacturers are building cars with better fuel economies, more room, more horsepower and with fewer emissions. The same holds true for consumer electronics, power companies, phone carriers, freight rail and trucking. Even the Postal Service seems to be trending in the right direction. Except the airlines.
If you don't believe me, just ask yourself when was the last time you boarded a flight that wasn't full to the gills? When did you actually have room in the overhead compartment to store your belongings? When do you last recall getting a meal or a cup of coffee without having to hand the flight attendant a major credit card? The seats are smaller, more uncomfortable, certainly more dirty than they have ever been. Smell that foul stench coming from the back of the plane? It'll pass. Want a blanket? That's $5, please. Want to watch TV? Another $5, please. What's next, a coin-operated toilet?
For example, I honestly cannot name one colleague of mine who, when forced to travel to New York, doesn't opt for Amtrak over a flight into LaGuardia. In fact, I've flown to New York only twice from D.C. since 9/11, and the Acela train is my only mode of transportation to and from the Big Apple. The Acela is truly a rare gift from heaven and Earth when you think hard and long about future travel plans.
To add insult to injury, major air carriers either don't seem to notice the plight of travelers or don't seem to care. What they care most about is fleecing your wallet for the cost of your airline ticket.
There was a time when, if a plane were parked on the tarmac for hours at a time, the local news would interview passengers coming off the plane complaining, and the airlines would be forced to run commercials pledging new commitments, such as a passenger bill of rights. Today, they don't even get so much as a meal voucher.
When oil spiked at more than $155 per barrel years ago, airlines were first in line to complain they were going under if they couldn't increase fares. They added surcharges for baggage to help defray the costs of the additional fuel. Today, oil is hovering around half the price of its all-time highs. Are the baggage fees gone? Heck, no. In fact, they're now charging more.
Recently AOL's travel section had this to say about the airlines and their hidden fees and charges. "If you have flown any time over the last few years, it should come as no shock that most airlines are now charging for checked baggage, extra legroom, early boarding, and even in-flight food. But what you may not know is airlines are now considering flying during the holidays a privilege, and have instituted a surcharge for traveling on peak days. This 'premium' fee of $10 to $30 is added to the cost of your ticket if you fly throughout much of December and the beginning of January. Be wary of deceptively cheap fares, as these tickets are often driven up by add-on fees for holiday air travel."
At a time when most sectors are offering consumers their own "stimulus" packages to incentivize sales, the airlines have gone the other way. They ground planes and take them out of commission, limiting seats, artificially decreasing supply and driving prices up. Flights are routinely (and intentionally) overbooked, with flyers now receiving empty apologies followed by emotionless comments of "There's nothing I can really do."
Signs now warn, "Doors close promptly 10 minutes before takeoff" so carriers can cancel seat assignments for confirmed passengers and offer them to standby passengers. At the same time, flight delays are at near-record highs, with average lapses inching toward hours, not minutes.
I recently took a cross-country flight. I was tired, hungry and bored. When I tried to find some solace in even a movie (a staple of major carriers on flights longer than say, 2 1/2 hours), it was as if I had asked the flight attendant to do a cartwheel down the middle of the aisle. Her reply was the same, "We stopped doing that." No explanation. No apology. Just a "deal with it" look on her face that made me feel as if I had asked for a lap dance.
I won't name the airline because it doesn't matter. They all seem to be the same. Come to think of it, have you noticed that all the airlines seem to have adopted their own "race to the bottom"? When one executive was recently asked why they no longer serve creature comforts such as a cookie or a second pass of the beverage cart, his response was, "Because no one else is."
That, my friends, is the sign of collusion, pure and simple. How can an industry purport to serve its customers when it's constantly looking for a way to stiff them? Are their margins so short they can't offer more than one bag of pretzels? I don't believe that, because if it were true, they wouldn't be in the airline business. Those executives would be in the pretzel business, where pennies on the dollar signal boon times.
Part of me can't help but blame regulators for this mess. There are so many obstacles to entry in the domestic carrier industry. And when one airline seems to get a foothold, they're quickly squashed by the competition, either as a result of predetermined hubs and flights or because the sector is both cash and capital intensive. What results is the opposite - major mergers of airlines that threaten to consolidate power (and oligopolistic behavior) even further. Or worse, bankruptcies that let carriers restructure and return, with even less incentive to cater to customers.
Maybe I'm just complaining. I haven't really offered statistics or any economic models to support my claims. But do I really need to? I still take flights that make a refugee camp look like Club Med in terms of seating. I still have to pay resort-style prices for quickie-mart quality food. And I still feel like I'm taken to the cleaners every time I purchase a ticket to a destination that requires me to actually carry a change of clothes.
- "The Armstrong Williams Show" is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/ arightside.
It's a 'race to bottom' among airlines
Considering how much I travel abroad and domestically, I'm actually surprised how much I hate and resent the thought of flying.
It's not the fear of heights, or the turbulence, or even the perpetual fear of a terrorist attack. No, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the airlines. Also, the utter agony and different standards for every airport of what can and can't pass through security screening is baffling.
Think about it. Every major industry today is progressing. Auto manufacturers are building cars with better fuel economies, more room, more horsepower and with fewer emissions. The same holds true for consumer electronics, power companies, phone carriers, freight rail and trucking. Even the Postal Service seems to be trending in the right direction. Except the airlines.
If you don't believe me, just ask yourself when was the last time you boarded a flight that wasn't full to the gills? When did you actually have room in the overhead compartment to store your belongings? When do you last recall getting a meal or a cup of coffee without having to hand the flight attendant a major credit card? The seats are smaller, more uncomfortable, certainly more dirty than they have ever been. Smell that foul stench coming from the back of the plane? It'll pass. Want a blanket? That's $5, please. Want to watch TV? Another $5, please. What's next, a coin-operated toilet?
For example, I honestly cannot name one colleague of mine who, when forced to travel to New York, doesn't opt for Amtrak over a flight into LaGuardia. In fact, I've flown to New York only twice from D.C. since 9/11, and the Acela train is my only mode of transportation to and from the Big Apple. The Acela is truly a rare gift from heaven and Earth when you think hard and long about future travel plans.
To add insult to injury, major air carriers either don't seem to notice the plight of travelers or don't seem to care. What they care most about is fleecing your wallet for the cost of your airline ticket.
There was a time when, if a plane were parked on the tarmac for hours at a time, the local news would interview passengers coming off the plane complaining, and the airlines would be forced to run commercials pledging new commitments, such as a passenger bill of rights. Today, they don't even get so much as a meal voucher.
When oil spiked at more than $155 per barrel years ago, airlines were first in line to complain they were going under if they couldn't increase fares. They added surcharges for baggage to help defray the costs of the additional fuel. Today, oil is hovering around half the price of its all-time highs. Are the baggage fees gone? Heck, no. In fact, they're now charging more.
Recently AOL's travel section had this to say about the airlines and their hidden fees and charges. "If you have flown any time over the last few years, it should come as no shock that most airlines are now charging for checked baggage, extra legroom, early boarding, and even in-flight food. But what you may not know is airlines are now considering flying during the holidays a privilege, and have instituted a surcharge for traveling on peak days. This 'premium' fee of $10 to $30 is added to the cost of your ticket if you fly throughout much of December and the beginning of January. Be wary of deceptively cheap fares, as these tickets are often driven up by add-on fees for holiday air travel."
At a time when most sectors are offering consumers their own "stimulus" packages to incentivize sales, the airlines have gone the other way. They ground planes and take them out of commission, limiting seats, artificially decreasing supply and driving prices up. Flights are routinely (and intentionally) overbooked, with flyers now receiving empty apologies followed by emotionless comments of "There's nothing I can really do."
Signs now warn, "Doors close promptly 10 minutes before takeoff" so carriers can cancel seat assignments for confirmed passengers and offer them to standby passengers. At the same time, flight delays are at near-record highs, with average lapses inching toward hours, not minutes.
I recently took a cross-country flight. I was tired, hungry and bored. When I tried to find some solace in even a movie (a staple of major carriers on flights longer than say, 2 1/2 hours), it was as if I had asked the flight attendant to do a cartwheel down the middle of the aisle. Her reply was the same, "We stopped doing that." No explanation. No apology. Just a "deal with it" look on her face that made me feel as if I had asked for a lap dance.
I won't name the airline because it doesn't matter. They all seem to be the same. Come to think of it, have you noticed that all the airlines seem to have adopted their own "race to the bottom"? When one executive was recently asked why they no longer serve creature comforts such as a cookie or a second pass of the beverage cart, his response was, "Because no one else is."
That, my friends, is the sign of collusion, pure and simple. How can an industry purport to serve its customers when it's constantly looking for a way to stiff them? Are their margins so short they can't offer more than one bag of pretzels? I don't believe that, because if it were true, they wouldn't be in the airline business. Those executives would be in the pretzel business, where pennies on the dollar signal boon times.
Part of me can't help but blame regulators for this mess. There are so many obstacles to entry in the domestic carrier industry. And when one airline seems to get a foothold, they're quickly squashed by the competition, either as a result of predetermined hubs and flights or because the sector is both cash and capital intensive. What results is the opposite - major mergers of airlines that threaten to consolidate power (and oligopolistic behavior) even further. Or worse, bankruptcies that let carriers restructure and return, with even less incentive to cater to customers.
Maybe I'm just complaining. I haven't really offered statistics or any economic models to support my claims. But do I really need to? I still take flights that make a refugee camp look like Club Med in terms of seating. I still have to pay resort-style prices for quickie-mart quality food. And I still feel like I'm taken to the cleaners every time I purchase a ticket to a destination that requires me to actually carry a change of clothes.
- "The Armstrong Williams Show" is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/ arightside.
12/22/10
Oracles can be wrong
BY: Armstrong Williams
Oracles can be wrong.
Well between now and the close of the year all of our intellectual and insightful prognosticators will once again share their fortune telling for 2011 and the coming future. Prepare yourself for their social, economic, and global well thought out predictions for our nation and abroad.
The invention of science and statistics has replaced old-school fortune telling in very insidious ways. Now, while careful to disclaim – past performance is no guarantee of future results – hucksters of all sorts try to sell us stuff by pointing to long term trends. In fact, America’s current state of economic recession was caused by a confidence born of scientific analysis. Supposedly, we all believed, housing prices would never fall. After all, they had risen steadily for over eighty years. Very few people alive and relevant today remembered the last time when the U.S. housing market went bust. Those people who lost their homes in 1933 are no longer around to delivery any cautionary tales.
So today’s fortune tellers – the economists and statisticians – delivered cryptic pronouncements from their isolated Ivy League lairs, declaring it mathematically impossible that we could experience a complete meltdown in the housing markets. Hindsight would reveal that they were all wrong. Everyone, from the oracle at Phyla-Delphi, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to today’s Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke not only disavowed the likelihood of a housing market crash, but actually dismissed the possibility that a downturn in housing would spill over to the broader economy. America bet the house, quite literally, on this turning out to be true. But everyone knows now that it didn’t. Even Oracles can be wrong.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Oracles can be wrong
BY: Armstrong Williams
Oracles can be wrong.
Well between now and the close of the year all of our intellectual and insightful prognosticators will once again share their fortune telling for 2011 and the coming future. Prepare yourself for their social, economic, and global well thought out predictions for our nation and abroad.
The invention of science and statistics has replaced old-school fortune telling in very insidious ways. Now, while careful to disclaim – past performance is no guarantee of future results – hucksters of all sorts try to sell us stuff by pointing to long term trends. In fact, America’s current state of economic recession was caused by a confidence born of scientific analysis. Supposedly, we all believed, housing prices would never fall. After all, they had risen steadily for over eighty years. Very few people alive and relevant today remembered the last time when the U.S. housing market went bust. Those people who lost their homes in 1933 are no longer around to delivery any cautionary tales.
So today’s fortune tellers – the economists and statisticians – delivered cryptic pronouncements from their isolated Ivy League lairs, declaring it mathematically impossible that we could experience a complete meltdown in the housing markets. Hindsight would reveal that they were all wrong. Everyone, from the oracle at Phyla-Delphi, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to today’s Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke not only disavowed the likelihood of a housing market crash, but actually dismissed the possibility that a downturn in housing would spill over to the broader economy. America bet the house, quite literally, on this turning out to be true. But everyone knows now that it didn’t. Even Oracles can be wrong.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/21/10
The Shameless assault on Christianity
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Unapologetic Assault on Christianity
We're losing the Christian foundations of this country, and people of faith are letting it happen. It's time for us to take a page from the Tea Party, but instead of taking our government back, we need to take our culture back.
Don't misunderstand me: America is a diverse country, and that's one of our strengths. I'm not denying that at all. However, America was founded on Christian principles; it's part of our national identity. If you go to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, you understand that the culture is based on Islamic principles, and you need to respect that as a visitor. Likewise, when you go to Mexico, you know that the national language is Spanish, and you need to speak it if you want to communicate. Those nations aren't expected to undermine their own foundations just to accommodate other people, so why are non-Christians demanding that of America? Why are we always accommodating?
When I speak to my Jewish and Muslim friends, they don't have a problem with nativity scenes or being wished "Merry Christmas" in stores. They understand that it's part of the culture and isn't a matter of discrimination. Why is it, then, that in the United States, the only people you can discriminate against are Christians? You can say whatever you want if you're Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or atheist. You can put up displays with menorahs, or stick atheist posters on subway walls or the sides of buses. But if you wish someone "Merry Christmas," or dare to display a nativity scene in a public place, you're violating the all-holy law of diversity.
Christianity is being punished in the very country it should be thriving. It has become an outcast in the land it created. American Christians are tolerant and forgiving. We don't punish people for their individual creeds or cultures. But like every other country, we need to protect our foundational identity -- after all, that's what has allowed the United States to be the tolerant place that it is.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Shameless assault on Christianity
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Unapologetic Assault on Christianity
We're losing the Christian foundations of this country, and people of faith are letting it happen. It's time for us to take a page from the Tea Party, but instead of taking our government back, we need to take our culture back.
Don't misunderstand me: America is a diverse country, and that's one of our strengths. I'm not denying that at all. However, America was founded on Christian principles; it's part of our national identity. If you go to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, you understand that the culture is based on Islamic principles, and you need to respect that as a visitor. Likewise, when you go to Mexico, you know that the national language is Spanish, and you need to speak it if you want to communicate. Those nations aren't expected to undermine their own foundations just to accommodate other people, so why are non-Christians demanding that of America? Why are we always accommodating?
When I speak to my Jewish and Muslim friends, they don't have a problem with nativity scenes or being wished "Merry Christmas" in stores. They understand that it's part of the culture and isn't a matter of discrimination. Why is it, then, that in the United States, the only people you can discriminate against are Christians? You can say whatever you want if you're Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or atheist. You can put up displays with menorahs, or stick atheist posters on subway walls or the sides of buses. But if you wish someone "Merry Christmas," or dare to display a nativity scene in a public place, you're violating the all-holy law of diversity.
Christianity is being punished in the very country it should be thriving. It has become an outcast in the land it created. American Christians are tolerant and forgiving. We don't punish people for their individual creeds or cultures. But like every other country, we need to protect our foundational identity -- after all, that's what has allowed the United States to be the tolerant place that it is.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/20/10
Finding Fiscal Religion
BY: Armstrong Williams
Finding Fiscal Religion
Now that the expiring Bush tax cuts have been extended another two years, it’s an interesting exercise to return to the debate and analyze some of the reasons given for not supporting the measure.
Democrats proffered the usual class warfare lines, but not many paid attention to them. Republicans, sensing they claimed the high ground on the overall argument it’s not wise to raise taxes on anyone during these harsh economic times, simply ignored them.
Yet one Republican from the beginning vowed to oppose extension of the cuts – Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). You have to admire such stalwart views. But the reasons he gave ring hollow at this point in his career. You see, Sen. Voinovich is retiring, and after years of supporting – either tacitly or directly – bloated bills and more spending, he is now worried about mortgaging his grandchildren’s futures.
When announcing his opposition, the Ohio member told an event sponsored by the Aspen Institute that he fears so much for the fiscal health of this nation. “As I look at my experience, I believe that if this thing goes through and we extend it, we will kick this thing down the road…It’s completely irresponsible,” said Voinovich.
That “thing” he’s referring to must be our federal debt, and believe me, it’s more than a thing – it’s a full-blown monster.
And yet while I can’t help but to admire Sen. Voinovich’s profile in courage, I find myself wishing and asking, “Where was this bravery when he was a fully engaged, active member of the U.S. Senate?” Why now, when he’s unencumbered with worries of re-election, or retaliation from his party leadership, does George Voinovich decide to stand up and speak his mind for fiscal sanity?
Listen, I’m not here to bash the good Senator from Ohio. His heart is in the right place. But a word of advice to incoming members of Congress – you affix your place in history not by lamenting what you “should” have done, but rather you make the most difference when you seize the moment and when your voice – as lonely as it may be – counts the most.
Finding fiscal religion only after the tough decisions have been made, and you were silent on the sidelines, will not be recognized in the celestial heavens. Senators and members alike must be willing to make the tough choices in the heat of the moment. Sad to say, those decisions will be even worse in the coming years. They won’t simply be “difficult.” We have long past that threshold. No, they will be excruciating.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Finding Fiscal Religion
BY: Armstrong Williams
Finding Fiscal Religion
Now that the expiring Bush tax cuts have been extended another two years, it’s an interesting exercise to return to the debate and analyze some of the reasons given for not supporting the measure.
Democrats proffered the usual class warfare lines, but not many paid attention to them. Republicans, sensing they claimed the high ground on the overall argument it’s not wise to raise taxes on anyone during these harsh economic times, simply ignored them.
Yet one Republican from the beginning vowed to oppose extension of the cuts – Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). You have to admire such stalwart views. But the reasons he gave ring hollow at this point in his career. You see, Sen. Voinovich is retiring, and after years of supporting – either tacitly or directly – bloated bills and more spending, he is now worried about mortgaging his grandchildren’s futures.
When announcing his opposition, the Ohio member told an event sponsored by the Aspen Institute that he fears so much for the fiscal health of this nation. “As I look at my experience, I believe that if this thing goes through and we extend it, we will kick this thing down the road…It’s completely irresponsible,” said Voinovich.
That “thing” he’s referring to must be our federal debt, and believe me, it’s more than a thing – it’s a full-blown monster.
And yet while I can’t help but to admire Sen. Voinovich’s profile in courage, I find myself wishing and asking, “Where was this bravery when he was a fully engaged, active member of the U.S. Senate?” Why now, when he’s unencumbered with worries of re-election, or retaliation from his party leadership, does George Voinovich decide to stand up and speak his mind for fiscal sanity?
Listen, I’m not here to bash the good Senator from Ohio. His heart is in the right place. But a word of advice to incoming members of Congress – you affix your place in history not by lamenting what you “should” have done, but rather you make the most difference when you seize the moment and when your voice – as lonely as it may be – counts the most.
Finding fiscal religion only after the tough decisions have been made, and you were silent on the sidelines, will not be recognized in the celestial heavens. Senators and members alike must be willing to make the tough choices in the heat of the moment. Sad to say, those decisions will be even worse in the coming years. They won’t simply be “difficult.” We have long past that threshold. No, they will be excruciating.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/19/10
When not to turn the other cheek
One of the most effective ways to overturn a culture is not to take it on directly, but to undermine it gradually. If you carry out a full frontal assault on majority opinion, people become alarmed and fight back. But when you do it slowly, step by step, you can make your destruction look harmless ... even reasonable.
That's exactly what's happening in this country.
For the past half-century, there has been a slow but unrelenting attack on the Christian foundations of the United States. The evidence is beyond dispute. First, secularists took prayer out of the public schools because it "promoted religion and alienated nonbelieving children." Even a simple moment of silence was too threatening.
Then they wanted the study of the Bible taken out of schools because that "promoted Christianity." Never mind that the Scriptures form the basis of Western civilization and thought, and have inspired believers and nonbelievers alike over the centuries. Try reading Shakespeare or Dante or Robert Frost or just about any of the classics of Western literature without some familiarity with the Bible, and you'll be lost.
Of course, public monuments listing the Ten Commandments had to go, too, because displaying the moral foundation of Western law somehow endorsed Judeo-Christian religion. In 2003, Roy Moore lost his post as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove one such monument from the state courthouse.
That wasn't the only display nonbelievers wanted gone. Every year, there are fewer nativity scenes on display in places where they've been seen and appreciated for years. Recently, the New Jersey Department of Transportation removed a nativity scene from the St. George Ferry Terminal. They let a Christmas tree and a menorah remain, with one clueless city representative claiming a menorah isn't a religious symbol (he might want to take a look at Exodus 25:31-40).
Popular Christian symbols are a tempting target, and the attack on them reveals another technique of the secularist subversive: If you have trouble getting rid of a particular religious symbol or idea - the Christmas Nativity or the Easter Resurrection, for example - replace it with something harmless and comical. That's why the traditional story of Christmas has been replaced with Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and toy-making elves.
Nonbelievers want the season to be about toys and not Jesus. The same thing is true of Easter - the most important holiday on the Christian calendar - which is now more associated in the public mind with an oversized rabbit and decorated eggs and candy. He might as well be the Tooth Fairy. What secularists can't immediately destroy, they undermine with silly characters and distracting commercialism.
Nonbelievers have even targeted our language. If you go into a CVS Pharmacy, or a Barnes & Noble, or a Radio Shack, or a Staples (or many others) this Christmas season, you're going to be wished "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." The stores claim this change is being carried out in the name of diversity. After all, you wouldn't want to offend a Muslim by wishing him a merry Christmas. (Try using that same argument to ban "Happy Ramadan" in Saudi Arabia.) According to the American Family Association, a Staples representative actually explained the policy by saying, "We use the term 'Happy holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.' We do this because it does not offend any other religions and to remain politically correct."
The nonsense won't stop there. Atheists and agnostics have made their next target pretty clear: They want to take God out of the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Those calls have been resisted so far, but if things continue as they are, they'll eventually succeed. Enough!
We're losing the Christian foundations of this country, and people of faith are letting it happen. It's time for us to take a page from the "tea party," but instead of taking our government back, we need to take our culture back.
Don't misunderstand me: America is a diverse country, and that's one of our strengths. I'm not denying that at all. However, America was founded on Christian principles; it's part of our national identity. If you go to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, you understand that the culture is based on Islamic principles, and you need to respect that as a visitor. Likewise, when you go to Mexico, you know that the national language is Spanish, and you need to speak it if you want to communicate. Those nations aren't expected to undermine their own foundations just to accommodate other people, so why are non-Christians demanding that of America? Why are we always accommodating?
When I speak to my Jewish and Muslim friends, they don't have a problem with nativity scenes or being wished "Merry Christmas" in stores. They understand that it's part of the culture and isn't a matter of discrimination. Why is it, then, that in the United States, the only people you can discriminate against are Christians? You can say whatever you want if you're Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or atheist. You can put up displays with menorahs, or stick atheist posters on subway walls or the sides of buses. But if you wish someone "Merry Christmas," or dare to display a nativity scene in a public place, you're violating the all-holy law of diversity.
Christianity is being punished in the very country it should be thriving. It has become an outcast in the land it created. American Christians are tolerant and forgiving. We don't punish people for their individual creeds or cultures. But like every other country, we need to protect our foundational identity. After all, that's what has allowed the United States to be the tolerant place that it is.
If you knock out those supports, the entire cultural house comes tumbling down. And that's exactly what secularists want. Their real target isn't Christmas, or crosses, or nativity scenes - it's the moral code that undergirds them. As Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, "Without God, all things are permitted." Secularists are banking on the truth of that.
Unless we change paths, our future isn't hard to predict. The secularist minority will continue to undermine the Christian majority until its positions are reversed. And then we'll see that the tolerance nonbelievers have been screaming about was nothing more than a ruse to seize control of the country and overturn a moral tradition they hate.
It's time for Christians to fight back. We have to stand up for our national values and for what it traditionally means to be an American. When someone tries to marginalize our faith, we need to respond. When a company ignores the Christianity of the majority of its customers by replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy holidays," we should stop patronizing that store. And if a city government decides to remove a nativity scene from public display, those responsible should be voted out at the next opportunity. If you attack me personally, my Christian faith bids me to turn the other cheek. But if you attack the Christian faith itself, get ready for a fight.
- "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/ @arightside.
When not to turn the other cheek
One of the most effective ways to overturn a culture is not to take it on directly, but to undermine it gradually. If you carry out a full frontal assault on majority opinion, people become alarmed and fight back. But when you do it slowly, step by step, you can make your destruction look harmless ... even reasonable.
That's exactly what's happening in this country.
For the past half-century, there has been a slow but unrelenting attack on the Christian foundations of the United States. The evidence is beyond dispute. First, secularists took prayer out of the public schools because it "promoted religion and alienated nonbelieving children." Even a simple moment of silence was too threatening.
Then they wanted the study of the Bible taken out of schools because that "promoted Christianity." Never mind that the Scriptures form the basis of Western civilization and thought, and have inspired believers and nonbelievers alike over the centuries. Try reading Shakespeare or Dante or Robert Frost or just about any of the classics of Western literature without some familiarity with the Bible, and you'll be lost.
Of course, public monuments listing the Ten Commandments had to go, too, because displaying the moral foundation of Western law somehow endorsed Judeo-Christian religion. In 2003, Roy Moore lost his post as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove one such monument from the state courthouse.
That wasn't the only display nonbelievers wanted gone. Every year, there are fewer nativity scenes on display in places where they've been seen and appreciated for years. Recently, the New Jersey Department of Transportation removed a nativity scene from the St. George Ferry Terminal. They let a Christmas tree and a menorah remain, with one clueless city representative claiming a menorah isn't a religious symbol (he might want to take a look at Exodus 25:31-40).
Popular Christian symbols are a tempting target, and the attack on them reveals another technique of the secularist subversive: If you have trouble getting rid of a particular religious symbol or idea - the Christmas Nativity or the Easter Resurrection, for example - replace it with something harmless and comical. That's why the traditional story of Christmas has been replaced with Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and toy-making elves.
Nonbelievers want the season to be about toys and not Jesus. The same thing is true of Easter - the most important holiday on the Christian calendar - which is now more associated in the public mind with an oversized rabbit and decorated eggs and candy. He might as well be the Tooth Fairy. What secularists can't immediately destroy, they undermine with silly characters and distracting commercialism.
Nonbelievers have even targeted our language. If you go into a CVS Pharmacy, or a Barnes & Noble, or a Radio Shack, or a Staples (or many others) this Christmas season, you're going to be wished "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." The stores claim this change is being carried out in the name of diversity. After all, you wouldn't want to offend a Muslim by wishing him a merry Christmas. (Try using that same argument to ban "Happy Ramadan" in Saudi Arabia.) According to the American Family Association, a Staples representative actually explained the policy by saying, "We use the term 'Happy holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.' We do this because it does not offend any other religions and to remain politically correct."
The nonsense won't stop there. Atheists and agnostics have made their next target pretty clear: They want to take God out of the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Those calls have been resisted so far, but if things continue as they are, they'll eventually succeed. Enough!
We're losing the Christian foundations of this country, and people of faith are letting it happen. It's time for us to take a page from the "tea party," but instead of taking our government back, we need to take our culture back.
Don't misunderstand me: America is a diverse country, and that's one of our strengths. I'm not denying that at all. However, America was founded on Christian principles; it's part of our national identity. If you go to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, you understand that the culture is based on Islamic principles, and you need to respect that as a visitor. Likewise, when you go to Mexico, you know that the national language is Spanish, and you need to speak it if you want to communicate. Those nations aren't expected to undermine their own foundations just to accommodate other people, so why are non-Christians demanding that of America? Why are we always accommodating?
When I speak to my Jewish and Muslim friends, they don't have a problem with nativity scenes or being wished "Merry Christmas" in stores. They understand that it's part of the culture and isn't a matter of discrimination. Why is it, then, that in the United States, the only people you can discriminate against are Christians? You can say whatever you want if you're Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or atheist. You can put up displays with menorahs, or stick atheist posters on subway walls or the sides of buses. But if you wish someone "Merry Christmas," or dare to display a nativity scene in a public place, you're violating the all-holy law of diversity.
Christianity is being punished in the very country it should be thriving. It has become an outcast in the land it created. American Christians are tolerant and forgiving. We don't punish people for their individual creeds or cultures. But like every other country, we need to protect our foundational identity. After all, that's what has allowed the United States to be the tolerant place that it is.
If you knock out those supports, the entire cultural house comes tumbling down. And that's exactly what secularists want. Their real target isn't Christmas, or crosses, or nativity scenes - it's the moral code that undergirds them. As Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, "Without God, all things are permitted." Secularists are banking on the truth of that.
Unless we change paths, our future isn't hard to predict. The secularist minority will continue to undermine the Christian majority until its positions are reversed. And then we'll see that the tolerance nonbelievers have been screaming about was nothing more than a ruse to seize control of the country and overturn a moral tradition they hate.
It's time for Christians to fight back. We have to stand up for our national values and for what it traditionally means to be an American. When someone tries to marginalize our faith, we need to respond. When a company ignores the Christianity of the majority of its customers by replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy holidays," we should stop patronizing that store. And if a city government decides to remove a nativity scene from public display, those responsible should be voted out at the next opportunity. If you attack me personally, my Christian faith bids me to turn the other cheek. But if you attack the Christian faith itself, get ready for a fight.
- "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/ @arightside.
12/17/10
The Man who Just Won't Quit
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Man who Just Won't Quit
It appears Michael Steele has many pseudonyms - many can't be repeated on this G-friendly page. But the one that seems to repeatedly stand out is The Man Who Just Won't Quit.
Earlier this week, Steele shocked much of political Washington when he called an audible and, instead of gracefully bowing out of his stained chairmanship of the RNC, while touting his good success, he declared he would run again for the post.
Here we go again.
How can a marvelous face for the new Republican Party of the 21st Century, one who narrowly lost a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland, fall from grace so far and so quickly?
By any standard, Steele's tenure has been a sterling success and an embarrassment to the party, and I daresay, a mix bag to the country. Instead of challenging the President and his allies from a powerful perch, he complained to the media he wasn't getting enough credit for all the wins he helped secure. At the same time, he was watching hundreds of thousands go out the RNC front door because he had alienated so many big donors.
A few months ago, even members of the RNC doubted they could mount a successful campaign against Steele. There was still power in the color of his skin and his moments of brilliance. Republicans would appear as though they were "turning back the clock" by ousting such a public face for the party, and one of color to boot. What foolish thinking. When will the Republicans - or even Democrats for that matter (see: Charlie Rangel) - realize that actions matter, and one doesn't get a free pass just because they are minority? Get rid of someone like Steele because they are terrible in their jobs, not because they may alienate a voting bloc that walked away long ago. One man did not push the black vote away, and Michael Steele cannot certainly bring the American Black voter to Republican folds.
There was a time when Steele would be heralded for his never-say-die attitude -- for his tenacity to keep on fighting, even in the face of extreme odds. That was a Michael Steele who no one wanted to throw in the towel. But that was then, and this is now. Today, for the sake of his party and his own self-esteem, the man must seriously consider gracefully quitting his esteem Post as Chairman of the GOP.
-
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Man who Just Won't Quit
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Man who Just Won't Quit
It appears Michael Steele has many pseudonyms - many can't be repeated on this G-friendly page. But the one that seems to repeatedly stand out is The Man Who Just Won't Quit.
Earlier this week, Steele shocked much of political Washington when he called an audible and, instead of gracefully bowing out of his stained chairmanship of the RNC, while touting his good success, he declared he would run again for the post.
Here we go again.
How can a marvelous face for the new Republican Party of the 21st Century, one who narrowly lost a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland, fall from grace so far and so quickly?
By any standard, Steele's tenure has been a sterling success and an embarrassment to the party, and I daresay, a mix bag to the country. Instead of challenging the President and his allies from a powerful perch, he complained to the media he wasn't getting enough credit for all the wins he helped secure. At the same time, he was watching hundreds of thousands go out the RNC front door because he had alienated so many big donors.
A few months ago, even members of the RNC doubted they could mount a successful campaign against Steele. There was still power in the color of his skin and his moments of brilliance. Republicans would appear as though they were "turning back the clock" by ousting such a public face for the party, and one of color to boot. What foolish thinking. When will the Republicans - or even Democrats for that matter (see: Charlie Rangel) - realize that actions matter, and one doesn't get a free pass just because they are minority? Get rid of someone like Steele because they are terrible in their jobs, not because they may alienate a voting bloc that walked away long ago. One man did not push the black vote away, and Michael Steele cannot certainly bring the American Black voter to Republican folds.
There was a time when Steele would be heralded for his never-say-die attitude -- for his tenacity to keep on fighting, even in the face of extreme odds. That was a Michael Steele who no one wanted to throw in the towel. But that was then, and this is now. Today, for the sake of his party and his own self-esteem, the man must seriously consider gracefully quitting his esteem Post as Chairman of the GOP.
-
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/16/10
Solutions to making Obamacare effective
BY: Armstrong Williams
Solutions for making Obamacare effective.
Judge Hudson's ruling was correct. You can't mandate that "we the people" must purchase healthcare. Unlike a federal mandate that you must have a drivers license to drive: it's not unlawful not to have a license, for you don't have to drive. However, in order to live you do have to exist. If we allow the government to make such unreasonable mandates, where does it all end?
If the Healthcare mandate is defunded what will we replace it with? It's not enough to celebrate the defeat of Obamacare. We still have significant problems with cost and access. Unless we address the issues, we will again find ourselves in a crisis mode, that will lead to more bad legislation. We need to find immediate solutions to guide effective healthcare reform.
Solutions for improving existing Health care system. The below doesn't cost the Federal Government a nickle to implement, and they bend the cost curve downward on cost.
1. Tort reform, Physicians spend between 15 and 20% of medical expenses on malpractice insurance and defensive medicine.
2. Interstate purchase of health care policies. Many State's have only one or two insurance providers. By introducing interstate competition, consumers will have the ability to choose the lowest cost policies.
3. Decouple health insurance from employers. Individuals should have health care policies that are transportable no matter where they are employed. The tax deductible of health care premiums should not be dependent on whether the policy
is offered by the employer or directly to the individual by the insurance company.
4. Encourage policies which motivate consumers to make cost effective choices in their medical care. We need to advocate high deductibles and meaningful co-pay. These will encourage health care consumers to make cost effective choices.
5. Permit and implore Insurance company's to offer lower premiums for people who maintain healthy life styles. The insurance industry should not subsidize obesity, smoking, and un healthy life styles.
6. This above doesn't address individuals who can't afford the cost of healthcare and the issues involving end of life care. If you want to save on big costs, you must address end of life care. Approximately 40% of healthcare cost occur in the last six
months of life. Where do you draw the line?
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Solutions to making Obamacare effective
BY: Armstrong Williams
Solutions for making Obamacare effective.
Judge Hudson's ruling was correct. You can't mandate that "we the people" must purchase healthcare. Unlike a federal mandate that you must have a drivers license to drive: it's not unlawful not to have a license, for you don't have to drive. However, in order to live you do have to exist. If we allow the government to make such unreasonable mandates, where does it all end?
If the Healthcare mandate is defunded what will we replace it with? It's not enough to celebrate the defeat of Obamacare. We still have significant problems with cost and access. Unless we address the issues, we will again find ourselves in a crisis mode, that will lead to more bad legislation. We need to find immediate solutions to guide effective healthcare reform.
Solutions for improving existing Health care system. The below doesn't cost the Federal Government a nickle to implement, and they bend the cost curve downward on cost.
1. Tort reform, Physicians spend between 15 and 20% of medical expenses on malpractice insurance and defensive medicine.
2. Interstate purchase of health care policies. Many State's have only one or two insurance providers. By introducing interstate competition, consumers will have the ability to choose the lowest cost policies.
3. Decouple health insurance from employers. Individuals should have health care policies that are transportable no matter where they are employed. The tax deductible of health care premiums should not be dependent on whether the policy
is offered by the employer or directly to the individual by the insurance company.
4. Encourage policies which motivate consumers to make cost effective choices in their medical care. We need to advocate high deductibles and meaningful co-pay. These will encourage health care consumers to make cost effective choices.
5. Permit and implore Insurance company's to offer lower premiums for people who maintain healthy life styles. The insurance industry should not subsidize obesity, smoking, and un healthy life styles.
6. This above doesn't address individuals who can't afford the cost of healthcare and the issues involving end of life care. If you want to save on big costs, you must address end of life care. Approximately 40% of healthcare cost occur in the last six
months of life. Where do you draw the line?
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/14/10
Has Obama jumped the Shark?
Has Obama jumped the shark?
By Armstrong Williams - 12/14/10 07:08 AM ET
I watched with a gaping mouth on Friday the news conference held by President Obama and his new BFF, former President Bill Clinton. It wasn't that long ago when Clinton was running around the country touting his wife and, in the process, trashing her opponent. That's understandable in the realm of politics.
It wasn't the fact that Slick Willie was standing next to Obama, it was where they were standing: in the White House press room. Here we have the sitting president of the United States in rapt attention, as one of his predecessors waxes on poetically about anything and everything. To me, that says Obama is desperate. He didn't have a handle on the message behind his supporting the deal he cut with Republicans, his own party is disgusted with him, so Obama is forced to bring in some outside help: a "closer," if you will.
Certainly, on the campaign trail Clinton can help and should be used. But when you need to roll out a former president to affirm what a sitting president is doing, and essentially give his stamp of approval, that sounds a bit hokey and flailing.
One thing is clear: In the wake of massive losses, both men have proceeded in opposite directions. Clinton became a survivor — declaring the era of big government is over, and moving to triangulate folks to push an agenda that was clearly for the benefit of the country, and the voters rewarded him as much in 1996. Obama seems to have doubled down on his leftist agenda. Sure, he cuts deals, but trashes the other party in the negotiations all the while — calling them "hostage" takers and letting still others in his party refer to Republicans as terrorists. C'mon.
So what happens next? Will Clinton be a fixture now on every piece of difficult policy this White House faces? Will Al Gore make a cameo if consensus is somehow reached on climate change? Will Michael Moore roll to the lectern as Obama stares admiringly, should his healthcare plan be dismantled? See a pattern of terrible visuals forming?
If I were a Democrat, I would fear my leader is wondering himself just how stable are his policy positions. It's one thing to have former experts and leaders come out in support of your position and help continue a message you yourself established and choreographed. It's quite another to hope the "expert" creates his own message in order to help bail your fat out of the fryer ...
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter atwww.twitter.com/arightside.
Has Obama jumped the Shark?
Has Obama jumped the shark?
By Armstrong Williams - 12/14/10 07:08 AM ET
I watched with a gaping mouth on Friday the news conference held by President Obama and his new BFF, former President Bill Clinton. It wasn't that long ago when Clinton was running around the country touting his wife and, in the process, trashing her opponent. That's understandable in the realm of politics.
It wasn't the fact that Slick Willie was standing next to Obama, it was where they were standing: in the White House press room. Here we have the sitting president of the United States in rapt attention, as one of his predecessors waxes on poetically about anything and everything. To me, that says Obama is desperate. He didn't have a handle on the message behind his supporting the deal he cut with Republicans, his own party is disgusted with him, so Obama is forced to bring in some outside help: a "closer," if you will.
Certainly, on the campaign trail Clinton can help and should be used. But when you need to roll out a former president to affirm what a sitting president is doing, and essentially give his stamp of approval, that sounds a bit hokey and flailing.
One thing is clear: In the wake of massive losses, both men have proceeded in opposite directions. Clinton became a survivor — declaring the era of big government is over, and moving to triangulate folks to push an agenda that was clearly for the benefit of the country, and the voters rewarded him as much in 1996. Obama seems to have doubled down on his leftist agenda. Sure, he cuts deals, but trashes the other party in the negotiations all the while — calling them "hostage" takers and letting still others in his party refer to Republicans as terrorists. C'mon.
So what happens next? Will Clinton be a fixture now on every piece of difficult policy this White House faces? Will Al Gore make a cameo if consensus is somehow reached on climate change? Will Michael Moore roll to the lectern as Obama stares admiringly, should his healthcare plan be dismantled? See a pattern of terrible visuals forming?
If I were a Democrat, I would fear my leader is wondering himself just how stable are his policy positions. It's one thing to have former experts and leaders come out in support of your position and help continue a message you yourself established and choreographed. It's quite another to hope the "expert" creates his own message in order to help bail your fat out of the fryer ...
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter atwww.twitter.com/arightside.
12/13/10
Time to end the coddling of N. Korea
These are tense times on the world stage. Drip-drips of classified information strain already dicey relations between the U.S. and its allies. Russian spies are caught red-handed and swapped for others. Iranians negotiating with anyone bent on the destruction of Israel. And yet, the current conflict and on-again, off-again talks with North Korea make one long for the simpler days of Cold War-era diplomacy.
A pattern is clearly forming with the North Koreans, and it does not favor peace-loving nations around the world, most notably the United States and South Korea.
Last month's shelling of Yeonpyeong Island was just the latest in a string of actions by the communist regime that signals either the country's desperation, or desire to provoke its enemies, or both.
The artillery barrage comes on the heels of a shocking discovery by an American scientist who was practically handed the keys to a new, advanced uranium-enrichment facility no one knew or thought could exist inside the dark North Korean border. That follows the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean warship in March, leaving 46 sailors and crew dead.
But wait, there's more!
Reports are coming out of the peninsula that the North is poised to conduct its third (yes, third) nuclear test before year's end. And yet the world has no way of monitoring the North's actions, because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors haven't set foot there in years.
Clearly, the time for "strategic patience" has come to an end. Six-way negotiations are proving fruitless, because there is no incentive for the North Koreans to see and appreciate the value of talks over brutality.
Former President Jimmy Carter is more optimistic on the matter, yet even he is becoming a voice of one. Writing in The Washington Post recently, Mr. Carter feebly tried to explain the North's actions following the shelling of its neighbors. He argued that now is the time to listen to the North, because the government's actions were "designed to remind the world they deserve respect in negotiations."
How does Pyongyang claim to deserve respect when it won't even begin to respect parties in the talks? If it wants to be taken seriously, then that means North Korea should begin taking seriously its own role and responsibility in these negotiations, not its shoot, ready, aim policies of the past.
Think of the precedent such behavior potentially establishes. If we succumb to the North's demands, then what do we do with the Taliban? Iran? Let them attack anything and everyone because we don't "respect" their right to negotiate better deals for their people, then we sheepishly come to the bargaining table? Such logic is rooted in naive foreign relations.
The cycle of talks — followed by eerie silence, then naked acts of aggression, followed by the world's psychoanalysis of Kim Jong Il, then pleas for more talks — must end.
The nation suffers from punishing sanctions. And yet seemingly before its final moment of collapse, the regime flails violently with military might, crying like a baby that it is being mistreated and misunderstood, only to signal a willingness to talk like adults?
Permitting that behavior only tees up another 50-year reign of a tyrant, justifying to its people that's how they will survive in a geopolitical world where they are pariahs and the Kims are its only saviors. Such actions are brainwashing of continental proportions, and we contribute to it.
Even Mr. Carter acknowledged that "no one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans."
Well, if the world's diplomats can't possibly know what the North is thinking, then perhaps it's time to help them understand that actions have consequences.
Diplomacy only works with unstable regimes when there's a stick behind the carrot. Don't misunderstand; talks and compromise are the ultimate prescription for what ails the North. Yet it's increasingly clear that military retaliation through a multinational force could help frame this debate in ways no diplomatic ping-pong has been able to achieve heretofore.
China, North Korea's greatest ally, even seems unwilling to help. When asked earlier this month for its views on what to do next, Beijing indicated that "calm and restraint are now needed to cool down the situation."
I'm sorry, but who was "hot" in this instance? Wasn't it only the North?
Conflict may well bring the Chinese to the table, since they virtually ignore the region now. In truth, China has no vested interest other than to prevent North Korean refugees from flooding its borders should the government collapse.
This is not a choice between diplomatic relations and escalated conflict. We need both. One will beget the other.
Time and again, North Korea says one thing while secretly doing what it said it wasn't. How is that diplomacy in good faith? The world can't keep living in fear of a half-cocked nuclear nation that only grows more potent — and unstable — by the month.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/@arightside.
Time to end the coddling of N. Korea
These are tense times on the world stage. Drip-drips of classified information strain already dicey relations between the U.S. and its allies. Russian spies are caught red-handed and swapped for others. Iranians negotiating with anyone bent on the destruction of Israel. And yet, the current conflict and on-again, off-again talks with North Korea make one long for the simpler days of Cold War-era diplomacy.
A pattern is clearly forming with the North Koreans, and it does not favor peace-loving nations around the world, most notably the United States and South Korea.
Last month's shelling of Yeonpyeong Island was just the latest in a string of actions by the communist regime that signals either the country's desperation, or desire to provoke its enemies, or both.
The artillery barrage comes on the heels of a shocking discovery by an American scientist who was practically handed the keys to a new, advanced uranium-enrichment facility no one knew or thought could exist inside the dark North Korean border. That follows the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean warship in March, leaving 46 sailors and crew dead.
But wait, there's more!
Reports are coming out of the peninsula that the North is poised to conduct its third (yes, third) nuclear test before year's end. And yet the world has no way of monitoring the North's actions, because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors haven't set foot there in years.
Clearly, the time for "strategic patience" has come to an end. Six-way negotiations are proving fruitless, because there is no incentive for the North Koreans to see and appreciate the value of talks over brutality.
Former President Jimmy Carter is more optimistic on the matter, yet even he is becoming a voice of one. Writing in The Washington Post recently, Mr. Carter feebly tried to explain the North's actions following the shelling of its neighbors. He argued that now is the time to listen to the North, because the government's actions were "designed to remind the world they deserve respect in negotiations."
How does Pyongyang claim to deserve respect when it won't even begin to respect parties in the talks? If it wants to be taken seriously, then that means North Korea should begin taking seriously its own role and responsibility in these negotiations, not its shoot, ready, aim policies of the past.
Think of the precedent such behavior potentially establishes. If we succumb to the North's demands, then what do we do with the Taliban? Iran? Let them attack anything and everyone because we don't "respect" their right to negotiate better deals for their people, then we sheepishly come to the bargaining table? Such logic is rooted in naive foreign relations.
The cycle of talks — followed by eerie silence, then naked acts of aggression, followed by the world's psychoanalysis of Kim Jong Il, then pleas for more talks — must end.
The nation suffers from punishing sanctions. And yet seemingly before its final moment of collapse, the regime flails violently with military might, crying like a baby that it is being mistreated and misunderstood, only to signal a willingness to talk like adults?
Permitting that behavior only tees up another 50-year reign of a tyrant, justifying to its people that's how they will survive in a geopolitical world where they are pariahs and the Kims are its only saviors. Such actions are brainwashing of continental proportions, and we contribute to it.
Even Mr. Carter acknowledged that "no one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans."
Well, if the world's diplomats can't possibly know what the North is thinking, then perhaps it's time to help them understand that actions have consequences.
Diplomacy only works with unstable regimes when there's a stick behind the carrot. Don't misunderstand; talks and compromise are the ultimate prescription for what ails the North. Yet it's increasingly clear that military retaliation through a multinational force could help frame this debate in ways no diplomatic ping-pong has been able to achieve heretofore.
China, North Korea's greatest ally, even seems unwilling to help. When asked earlier this month for its views on what to do next, Beijing indicated that "calm and restraint are now needed to cool down the situation."
I'm sorry, but who was "hot" in this instance? Wasn't it only the North?
Conflict may well bring the Chinese to the table, since they virtually ignore the region now. In truth, China has no vested interest other than to prevent North Korean refugees from flooding its borders should the government collapse.
This is not a choice between diplomatic relations and escalated conflict. We need both. One will beget the other.
Time and again, North Korea says one thing while secretly doing what it said it wasn't. How is that diplomacy in good faith? The world can't keep living in fear of a half-cocked nuclear nation that only grows more potent — and unstable — by the month.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/@arightside.
12/13/10
Solving the Budget Crisis
BY: Armstrong Williams
Solving the Budget Crisis
Their is merit to the argument that ending the wars and suspending foreign aid will not solve the budget crisis overnight. However, consider just how much we spend on war and foreign aid- $110 billion a year for the war, the annual $2 billion plus to Israel and Egypt, plus the other $20 or so billion in foreign aid we give the rest of the world.
And then there is the $140 billion a year it takes to support the 30 plus military bases scattered throughout Europe and Asia. Think that some $300 billion a year saved cannot start making a dent in the deficit? And we haven't even gotten into the costs for disabled veterans, military industrial complex spending, and general contracting for the War on Terror.
Couple all that savings with cutting the size of government, ending earmarks, and general bureaucracy belt tightening, and suddenly the long dark tunnel of debt shortens dramatically.
I am not advocating cutting all defense spending. I believe in a strong military. However, that military should strike and strike hard ONLY when America is directly at risk and we clearly know what victory is.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Solving the Budget Crisis
BY: Armstrong Williams
Solving the Budget Crisis
Their is merit to the argument that ending the wars and suspending foreign aid will not solve the budget crisis overnight. However, consider just how much we spend on war and foreign aid- $110 billion a year for the war, the annual $2 billion plus to Israel and Egypt, plus the other $20 or so billion in foreign aid we give the rest of the world.
And then there is the $140 billion a year it takes to support the 30 plus military bases scattered throughout Europe and Asia. Think that some $300 billion a year saved cannot start making a dent in the deficit? And we haven't even gotten into the costs for disabled veterans, military industrial complex spending, and general contracting for the War on Terror.
Couple all that savings with cutting the size of government, ending earmarks, and general bureaucracy belt tightening, and suddenly the long dark tunnel of debt shortens dramatically.
I am not advocating cutting all defense spending. I believe in a strong military. However, that military should strike and strike hard ONLY when America is directly at risk and we clearly know what victory is.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/10/10
Legacy Admissions
BY: Armstrong Williams
Legacy Admissions
Liberals are quick to decry legacy admissions to universities (where the children of alumni – usually big-time donor alumni – are granted admission), silver-spoon heirs who take over their fathers’ companies, nepotism in the workplace – all on the grounds that what should matter most in all of these scenarios is merit, not connections, family trees, and contributions to university coffers. Underlying all of this is the assumption that, were it not for these crucial connections, the people who benefit from them would never otherwise have been considered. In other words, liberals stereotype all such beneficiaries as unqualified but for daddy’s grace.
Right?
Tell me you don’t hear this every time a liberal discusses it – the language she uses dripping with contempt, and probably envy, for the self-evidently mediocre family members of important people who are able to capitalize on their family name to get ahead when their own skills wouldn’t otherwise have allowed it.
And yet somehow in their minds, the race-preferential policies they support don’t carry with them the same stigma? Because we’re talking about essentially the same problem, aren’t we? Chances are, the children of well-educated Harvard-graduated parents are probably just as well-educated and prepared to be students at Harvard – even “legacy” beneficiaries must have stellar scores and resumes to get in – and yet, you don’t ever hear liberals conceding that minorities who are pushed through school are widely perceived as less qualified than their white counterparts.
Wherefore the disconnect? The answer is simple: politics.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Legacy Admissions
BY: Armstrong Williams
Legacy Admissions
Liberals are quick to decry legacy admissions to universities (where the children of alumni – usually big-time donor alumni – are granted admission), silver-spoon heirs who take over their fathers’ companies, nepotism in the workplace – all on the grounds that what should matter most in all of these scenarios is merit, not connections, family trees, and contributions to university coffers. Underlying all of this is the assumption that, were it not for these crucial connections, the people who benefit from them would never otherwise have been considered. In other words, liberals stereotype all such beneficiaries as unqualified but for daddy’s grace.
Right?
Tell me you don’t hear this every time a liberal discusses it – the language she uses dripping with contempt, and probably envy, for the self-evidently mediocre family members of important people who are able to capitalize on their family name to get ahead when their own skills wouldn’t otherwise have allowed it.
And yet somehow in their minds, the race-preferential policies they support don’t carry with them the same stigma? Because we’re talking about essentially the same problem, aren’t we? Chances are, the children of well-educated Harvard-graduated parents are probably just as well-educated and prepared to be students at Harvard – even “legacy” beneficiaries must have stellar scores and resumes to get in – and yet, you don’t ever hear liberals conceding that minorities who are pushed through school are widely perceived as less qualified than their white counterparts.
Wherefore the disconnect? The answer is simple: politics.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/08/10
The Truth Shall Set you Free
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Truth Shall Set you Free
I can't help but laugh sometimes at the duplicity of Democrats. President Obama sees the writing on the wall earlier this week that his party cannot possibly win the argument over raising taxes on ANY Americans, and so he wisely cuts a deal that at least extracts something for him and his liberal factions. Yet even as he pushed back against those such as Speaker Pelosi complaining that the President caved in to Republican demands, Obama still engaged in a little bit of class warfare (the guy just can't resist) by railing on tax cuts for the rich.
Let's be honest, Obama and Democrats have never really liked tax relief. It's against who they are as liberals. Spending is the cure-all for what ails us as Americans, the argument goes; not leaving money in the hands of workers. It's a fundamental belief, and Democrats who subscribe to that notion should not pretend to be anything else. If the government has less money, then liberals cannot meet the agenda they set for themselves. Tax relief gets in the way of their ambitions. Why else would the Left claim that letting Americans not send their money to Washington actually COSTS Washington money? Oh, the foolishness!
But set that aside for a moment. Yesterday morning, after agreeing with the GOP to trade tax relief for another year of unemployment benefits, the Administration suddenly finds religion. Specifically, Vice President Joe Biden's office releases a set of talking points for the White House's allies touting the benefits of the compromise. Here's how the first bullet of the talking points read - "Working families will not lose their tax cut. A typical working family faced a tax increase of over $3,000 on January 1st. That’s avoided under this framework agreement, and working families won’t see their tax cuts go away next year."
$3,000?? That sure is alot of money. So why, before this deal was struck, would the Obama Administration downplay the importance of tax relief all these months? I sure heard alot about not wanting to give tax relief to those making over $250k per year, but did any hear about what kind of tax hikes those under $250k would face if Democrats did nothing? I can't recall seeing that on major news outlets. What was panned by Democrats as needless spending on the uber wealthy is now "tax relief for working families..."??
It was only after they were forced to cede the point that tax hikes at this precarious time in our recession would be a terrible policy did Democrats own up to the fact that perhaps raising taxes on anyone is not so smart. And just as an aside, if the "average working family" was due to see this much of an increase, just imagine what all of those small business owners would be facing since they file under personal income taxes and not corporate.
I realize episodes like this occur all the time in Washington. When you lose a policy fight, embrace the outcome and claim it as your own. So here we have the VP's office releasing a set of talking points for its allies that make it seem like tax relief was the Democrats' idea all along. Funny, I didn't see the refrain "Bush tax cuts" anywhere in those talkers....hmmmmm. I guess that's not worth discussing at the Casa Blanca...
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Truth Shall Set you Free
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Truth Shall Set you Free
I can't help but laugh sometimes at the duplicity of Democrats. President Obama sees the writing on the wall earlier this week that his party cannot possibly win the argument over raising taxes on ANY Americans, and so he wisely cuts a deal that at least extracts something for him and his liberal factions. Yet even as he pushed back against those such as Speaker Pelosi complaining that the President caved in to Republican demands, Obama still engaged in a little bit of class warfare (the guy just can't resist) by railing on tax cuts for the rich.
Let's be honest, Obama and Democrats have never really liked tax relief. It's against who they are as liberals. Spending is the cure-all for what ails us as Americans, the argument goes; not leaving money in the hands of workers. It's a fundamental belief, and Democrats who subscribe to that notion should not pretend to be anything else. If the government has less money, then liberals cannot meet the agenda they set for themselves. Tax relief gets in the way of their ambitions. Why else would the Left claim that letting Americans not send their money to Washington actually COSTS Washington money? Oh, the foolishness!
But set that aside for a moment. Yesterday morning, after agreeing with the GOP to trade tax relief for another year of unemployment benefits, the Administration suddenly finds religion. Specifically, Vice President Joe Biden's office releases a set of talking points for the White House's allies touting the benefits of the compromise. Here's how the first bullet of the talking points read - "Working families will not lose their tax cut. A typical working family faced a tax increase of over $3,000 on January 1st. That’s avoided under this framework agreement, and working families won’t see their tax cuts go away next year."
$3,000?? That sure is alot of money. So why, before this deal was struck, would the Obama Administration downplay the importance of tax relief all these months? I sure heard alot about not wanting to give tax relief to those making over $250k per year, but did any hear about what kind of tax hikes those under $250k would face if Democrats did nothing? I can't recall seeing that on major news outlets. What was panned by Democrats as needless spending on the uber wealthy is now "tax relief for working families..."??
It was only after they were forced to cede the point that tax hikes at this precarious time in our recession would be a terrible policy did Democrats own up to the fact that perhaps raising taxes on anyone is not so smart. And just as an aside, if the "average working family" was due to see this much of an increase, just imagine what all of those small business owners would be facing since they file under personal income taxes and not corporate.
I realize episodes like this occur all the time in Washington. When you lose a policy fight, embrace the outcome and claim it as your own. So here we have the VP's office releasing a set of talking points for its allies that make it seem like tax relief was the Democrats' idea all along. Funny, I didn't see the refrain "Bush tax cuts" anywhere in those talkers....hmmmmm. I guess that's not worth discussing at the Casa Blanca...
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/07/10
Republicans Deep hatred of the Poor???
By: Armstrong Williams
Republicans Deep hatred of the Poor??????
The prevailing assumption throughout the health-care debate was that Republicans were a monolith – all of them rich, well-to-do whites who themselves, of course, couldn’t possibly have known anyone who lacked health insurance – not even anyone from the huge swath of poor whites who lack it – and that their opposition to running a health-care system for more than 300 million people out of Washington couldn’t have stemmed from a different understanding of economics or public policy, but instead necessarily had to have been motivated by the drive to keep minorities out of their hospitals. Likewise, during the financial-regulation debate, opposition to the Democrats’ legislation couldn’t have possibly stemmed from fear of over regulation or of stifling the economy, but instead must have had its origin in the massive, white Republican monolith’s need to protect its own kind: white bankers on Wall Street. This assumption continues in the debate to extend Bush era tax cuts and unemployment benefits to those struggling to find employment. As if Republicans had no skin in the game, and only black and Hispanic Democrats lost their homes and saw their 401k’s cut in half as a result of the crash! As if Republicans can never relate and understand the plight of the unemployed.
How ludicrous. What an insidious state of affairs this is!
How can we accomplish anything of major national importance-----whether it be helping the unemployed finding jobs or overhauling the financial system----if those who stand on one side of the divide are assumed to be acting and thinking out of a deep hatred for people of color and the poor?
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Republicans Deep hatred of the Poor???
By: Armstrong Williams
Republicans Deep hatred of the Poor??????
The prevailing assumption throughout the health-care debate was that Republicans were a monolith – all of them rich, well-to-do whites who themselves, of course, couldn’t possibly have known anyone who lacked health insurance – not even anyone from the huge swath of poor whites who lack it – and that their opposition to running a health-care system for more than 300 million people out of Washington couldn’t have stemmed from a different understanding of economics or public policy, but instead necessarily had to have been motivated by the drive to keep minorities out of their hospitals. Likewise, during the financial-regulation debate, opposition to the Democrats’ legislation couldn’t have possibly stemmed from fear of over regulation or of stifling the economy, but instead must have had its origin in the massive, white Republican monolith’s need to protect its own kind: white bankers on Wall Street. This assumption continues in the debate to extend Bush era tax cuts and unemployment benefits to those struggling to find employment. As if Republicans had no skin in the game, and only black and Hispanic Democrats lost their homes and saw their 401k’s cut in half as a result of the crash! As if Republicans can never relate and understand the plight of the unemployed.
How ludicrous. What an insidious state of affairs this is!
How can we accomplish anything of major national importance-----whether it be helping the unemployed finding jobs or overhauling the financial system----if those who stand on one side of the divide are assumed to be acting and thinking out of a deep hatred for people of color and the poor?
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/06/10
Deriding the Middle
If there is one thing that we can count on from the immediate aftermath of an election, it is the annoying and unceasing bleating from the left about the intelligence of the electorate. The electorate it is referring to is not actually America as a whole; rather, it is the 35 percent of voters who consider themselves moderates. It is these moderates who act as the arbitrators of this nation, determining which party will win a given election. In return, they receive the praise or derision of the left, depending on which choice they make.
From 2000 to 2005, the moderates were cast as a bunch of crazy inbred warmongers too stupid to know which party was actually looking out for them. The period from 2006 to 2009, by contrast, was a time of rational enlightenment full of swamp draining, hope and change. The days following the elections of 2010 have brought a predictable chorus from the left. The moderates are now "insane, hormonal teenagers" and fools who are dooming America to financial insolvency because they do not want to be involved with yet another protracted and divisive stimulus package and definitely no more Obamacare. Talk about bipolar.
Let us think about it for a minute.
For seven out of the past 11 years, the left has derided, in the most salacious terms possible, the voters most responsible for deciding the party in power. For all their complaints about the "evil" conservatives and "tea partiers" dumbing down America, promoting irrational choices and behavior and lowering the public discourse, they are the ones slinging the most mud at a group of people who tend to represent the epitome of the sensible middle class. How does such wild swing of praise and criticism help the public discourse?
Often, we are so busy denigrating anyone who disagrees with us that we never stop to listen. We ignore what they say, concentrating on our own rebuttals to win the argument instead of trying to come to an agreement. Life requires us to be adaptable, yet when it comes to politics, we tend to become resolute. In order to solve problems, we must be willing to listen and be swayed if circumstance or logic dictates the need to adapt. This is not being wishy-washy, crazy or a dupe. We ask our judges not to make rash decisions before the evidence is heard, yet are annoyed with an electorate that attempts to do the same thing.
I am not a Kool-Aid drinker, following blindly without consideration. I know people on both sides insult the other when the opposition wins. However, maybe it is time to quit deriding the moderates and appreciate the important service they provide to the republic. The moderates have always been the gravity in the pendulum of American politics. Whenever one party tries to swing the pendulum too far one way, the moderates counteract the inertia and pull the bob back toward the center.
Instead of bashing, we need to look at the trends to tell us how and when one party is overstepping its bounds. No matter the winners, this should be heralded. The founders again proved their genius in the subtle means of checks and balances. If the party in power holds, gains or loses only a few seats, then we know America generally agrees with the direction; whereas, a major loss is the people's means of saying, "You need to rethink your agenda."
The midterms have generally gone against the party in the White House, but the degrees vary. The GOP gained 61 seats in the House and six in the Senate, the largest swing since 1948. Keep in mind that the House was voted on throughout the country, whereas the Senate elections covered only a third. That means the nation as a whole disagreed with the general trend of the Democratic agenda, just like they disagreed with the GOP in 2006 and 2008. And thus the pendulum swings again.
President Bush saw the 2002 midterms and 2004 general elections increase GOP majorities, so you cannot blame him for thinking these results were a validation of his agenda (although the unprecedented impact of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror drastically changed the game). Although it generally goes uncredited, he did make changes after the losses in 2006. He followed the advice of critics and got rid of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, changed course and approved "The Surge," and set a timetable for the withdrawal of the majority of combat troops in Iraq (which President Obama trumpeted for himself recently). He started re-engaging with Latin America, South America and Europe, and toned down much of the rhetoric with Iran and North Korea.
Now look at President Clinton. No other president in recent memory has been ballyhooed for making adjustments as much as Mr. Clinton. He remade himself after the disastrous midterms of 1994 and became an effective two-term president. He worked with and co-opted the Republicans on a broad range of topics and saw the 1996 and 1998 elections basically maintain the status quo.
Every president must be willing to re-evaluate their agenda when the populace throws out one party for the other. Instead of ridiculing the moderates for their choice, or blaming communication instead of policies for electoral results, both sides need to open their eyes to what the electorate is trying to show them — we do not like the direction you are pointing the ship, so change course before you hit the iceberg and take us all down.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
Deriding the Middle
If there is one thing that we can count on from the immediate aftermath of an election, it is the annoying and unceasing bleating from the left about the intelligence of the electorate. The electorate it is referring to is not actually America as a whole; rather, it is the 35 percent of voters who consider themselves moderates. It is these moderates who act as the arbitrators of this nation, determining which party will win a given election. In return, they receive the praise or derision of the left, depending on which choice they make.
From 2000 to 2005, the moderates were cast as a bunch of crazy inbred warmongers too stupid to know which party was actually looking out for them. The period from 2006 to 2009, by contrast, was a time of rational enlightenment full of swamp draining, hope and change. The days following the elections of 2010 have brought a predictable chorus from the left. The moderates are now "insane, hormonal teenagers" and fools who are dooming America to financial insolvency because they do not want to be involved with yet another protracted and divisive stimulus package and definitely no more Obamacare. Talk about bipolar.
Let us think about it for a minute.
For seven out of the past 11 years, the left has derided, in the most salacious terms possible, the voters most responsible for deciding the party in power. For all their complaints about the "evil" conservatives and "tea partiers" dumbing down America, promoting irrational choices and behavior and lowering the public discourse, they are the ones slinging the most mud at a group of people who tend to represent the epitome of the sensible middle class. How does such wild swing of praise and criticism help the public discourse?
Often, we are so busy denigrating anyone who disagrees with us that we never stop to listen. We ignore what they say, concentrating on our own rebuttals to win the argument instead of trying to come to an agreement. Life requires us to be adaptable, yet when it comes to politics, we tend to become resolute. In order to solve problems, we must be willing to listen and be swayed if circumstance or logic dictates the need to adapt. This is not being wishy-washy, crazy or a dupe. We ask our judges not to make rash decisions before the evidence is heard, yet are annoyed with an electorate that attempts to do the same thing.
I am not a Kool-Aid drinker, following blindly without consideration. I know people on both sides insult the other when the opposition wins. However, maybe it is time to quit deriding the moderates and appreciate the important service they provide to the republic. The moderates have always been the gravity in the pendulum of American politics. Whenever one party tries to swing the pendulum too far one way, the moderates counteract the inertia and pull the bob back toward the center.
Instead of bashing, we need to look at the trends to tell us how and when one party is overstepping its bounds. No matter the winners, this should be heralded. The founders again proved their genius in the subtle means of checks and balances. If the party in power holds, gains or loses only a few seats, then we know America generally agrees with the direction; whereas, a major loss is the people's means of saying, "You need to rethink your agenda."
The midterms have generally gone against the party in the White House, but the degrees vary. The GOP gained 61 seats in the House and six in the Senate, the largest swing since 1948. Keep in mind that the House was voted on throughout the country, whereas the Senate elections covered only a third. That means the nation as a whole disagreed with the general trend of the Democratic agenda, just like they disagreed with the GOP in 2006 and 2008. And thus the pendulum swings again.
President Bush saw the 2002 midterms and 2004 general elections increase GOP majorities, so you cannot blame him for thinking these results were a validation of his agenda (although the unprecedented impact of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror drastically changed the game). Although it generally goes uncredited, he did make changes after the losses in 2006. He followed the advice of critics and got rid of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, changed course and approved "The Surge," and set a timetable for the withdrawal of the majority of combat troops in Iraq (which President Obama trumpeted for himself recently). He started re-engaging with Latin America, South America and Europe, and toned down much of the rhetoric with Iran and North Korea.
Now look at President Clinton. No other president in recent memory has been ballyhooed for making adjustments as much as Mr. Clinton. He remade himself after the disastrous midterms of 1994 and became an effective two-term president. He worked with and co-opted the Republicans on a broad range of topics and saw the 1996 and 1998 elections basically maintain the status quo.
Every president must be willing to re-evaluate their agenda when the populace throws out one party for the other. Instead of ridiculing the moderates for their choice, or blaming communication instead of policies for electoral results, both sides need to open their eyes to what the electorate is trying to show them — we do not like the direction you are pointing the ship, so change course before you hit the iceberg and take us all down.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
12/06/10
Unemployment benefits for tax relief: A win-win with no win
If there is one thing that we can count on from the immediate aftermath of an election, it is the annoying and unceasing bleating from the left about the intelligence of the electorate. The electorate it is referring to is not actually America as a whole; rather, it is the 35 percent of voters who consider themselves moderates. It is these moderates who act as the arbitrators of this nation, determining which party will win a given election. In return, they receive the praise or derision of the left, depending on which choice they make.
From 2000 to 2005, the moderates were cast as a bunch of crazy inbred warmongers too stupid to know which party was actually looking out for them. The period from 2006 to 2009, by contrast, was a time of rational enlightenment full of swamp draining, hope and change. The days following the elections of 2010 have brought a predictable chorus from the left. The moderates are now "insane, hormonal teenagers" and fools who are dooming America to financial insolvency because they do not want to be involved with yet another protracted and divisive stimulus package and definitely no more Obamacare. Talk about bipolar.
Let us think about it for a minute.
For seven out of the past 11 years, the left has derided, in the most salacious terms possible, the voters most responsible for deciding the party in power. For all their complaints about the "evil" conservatives and "tea partiers" dumbing down America, promoting irrational choices and behavior and lowering the public discourse, they are the ones slinging the most mud at a group of people who tend to represent the epitome of the sensible middle class. How does such wild swing of praise and criticism help the public discourse?
Often, we are so busy denigrating anyone who disagrees with us that we never stop to listen. We ignore what they say, concentrating on our own rebuttals to win the argument instead of trying to come to an agreement. Life requires us to be adaptable, yet when it comes to politics, we tend to become resolute. In order to solve problems, we must be willing to listen and be swayed if circumstance or logic dictates the need to adapt. This is not being wishy-washy, crazy or a dupe. We ask our judges not to make rash decisions before the evidence is heard, yet are annoyed with an electorate that attempts to do the same thing.
I am not a Kool-Aid drinker, following blindly without consideration. I know people on both sides insult the other when the opposition wins. However, maybe it is time to quit deriding the moderates and appreciate the important service they provide to the republic. The moderates have always been the gravity in the pendulum of American politics. Whenever one party tries to swing the pendulum too far one way, the moderates counteract the inertia and pull the bob back toward the center.
Instead of bashing, we need to look at the trends to tell us how and when one party is overstepping its bounds. No matter the winners, this should be heralded. The founders again proved their genius in the subtle means of checks and balances. If the party in power holds, gains or loses only a few seats, then we know America generally agrees with the direction; whereas, a major loss is the people's means of saying, "You need to rethink your agenda."
The midterms have generally gone against the party in the White House, but the degrees vary. The GOP gained 61 seats in the House and six in the Senate, the largest swing since 1948. Keep in mind that the House was voted on throughout the country, whereas the Senate elections covered only a third. That means the nation as a whole disagreed with the general trend of the Democratic agenda, just like they disagreed with the GOP in 2006 and 2008. And thus the pendulum swings again.
President Bush saw the 2002 midterms and 2004 general elections increase GOP majorities, so you cannot blame him for thinking these results were a validation of his agenda (although the unprecedented impact of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror drastically changed the game). Although it generally goes uncredited, he did make changes after the losses in 2006. He followed the advice of critics and got rid of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, changed course and approved "The Surge," and set a timetable for the withdrawal of the majority of combat troops in Iraq (which President Obama trumpeted for himself recently). He started re-engaging with Latin America, South America and Europe, and toned down much of the rhetoric with Iran and North Korea.
Now look at President Clinton. No other president in recent memory has been ballyhooed for making adjustments as much as Mr. Clinton. He remade himself after the disastrous midterms of 1994 and became an effective two-term president. He worked with and co-opted the Republicans on a broad range of topics and saw the 1996 and 1998 elections basically maintain the status quo.
Every president must be willing to re-evaluate their agenda when the populace throws out one party for the other. Instead of ridiculing the moderates for their choice, or blaming communication instead of policies for electoral results, both sides need to open their eyes to what the electorate is trying to show them — we do not like the direction you are pointing the ship, so change course before you hit the iceberg and take us all down.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
Unemployment benefits for tax relief: A win-win with no win
If there is one thing that we can count on from the immediate aftermath of an election, it is the annoying and unceasing bleating from the left about the intelligence of the electorate. The electorate it is referring to is not actually America as a whole; rather, it is the 35 percent of voters who consider themselves moderates. It is these moderates who act as the arbitrators of this nation, determining which party will win a given election. In return, they receive the praise or derision of the left, depending on which choice they make.
From 2000 to 2005, the moderates were cast as a bunch of crazy inbred warmongers too stupid to know which party was actually looking out for them. The period from 2006 to 2009, by contrast, was a time of rational enlightenment full of swamp draining, hope and change. The days following the elections of 2010 have brought a predictable chorus from the left. The moderates are now "insane, hormonal teenagers" and fools who are dooming America to financial insolvency because they do not want to be involved with yet another protracted and divisive stimulus package and definitely no more Obamacare. Talk about bipolar.
Let us think about it for a minute.
For seven out of the past 11 years, the left has derided, in the most salacious terms possible, the voters most responsible for deciding the party in power. For all their complaints about the "evil" conservatives and "tea partiers" dumbing down America, promoting irrational choices and behavior and lowering the public discourse, they are the ones slinging the most mud at a group of people who tend to represent the epitome of the sensible middle class. How does such wild swing of praise and criticism help the public discourse?
Often, we are so busy denigrating anyone who disagrees with us that we never stop to listen. We ignore what they say, concentrating on our own rebuttals to win the argument instead of trying to come to an agreement. Life requires us to be adaptable, yet when it comes to politics, we tend to become resolute. In order to solve problems, we must be willing to listen and be swayed if circumstance or logic dictates the need to adapt. This is not being wishy-washy, crazy or a dupe. We ask our judges not to make rash decisions before the evidence is heard, yet are annoyed with an electorate that attempts to do the same thing.
I am not a Kool-Aid drinker, following blindly without consideration. I know people on both sides insult the other when the opposition wins. However, maybe it is time to quit deriding the moderates and appreciate the important service they provide to the republic. The moderates have always been the gravity in the pendulum of American politics. Whenever one party tries to swing the pendulum too far one way, the moderates counteract the inertia and pull the bob back toward the center.
Instead of bashing, we need to look at the trends to tell us how and when one party is overstepping its bounds. No matter the winners, this should be heralded. The founders again proved their genius in the subtle means of checks and balances. If the party in power holds, gains or loses only a few seats, then we know America generally agrees with the direction; whereas, a major loss is the people's means of saying, "You need to rethink your agenda."
The midterms have generally gone against the party in the White House, but the degrees vary. The GOP gained 61 seats in the House and six in the Senate, the largest swing since 1948. Keep in mind that the House was voted on throughout the country, whereas the Senate elections covered only a third. That means the nation as a whole disagreed with the general trend of the Democratic agenda, just like they disagreed with the GOP in 2006 and 2008. And thus the pendulum swings again.
President Bush saw the 2002 midterms and 2004 general elections increase GOP majorities, so you cannot blame him for thinking these results were a validation of his agenda (although the unprecedented impact of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror drastically changed the game). Although it generally goes uncredited, he did make changes after the losses in 2006. He followed the advice of critics and got rid of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, changed course and approved "The Surge," and set a timetable for the withdrawal of the majority of combat troops in Iraq (which President Obama trumpeted for himself recently). He started re-engaging with Latin America, South America and Europe, and toned down much of the rhetoric with Iran and North Korea.
Now look at President Clinton. No other president in recent memory has been ballyhooed for making adjustments as much as Mr. Clinton. He remade himself after the disastrous midterms of 1994 and became an effective two-term president. He worked with and co-opted the Republicans on a broad range of topics and saw the 1996 and 1998 elections basically maintain the status quo.
Every president must be willing to re-evaluate their agenda when the populace throws out one party for the other. Instead of ridiculing the moderates for their choice, or blaming communication instead of policies for electoral results, both sides need to open their eyes to what the electorate is trying to show them — we do not like the direction you are pointing the ship, so change course before you hit the iceberg and take us all down.
• "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
12/06/10
Unemployment benefits for tax relief: A Win-Win with no Win
BY: Armstrong Williams
Unemployment benefits for tax relief: A Win-Win with no Win
Congressional Republicans are facing a crucial test in these final days of 2010, one that will set the table for several confrontations with Democrats that will mark whether this party is serious about the mandate it received on Election Day, or if it will revert back to its usual give-and-take with Democrats where the only thing that wins is more spending.
The issue in question is whether or not Republicans will concede the extension of the Bush tax cuts for an extension of unemployment benefits. Republicans should not grant Democrats this request. First of all, we have repeatedly extended benefits now to the point where Americans on the rolls have received benefits for the better part of two years. While this recession has run long and deep, can we as a nation continue to afford this expensive spending plan? Extending jobless benefits for another year would cost the Treasury $150b in more unbudgeted spending. Further, when is enough enough? Yes, folks are suffering, but why have cut-offs for benefits when no policymaker is willing to recognize them? And why not focus on actually creating some jobs for those unemployed as opposed to just keeping them on the public dole?
I know it's not as easy as snapping one's fingers, but the President and his team should be ashamed of themselves - one minute touting how great its stimulus/recovery plan has been, then the next claiming that more help is needed because the economy is not reviving quickly. Which is it?
From a political perspective, Republicans should not give in to this so-called fair trade. The GOP holds the high ground here. They have successfully argued that raising taxes in this dismal economy on anyone is the wrong way to go. Americans agree with that argument. And to say the tax cuts would "cost" the federal government billions is a farce. That argument presupposes the money was already collected by the IRS, which it hasn't. Which means it doesn't first belong to the IRS, and therefore should never be counted by the Feds as revenue.
So, extend the unemployment benefits if you must, and if you feel it's the right policy move. But don't bargain or negotiate with the Democrats because eveyone comes out a winner. To go down that path of compromise would only set the GOP up for future caves where they will be forced to swallow far worse policy measures. Find consensus with the Democrats where it makes sense for the good of the nation. But don't enter into these everyone-one-wins gambits because we the taxpayers end up footing the unaffordable bill.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Unemployment benefits for tax relief: A Win-Win with no Win
BY: Armstrong Williams
Unemployment benefits for tax relief: A Win-Win with no Win
Congressional Republicans are facing a crucial test in these final days of 2010, one that will set the table for several confrontations with Democrats that will mark whether this party is serious about the mandate it received on Election Day, or if it will revert back to its usual give-and-take with Democrats where the only thing that wins is more spending.
The issue in question is whether or not Republicans will concede the extension of the Bush tax cuts for an extension of unemployment benefits. Republicans should not grant Democrats this request. First of all, we have repeatedly extended benefits now to the point where Americans on the rolls have received benefits for the better part of two years. While this recession has run long and deep, can we as a nation continue to afford this expensive spending plan? Extending jobless benefits for another year would cost the Treasury $150b in more unbudgeted spending. Further, when is enough enough? Yes, folks are suffering, but why have cut-offs for benefits when no policymaker is willing to recognize them? And why not focus on actually creating some jobs for those unemployed as opposed to just keeping them on the public dole?
I know it's not as easy as snapping one's fingers, but the President and his team should be ashamed of themselves - one minute touting how great its stimulus/recovery plan has been, then the next claiming that more help is needed because the economy is not reviving quickly. Which is it?
From a political perspective, Republicans should not give in to this so-called fair trade. The GOP holds the high ground here. They have successfully argued that raising taxes in this dismal economy on anyone is the wrong way to go. Americans agree with that argument. And to say the tax cuts would "cost" the federal government billions is a farce. That argument presupposes the money was already collected by the IRS, which it hasn't. Which means it doesn't first belong to the IRS, and therefore should never be counted by the Feds as revenue.
So, extend the unemployment benefits if you must, and if you feel it's the right policy move. But don't bargain or negotiate with the Democrats because eveyone comes out a winner. To go down that path of compromise would only set the GOP up for future caves where they will be forced to swallow far worse policy measures. Find consensus with the Democrats where it makes sense for the good of the nation. But don't enter into these everyone-one-wins gambits because we the taxpayers end up footing the unaffordable bill.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/03/10
Cut-as-you-go is a policy whose time has come
BY: Armstrong Williams
Cut-as-you-go is a policy whose time has come
As early as next week, House Republicans are expected to present and vote on several new initiatives or rules governing its caucus. Call it getting your house in order before you set out to fix the nation's larger problems. One idea of keen interest and noteworthiness if the Republicans can maintain the discipline to honor is the notion of "cut as you go."
Essentially, the principle would require lawmakers to propose spending offsets to cover the costs of any new federal programs the House considers under fast-track rules that require a super-majority two-thirds vote in the House. Often called "suspension" bills because they move with relatively no debate, these vehicles have been abused in the past to move controversial measures of legislation, which was not the original purpose of the suspension calendar.
Regardless of the legislative mumbo jumbo, this is a principle-to-practice exercise that can and must work if Republicans are to truly change the tone in Washington. To which I say, it's about time! What a powerful message this practice would send to the American people that Republicans (or even Democrats for that matter) are mindful of whose money they're spending. Congress cannot continue borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends this year. Obama's actions earlier this week were one example of increased austerity, and this is another.
For years, Democrats played word games with tax relief, pretending to be for tax cuts, but limiting them by using the phrase "targeted tax cuts." Well, they should quickly embrace this notion of "targeted spending" - where no dollar will be wasted, and every one invested in its proper, transparent use. Who can be against that?
We are on a good path here, ladies and gentleman. I only hope for the sake of our fiscal health, Republicans and Democrats alike are sticking their federal big toe in the water and testing it for the major plunge we need to take as a nation to get us out of this massive debt we have saddled our futures with.
Godspeed, House Republicans.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Cut-as-you-go is a policy whose time has come
BY: Armstrong Williams
Cut-as-you-go is a policy whose time has come
As early as next week, House Republicans are expected to present and vote on several new initiatives or rules governing its caucus. Call it getting your house in order before you set out to fix the nation's larger problems. One idea of keen interest and noteworthiness if the Republicans can maintain the discipline to honor is the notion of "cut as you go."
Essentially, the principle would require lawmakers to propose spending offsets to cover the costs of any new federal programs the House considers under fast-track rules that require a super-majority two-thirds vote in the House. Often called "suspension" bills because they move with relatively no debate, these vehicles have been abused in the past to move controversial measures of legislation, which was not the original purpose of the suspension calendar.
Regardless of the legislative mumbo jumbo, this is a principle-to-practice exercise that can and must work if Republicans are to truly change the tone in Washington. To which I say, it's about time! What a powerful message this practice would send to the American people that Republicans (or even Democrats for that matter) are mindful of whose money they're spending. Congress cannot continue borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends this year. Obama's actions earlier this week were one example of increased austerity, and this is another.
For years, Democrats played word games with tax relief, pretending to be for tax cuts, but limiting them by using the phrase "targeted tax cuts." Well, they should quickly embrace this notion of "targeted spending" - where no dollar will be wasted, and every one invested in its proper, transparent use. Who can be against that?
We are on a good path here, ladies and gentleman. I only hope for the sake of our fiscal health, Republicans and Democrats alike are sticking their federal big toe in the water and testing it for the major plunge we need to take as a nation to get us out of this massive debt we have saddled our futures with.
Godspeed, House Republicans.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/02/10
Can Palin realistically win the Whitehouse in 2012?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Sarah Palin for President ?
No one can deny Sarah Palin’s charisma, common sense approach to issues, and media savvy, and few will deny she was an overall plus for the GOP this past election. However, I find it rare in conservative and Tea Party circles for anyone to support her as the serious Republican Presidential nominee in 2012, much less the winner. Conservatives are well aware of Palin’s shortcomings, yet the media seems to be rather blind to them at the moment. In fact, every time I turn on the TV, all I hear the mainstream talk about when it comes to 2012 nominees is that Palin is already the anointed saviour.
The media seems to be intentionally ignoring everything they have mocked her for over the past 2 years. So I started asking myself: "Why?" I am not one to put much stock in conspiracy theories, but it does seem a bit strange. Her supposed base is not keen on her being President; yet, the media, rather than relegate her to political sideshow, is ordaining her the next GOP Presidential candidate.
Now, we all know the media tends to be liberal, outside Fox News of course; so, it does not seem to be in their political interest to bag the Palin drum. But what if, per chance, the media is pumping up Palin because they know she’ll lose a general election to Obama? Are the onslaught of media offers and free publicity a subtle means of saying to the GOP, “Look, here’s your nominee. We accept her and think she’s great. ‘Dontcha know’, we even gave her daughter a shot on the #1 TV show and gave Sarah her very own show on TLC?” Are they trying to give us a false sense of security in Palin's chances and distract us from all the reasons we know she's not the best candidate to defeat President Obama in 2012?
Of course, it could be that they are only in it because Palin means ratings. She’s the political equivalent of Kim Kardashian, putting her on anything means money for the network(s). Possibly, they could care less about Palin actually being the Republican Presidential candidate; but then again, maybe that is exactly what they want.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Can Palin realistically win the Whitehouse in 2012?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Sarah Palin for President ?
No one can deny Sarah Palin’s charisma, common sense approach to issues, and media savvy, and few will deny she was an overall plus for the GOP this past election. However, I find it rare in conservative and Tea Party circles for anyone to support her as the serious Republican Presidential nominee in 2012, much less the winner. Conservatives are well aware of Palin’s shortcomings, yet the media seems to be rather blind to them at the moment. In fact, every time I turn on the TV, all I hear the mainstream talk about when it comes to 2012 nominees is that Palin is already the anointed saviour.
The media seems to be intentionally ignoring everything they have mocked her for over the past 2 years. So I started asking myself: "Why?" I am not one to put much stock in conspiracy theories, but it does seem a bit strange. Her supposed base is not keen on her being President; yet, the media, rather than relegate her to political sideshow, is ordaining her the next GOP Presidential candidate.
Now, we all know the media tends to be liberal, outside Fox News of course; so, it does not seem to be in their political interest to bag the Palin drum. But what if, per chance, the media is pumping up Palin because they know she’ll lose a general election to Obama? Are the onslaught of media offers and free publicity a subtle means of saying to the GOP, “Look, here’s your nominee. We accept her and think she’s great. ‘Dontcha know’, we even gave her daughter a shot on the #1 TV show and gave Sarah her very own show on TLC?” Are they trying to give us a false sense of security in Palin's chances and distract us from all the reasons we know she's not the best candidate to defeat President Obama in 2012?
Of course, it could be that they are only in it because Palin means ratings. She’s the political equivalent of Kim Kardashian, putting her on anything means money for the network(s). Possibly, they could care less about Palin actually being the Republican Presidential candidate; but then again, maybe that is exactly what they want.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
12/01/10
Congress is playing chicken with a fragile US recovery
BY: Armstrong Williams
Congress is playing chicken with a fragile US recovery
This Lame Duck Congress will go down in history as the worst in recent memory. Most economists, regardless of political viewpoint, agree that now is not the time to delay the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Instead of initiating a bill that would extend the tax cuts over the next two or three years, Congress is engaged in political posturing. It is almost too late for this congress to pass a bill that will not dampen America’s tepid economic recovery in 2011. As it currently stands the IRS will begin withholding higher taxes on all Americans beginning January 1. That train has all but left the station. Congress must act quickly to prevent a tax increase that will send the economy reeling in a tail spin. Democrats won’t offer tax policy alternatives, instead, they’ll offer amendments meant to embarrass the GOP and prop up a flailing president.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Congress is playing chicken with a fragile US recovery
BY: Armstrong Williams
Congress is playing chicken with a fragile US recovery
This Lame Duck Congress will go down in history as the worst in recent memory. Most economists, regardless of political viewpoint, agree that now is not the time to delay the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Instead of initiating a bill that would extend the tax cuts over the next two or three years, Congress is engaged in political posturing. It is almost too late for this congress to pass a bill that will not dampen America’s tepid economic recovery in 2011. As it currently stands the IRS will begin withholding higher taxes on all Americans beginning January 1. That train has all but left the station. Congress must act quickly to prevent a tax increase that will send the economy reeling in a tail spin. Democrats won’t offer tax policy alternatives, instead, they’ll offer amendments meant to embarrass the GOP and prop up a flailing president.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/30/10
A Step in the Right Direction
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Step in the Right Direction
There's a lot of criticism swirling around in Washington these days over President Obama and how he seems to have lost his mojo. Sworn in as the greatest communicator since Ronald Reagan, many expected this political wunderkind to step right in and clean up the messes both parties have made through the years, chief among them the spending orgies of years gone by.
Fast forward two short years, and it looks like the dorm RA that was Obama turned into just another freshman away from home drinking everything he could get his hands on -- including the after shave his parents gave him -- in search of that eternal spending buzz you get when one crosses the Potomac.
Then the 2010 elections happened, and Obama was labeled as the great communicator who couldn't. No matter what message he tried to convey, the words didn't seem to resonate on the average American. So credit this President for actually backing some words with action. I'm referring specifically to the President's announcement yesterday that he is freezing all pay hikes for federal workers for the next two years. While many pundits quickly claimed the gesture would only net about $28b over the next five years, I stand up and proudly say, "It's about time! Let's keep taking those steps toward austerity." Frankly, every one concerned about the runaway train this country is on should applaud the President's actions. We need to look at every measure of austerity as we do with tax relief in any form - every little bit helps. And for every dollar that is, in this case, not spent, that's one less dollar we'll need to borrow or burden on our children in the future.
After all, Obama is responsible for growing the federal government, and now he's stepping up and saying we need to freeze how much we spend on public workers. Heck, even the Castros in Cuba have made similar moves in months past.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A Step in the Right Direction
BY: Armstrong Williams
A Step in the Right Direction
There's a lot of criticism swirling around in Washington these days over President Obama and how he seems to have lost his mojo. Sworn in as the greatest communicator since Ronald Reagan, many expected this political wunderkind to step right in and clean up the messes both parties have made through the years, chief among them the spending orgies of years gone by.
Fast forward two short years, and it looks like the dorm RA that was Obama turned into just another freshman away from home drinking everything he could get his hands on -- including the after shave his parents gave him -- in search of that eternal spending buzz you get when one crosses the Potomac.
Then the 2010 elections happened, and Obama was labeled as the great communicator who couldn't. No matter what message he tried to convey, the words didn't seem to resonate on the average American. So credit this President for actually backing some words with action. I'm referring specifically to the President's announcement yesterday that he is freezing all pay hikes for federal workers for the next two years. While many pundits quickly claimed the gesture would only net about $28b over the next five years, I stand up and proudly say, "It's about time! Let's keep taking those steps toward austerity." Frankly, every one concerned about the runaway train this country is on should applaud the President's actions. We need to look at every measure of austerity as we do with tax relief in any form - every little bit helps. And for every dollar that is, in this case, not spent, that's one less dollar we'll need to borrow or burden on our children in the future.
After all, Obama is responsible for growing the federal government, and now he's stepping up and saying we need to freeze how much we spend on public workers. Heck, even the Castros in Cuba have made similar moves in months past.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/29/10
Rangel should leave Congress on own terms
'Tis the holiday season - a time to reflect on all that we have been blessed with here in America. And with those blessings, also the great responsibilities bestowed upon us, each according to the role our Creator has endowed. That paragon of virtues, the U.S. House of Representatives, will return to complete its unfinished business soon.
One piece of such business the entire chamber, both Democrats and Republicans, is dreading. For when the House reconvenes, it must publicly punish Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, for the several criminal acts he committed against the institution and his colleagues.
The technical term for this punishment is a "censure." To the average American however, Mr. Rangel may appear to be getting off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Think about it - any other individual who concealed shady business deals, evaded paying taxes, and used his elective office to advance his own fame and fortune would be behind bars by now. But Congress treats its own differently.
Still, Mr. Rangel pleaded for mercy when facing his accusers last week. He stated he felt his colleagues should honor that request because he didn't commit these acts for his own "personal gain." Really? I find that hard to believe. Here we have a sitting member - and chairman of the tax-writing committee - use his office to solicit funds for centers and other enterprises with his name on them. Who avoided paying taxes, only to say they were staff errors?
Look, I'm not penning this column to retry Mr. Rangel. It's clear he's remorseful and saddened by his actions. I applaud that.
But now, he should take his regrets and do the honorable thing and leave the Congress before year's end, even before this House vote. My argument is not based on politics. Mr. Rangel's seat is safely in Democratic hands. No, there is simply nothing left for Mr. Rangel to do.
The fall of Mr. Rangel brings up several issues. He did not do anything congressmen before him hadn't done, and many still do. The difference is that Mr. Rangel was starting to be considered a liability by the camp of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, so she fed him to the Republicans and public as the token Democrat to live up to her rhetoric on "draining the swamp" of corruption in the Congress.
Strangely, the earliest charge only dates back to 10 years ago. It seems odd that after 40 years of public service, Mr. Rangel would suddenly start betraying the public trust, raising the question "Did he get sloppy, get targeted or finally give in to temptation?" The last thought is the most depressing - that a man stood strong for 40 years and decided to throw his hands in the air and joined the barbarians at the gate. This does not excuse Mr. Rangel's behavior, it's merely food for thought.
Moral relativists may argue, "Well, others do it, so why punish Mr. Rangel?" Other people's bad behavior is never an excuse to engage in the same destructive conduct. Ask any mother and they'll tell you the "Mikey did it" excuse doesn't fly. I've heard this constantly from both Democrats and Republicans over the past 10 years. It's either "Clinton did it, so why are the liberals castigating (insert GOPer here)?" or "Bush did it, so why do they criticize Obama?" Please! Both are wrong, and both need to be condemned for it. Reprobation is never excusable nor negligence easily dismissible, even if your side or hero is guilty. We can't simply disregard Mr. Rangel's conduct because others do it.
Mr. Rangel's greatest sin is his failure to live up to the virtues the public expects of its political leaders. We can forgive many things, especially personal matters where the politician seeks public forgiveness. However, we cannot abide by someone that uses his positions for purely ego-driven legacy, monetary gain and tax evasion while preaching the evils of the wealth and the need for harsher taxation.
If you're a fan of Spider-Man, you know this quote: "With great power comes great responsibility." As an elected official and head of the Ways & Means Committee, Mr. Rangel had great power, but he gave in to the temptation to use that power for selfish gain. It is a sad story that gets repeated over and over - those who go to Washington to help others and reform the system eventually fall to its corruption. Many of these crimes would have been avoided if the official had taken some time out, stepped back and considered whether the venture he was entering into was virtuous or, at the very least, would his constituents approve? It doesn't take much common sense to derive that tax evasion and soliciting funds from those you have power over is immoral behavior.
It is unfortunate that this abuse of authority and his long-winded, tangential, and bizarre screeds defending himself will be what most Americans remember of this - dare I say it - great American. He helped found the Congressional Black Caucus. He led the way for progressive policies. Though tarred, Mr. Rangel's legacy will hopefully endure even this embarrassment. He could take to the well of the House and use that moment, not to defend the indefensible, but rather graciously thank his colleagues, the institution of the House of Representatives, and the American people for allowing him the great distinction of serving his country honorably in the Korean War and then serving his fellow Americans in public office.
That should be the legacy of Charlie Rangel - one that we all can be proud of. Not some surly, scandal-laden punctuation to an otherwise noble career of public service. Don't let this episode dictate how you leave this chapter in your life, good sir. Define it on your own terms.
- Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook - www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Rangel should leave Congress on own terms
'Tis the holiday season - a time to reflect on all that we have been blessed with here in America. And with those blessings, also the great responsibilities bestowed upon us, each according to the role our Creator has endowed. That paragon of virtues, the U.S. House of Representatives, will return to complete its unfinished business soon.
One piece of such business the entire chamber, both Democrats and Republicans, is dreading. For when the House reconvenes, it must publicly punish Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, for the several criminal acts he committed against the institution and his colleagues.
The technical term for this punishment is a "censure." To the average American however, Mr. Rangel may appear to be getting off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Think about it - any other individual who concealed shady business deals, evaded paying taxes, and used his elective office to advance his own fame and fortune would be behind bars by now. But Congress treats its own differently.
Still, Mr. Rangel pleaded for mercy when facing his accusers last week. He stated he felt his colleagues should honor that request because he didn't commit these acts for his own "personal gain." Really? I find that hard to believe. Here we have a sitting member - and chairman of the tax-writing committee - use his office to solicit funds for centers and other enterprises with his name on them. Who avoided paying taxes, only to say they were staff errors?
Look, I'm not penning this column to retry Mr. Rangel. It's clear he's remorseful and saddened by his actions. I applaud that.
But now, he should take his regrets and do the honorable thing and leave the Congress before year's end, even before this House vote. My argument is not based on politics. Mr. Rangel's seat is safely in Democratic hands. No, there is simply nothing left for Mr. Rangel to do.
The fall of Mr. Rangel brings up several issues. He did not do anything congressmen before him hadn't done, and many still do. The difference is that Mr. Rangel was starting to be considered a liability by the camp of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, so she fed him to the Republicans and public as the token Democrat to live up to her rhetoric on "draining the swamp" of corruption in the Congress.
Strangely, the earliest charge only dates back to 10 years ago. It seems odd that after 40 years of public service, Mr. Rangel would suddenly start betraying the public trust, raising the question "Did he get sloppy, get targeted or finally give in to temptation?" The last thought is the most depressing - that a man stood strong for 40 years and decided to throw his hands in the air and joined the barbarians at the gate. This does not excuse Mr. Rangel's behavior, it's merely food for thought.
Moral relativists may argue, "Well, others do it, so why punish Mr. Rangel?" Other people's bad behavior is never an excuse to engage in the same destructive conduct. Ask any mother and they'll tell you the "Mikey did it" excuse doesn't fly. I've heard this constantly from both Democrats and Republicans over the past 10 years. It's either "Clinton did it, so why are the liberals castigating (insert GOPer here)?" or "Bush did it, so why do they criticize Obama?" Please! Both are wrong, and both need to be condemned for it. Reprobation is never excusable nor negligence easily dismissible, even if your side or hero is guilty. We can't simply disregard Mr. Rangel's conduct because others do it.
Mr. Rangel's greatest sin is his failure to live up to the virtues the public expects of its political leaders. We can forgive many things, especially personal matters where the politician seeks public forgiveness. However, we cannot abide by someone that uses his positions for purely ego-driven legacy, monetary gain and tax evasion while preaching the evils of the wealth and the need for harsher taxation.
If you're a fan of Spider-Man, you know this quote: "With great power comes great responsibility." As an elected official and head of the Ways & Means Committee, Mr. Rangel had great power, but he gave in to the temptation to use that power for selfish gain. It is a sad story that gets repeated over and over - those who go to Washington to help others and reform the system eventually fall to its corruption. Many of these crimes would have been avoided if the official had taken some time out, stepped back and considered whether the venture he was entering into was virtuous or, at the very least, would his constituents approve? It doesn't take much common sense to derive that tax evasion and soliciting funds from those you have power over is immoral behavior.
It is unfortunate that this abuse of authority and his long-winded, tangential, and bizarre screeds defending himself will be what most Americans remember of this - dare I say it - great American. He helped found the Congressional Black Caucus. He led the way for progressive policies. Though tarred, Mr. Rangel's legacy will hopefully endure even this embarrassment. He could take to the well of the House and use that moment, not to defend the indefensible, but rather graciously thank his colleagues, the institution of the House of Representatives, and the American people for allowing him the great distinction of serving his country honorably in the Korean War and then serving his fellow Americans in public office.
That should be the legacy of Charlie Rangel - one that we all can be proud of. Not some surly, scandal-laden punctuation to an otherwise noble career of public service. Don't let this episode dictate how you leave this chapter in your life, good sir. Define it on your own terms.
- Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook - www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/29/10
Racism and the fear of offending others
BY: Armstrong Williams
Racism and the fear of offending others.
Racism is a funny thing, even though few find the humor in it. Publicly, everyone rebukes its, yet privately most unwittingly endorse it while thinking "I'm not a racist." A friend of mine from the Midwest told be how he was talking to an acquaintance from Southern California. "I can't believe how the midwest and south treats African Americans. It's a disgrace." The enlightened Californian followed that with, "All these damn wetbacks are ruining America." Of course, the man didn't think what he said was racist because in his mind racism is only between blacks and whites; plus, he was simply "stating the truth" about Hispanics.
Comedians like Richard Pryor and Dave Chapelle made a living pointing out the absurdity of the racism that all groups practice. By shining the light on the imbecilic nature of racism, they actually did more to promote a dialogue and understanding than any politician can dream of, including Barack Obama. It is by pointing to our behaviors in a farcical manner that allows us to safely examine our behavior. When someone is preaching to us about tolerance and how evil we secretly are, we tend become defensive and shut out what that person is saying, even when they have an excellent point. This, and the fear of offending others, is why so many "dialogues on race" fail.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Racism and the fear of offending others
BY: Armstrong Williams
Racism and the fear of offending others.
Racism is a funny thing, even though few find the humor in it. Publicly, everyone rebukes its, yet privately most unwittingly endorse it while thinking "I'm not a racist." A friend of mine from the Midwest told be how he was talking to an acquaintance from Southern California. "I can't believe how the midwest and south treats African Americans. It's a disgrace." The enlightened Californian followed that with, "All these damn wetbacks are ruining America." Of course, the man didn't think what he said was racist because in his mind racism is only between blacks and whites; plus, he was simply "stating the truth" about Hispanics.
Comedians like Richard Pryor and Dave Chapelle made a living pointing out the absurdity of the racism that all groups practice. By shining the light on the imbecilic nature of racism, they actually did more to promote a dialogue and understanding than any politician can dream of, including Barack Obama. It is by pointing to our behaviors in a farcical manner that allows us to safely examine our behavior. When someone is preaching to us about tolerance and how evil we secretly are, we tend become defensive and shut out what that person is saying, even when they have an excellent point. This, and the fear of offending others, is why so many "dialogues on race" fail.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/25/10
Thankful for a Bygone Era and New Dawn
BY: Armstrong Williams
Thankful for a Bygone era and New Dawn
This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for the Soviet Union. I know this sounds strange and dated, but bear with me. I’m thankful for the Soviet Union because without it, I would not have grown up appreciating this great country as much as I do. When I’ve talked to our younger generation, from children to college students, over the past 10 years, I heard very little pride for being an American.
Growing up, the USSR was the Big Bad Enemy that was out to destroy America and Western Civilization. Because of this ominous and ever-present threat, we as Americans had to remain steadfast to the principles that made America great- Freedom, Truth, Hard Work, and Justice.
The fall of the Soviet Empire created not only a vacuum, but began to subtly provoke the questioning of whether America really was the “Good Guy”. It was easy when we knew who the bad guys were and could consider ourselves the underdog, in a way. We were now the biggest game in town, and as such, we became the target, culpable for every ill in this world. Africa is poor? America’s fault. Amazon rain forest being razed? America did it. AIDS? Secret American bio weapon. On and on. It did not take long for those within our borders to take up the refrain. It became to be seen as naive and puerile to be proud of and love America. Everything that had been great about America became an anathema. It also led us to slowly give into the tyrannical and socialism policies of our former enemy – torture, foreign wars based on meager evidence, government handouts and bailouts, and world apology tours for the evils of our distant (and not so distant past).
Without our great antagonist, we began to fall asleep- allowing sloth, moral decay, and entitlement mentality to take over our way of life. Rather than act as the bulwark against this putrefaction, our government (both Republicans and Democrats) largely went along with it and even encouraged such behavior.
But this past year, America finally started to wake up to the problems that have crept in over the past 20 or so years. The Tea Party, for all its warts, served as a shot across the bow to all politicians that were weren’t going to allow this great country slip quietly into the wayside of history.
I honestly thought the liberal ideas that Barack Obama and the far left had been espousing were where we were headed, especially in regards to health care and there attempts to cosign America to “once great nation” status. But the American people restored my faith in this country by remembering the lessons we held so dear when the Red Menace loomed. Today, I am thankful in seeing "We The People" waking up to a new dawn and recommitting ourselves to the principle ideals of the nation. Freedom! Liberty! Justice!
Thank God I’m an American!
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Thankful for a Bygone Era and New Dawn
BY: Armstrong Williams
Thankful for a Bygone era and New Dawn
This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for the Soviet Union. I know this sounds strange and dated, but bear with me. I’m thankful for the Soviet Union because without it, I would not have grown up appreciating this great country as much as I do. When I’ve talked to our younger generation, from children to college students, over the past 10 years, I heard very little pride for being an American.
Growing up, the USSR was the Big Bad Enemy that was out to destroy America and Western Civilization. Because of this ominous and ever-present threat, we as Americans had to remain steadfast to the principles that made America great- Freedom, Truth, Hard Work, and Justice.
The fall of the Soviet Empire created not only a vacuum, but began to subtly provoke the questioning of whether America really was the “Good Guy”. It was easy when we knew who the bad guys were and could consider ourselves the underdog, in a way. We were now the biggest game in town, and as such, we became the target, culpable for every ill in this world. Africa is poor? America’s fault. Amazon rain forest being razed? America did it. AIDS? Secret American bio weapon. On and on. It did not take long for those within our borders to take up the refrain. It became to be seen as naive and puerile to be proud of and love America. Everything that had been great about America became an anathema. It also led us to slowly give into the tyrannical and socialism policies of our former enemy – torture, foreign wars based on meager evidence, government handouts and bailouts, and world apology tours for the evils of our distant (and not so distant past).
Without our great antagonist, we began to fall asleep- allowing sloth, moral decay, and entitlement mentality to take over our way of life. Rather than act as the bulwark against this putrefaction, our government (both Republicans and Democrats) largely went along with it and even encouraged such behavior.
But this past year, America finally started to wake up to the problems that have crept in over the past 20 or so years. The Tea Party, for all its warts, served as a shot across the bow to all politicians that were weren’t going to allow this great country slip quietly into the wayside of history.
I honestly thought the liberal ideas that Barack Obama and the far left had been espousing were where we were headed, especially in regards to health care and there attempts to cosign America to “once great nation” status. But the American people restored my faith in this country by remembering the lessons we held so dear when the Red Menace loomed. Today, I am thankful in seeing "We The People" waking up to a new dawn and recommitting ourselves to the principle ideals of the nation. Freedom! Liberty! Justice!
Thank God I’m an American!
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/24/10
Rich Liberals: A Paradox Explained
Rich Liberals: A Paradox Explained
Armstrong Williams
Have you ever wondered why certain very rich people, like George Soros, the Kennedy’s, and Hollywood
moguls, become liberals and progressives? There are two principal reasons. The first is Guilt guilt
has been suggested as a reason, especially for members of the generation of wealthy who did not
make or earn their fortune. While this is plausible, Guilt guilt is not subject to the rational analysis of homo
economicus and is best left to the psychologists to explain. The second less mysterious reason is that
liberal policies of high taxes and excessive regulation protect the wealth and status of certain members
of the economic elite. These liberal policies tend to do the most harm to the emerging entrepreneur
class; not the established wealthy class.
High taxes are merely a nuisance for the established rich. They have already protected their wealth
and income from high taxes. They have accountants, lawyers and financial advisors on retainer who
have legally put their wealth into intergenerational trusts, offshore investments and nontaxable assets.
Taxes don’t threaten their dreams of becoming rich, because they already are! On the other hand,
emerging entrepreneurs need all their retained earnings to finance their business. High taxes reduce
their income available for investment in their undercapitalized businesses. Unlike for established
successful businesses, bank financing is not always available for the entrepreneur. Jobs are not provided
by wealthy people, but by entrepreneurs striving to become wealthy. Taxes strike at the heart of the
entrepreneur’s ambitions for success and his ability to create jobs.
Perhaps the very wealthy liberals are not irrational when they support liberal policies of high taxes and
excessive regulation. They are thwarting the up-and-coming entrepreneurs who are competing with
them in the competitive market. In this way the very rich protect their established businesses, wealth
and power. Unfortunately in the process, they harm the vast majority of Americans by thwarting new
businesses and delaying innovation that will result in more jobs, better and cheaper products and
services, and ultimately a better standard of living.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Rich Liberals: A Paradox Explained
Rich Liberals: A Paradox Explained
Armstrong Williams
Have you ever wondered why certain very rich people, like George Soros, the Kennedy’s, and Hollywood
moguls, become liberals and progressives? There are two principal reasons. The first is Guilt guilt
has been suggested as a reason, especially for members of the generation of wealthy who did not
make or earn their fortune. While this is plausible, Guilt guilt is not subject to the rational analysis of homo
economicus and is best left to the psychologists to explain. The second less mysterious reason is that
liberal policies of high taxes and excessive regulation protect the wealth and status of certain members
of the economic elite. These liberal policies tend to do the most harm to the emerging entrepreneur
class; not the established wealthy class.
High taxes are merely a nuisance for the established rich. They have already protected their wealth
and income from high taxes. They have accountants, lawyers and financial advisors on retainer who
have legally put their wealth into intergenerational trusts, offshore investments and nontaxable assets.
Taxes don’t threaten their dreams of becoming rich, because they already are! On the other hand,
emerging entrepreneurs need all their retained earnings to finance their business. High taxes reduce
their income available for investment in their undercapitalized businesses. Unlike for established
successful businesses, bank financing is not always available for the entrepreneur. Jobs are not provided
by wealthy people, but by entrepreneurs striving to become wealthy. Taxes strike at the heart of the
entrepreneur’s ambitions for success and his ability to create jobs.
Perhaps the very wealthy liberals are not irrational when they support liberal policies of high taxes and
excessive regulation. They are thwarting the up-and-coming entrepreneurs who are competing with
them in the competitive market. In this way the very rich protect their established businesses, wealth
and power. Unfortunately in the process, they harm the vast majority of Americans by thwarting new
businesses and delaying innovation that will result in more jobs, better and cheaper products and
services, and ultimately a better standard of living.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/22/10
Forward-leaning on a backward-thinking topic
These are interesting times for education reform in America today. A lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle are calling for "reform," but no one seems to know what "reform" really looks like.
The issue reached new levels of salience just a few weeks ago when "Waiting for Superman" - the Davis Guggenheim documentary following five students and their futures in charter schools - opened to nationwide critical acclaim.
There's no question that this country must have a serious debate on what reform is needed in our education system. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. students in 10th grade rank 28th in math and 22nd in science out of a total of 39 countries in proficiency.
Once the hotbed of innovation, medical and technical advancements, America is now sucking the exhaust fumes of revving machines such as India, China and other advancing nations. We are beyond arrested development. We are regressing. It's one thing to grasp this reality. It's quite another to do something about it.
That's why the departure of D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee in the wake of a new mayor in our nation's capital is such a major loss, both for the reform movement and the District's future.
Following the primary loss of D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, it was fairly evident that Ms. Rhee's head would be first in line on the chopping block.
Her reform initiatives aggressively pushed overhaul over the status quo, which upset many in the education community. She was moving too fast for them to keep up, and certainly too quickly for them to cut her off.
For too long, education "elites" have repeatedly bashed pioneers such as Ms. Rhee for their views.
When asked why they oppose them, teachers unions can't nakedly admit, "Because it disrupts the status quo ..." or "It undermines our power."
So instead, they proffer phrases that sound more benign and well-meaning. "We welcome proposals for reform," they numbly chant, "but only if they are inclusive of our ideas."
Read another way, that means if the unions aren't at the table with their thumbs on the scale to guarantee outcomes, there ain't no way reform is gonna happen.
It's almost like the mafia in the school systems in the District and other struggling big cities. If you try to do things differently, Rocko and Paulie pay a visit to help you get back in line. Sadly, Michelle Rhee was politically gunned down by her opponents for standing up and saying we ought to look for a better way of teaching kids in the District.
In many respects, education policy is a backward-thinking topic in government circles today. At a time when public institutions are struggling to make ends meet and squeezing even more productivity from every resource, policymakers seem all too eager to simply throw more money at an issue that has clearly showed that cash isn't the magic cure-all for advancing education excellence.
According to the Heritage Foundation, federal, state and local education spending combined exceeds $580 billion annually, roughly 4.2 percent of our nation's gross domestic product. Yet while inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending has more than doubled since 1970 (more than $10,000 per student per year), academic achievement has stagnated while graduation rates have flat-lined.
Michelle Rhee understands that truism. Hers is a philosophy that will be a model, not a martyr, for education in the years and decades to come.
For it's only a matter of time when the silent majority of parents and community leaders rise up and start asking the critical question of the education establishment: "Is that all I'm getting for my tax dollar ... a child who struggles to read at a fifth-grade level when they're about to graduate from high school?"
Yes, parents play a role, and we'll discuss that in another column at a later time. But for this moment in time, Ms. Rhee deserves her moment in the sun - one that will mark the latest evolution of education policy in the United States.
The Obama administration understands what Ms. Rhee was trying to do. Just ask the president's education secretary, Arne Duncan, who favored linking teacher evaluations to student test scores, dismissing underperforming educators in favor of teachers who were as excited as the student they taught to be in the classroom and shared the joy and glory of watching a child learn.
Let's be clear: Ms. Rhee's efforts on behalf of education weren't isolated to that profession alone. Now more than ever, a solid education means a lifetime of solid work. Not just a job, but a career. Our future economic recovery depends on the young minds our teachers educate every day.
Further, our continued dominance as the world's only economic superpower hinges on that same foundation. If we are not properly educating the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs so they can create the next software innovations or next iPad, the Chinese are all too eager to fill that void.
As she gave her final public address as chancellor recently, Ms. Rhee told reporters that her future remained unclear. What is clear, however, is a reform-minded legacy that the District would do well to keep in place long after her departure. The rest of the country knows it needs to head in that direction. It would be nice for the District to actually lead in something, for a change.
- "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
Forward-leaning on a backward-thinking topic
These are interesting times for education reform in America today. A lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle are calling for "reform," but no one seems to know what "reform" really looks like.
The issue reached new levels of salience just a few weeks ago when "Waiting for Superman" - the Davis Guggenheim documentary following five students and their futures in charter schools - opened to nationwide critical acclaim.
There's no question that this country must have a serious debate on what reform is needed in our education system. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. students in 10th grade rank 28th in math and 22nd in science out of a total of 39 countries in proficiency.
Once the hotbed of innovation, medical and technical advancements, America is now sucking the exhaust fumes of revving machines such as India, China and other advancing nations. We are beyond arrested development. We are regressing. It's one thing to grasp this reality. It's quite another to do something about it.
That's why the departure of D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee in the wake of a new mayor in our nation's capital is such a major loss, both for the reform movement and the District's future.
Following the primary loss of D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, it was fairly evident that Ms. Rhee's head would be first in line on the chopping block.
Her reform initiatives aggressively pushed overhaul over the status quo, which upset many in the education community. She was moving too fast for them to keep up, and certainly too quickly for them to cut her off.
For too long, education "elites" have repeatedly bashed pioneers such as Ms. Rhee for their views.
When asked why they oppose them, teachers unions can't nakedly admit, "Because it disrupts the status quo ..." or "It undermines our power."
So instead, they proffer phrases that sound more benign and well-meaning. "We welcome proposals for reform," they numbly chant, "but only if they are inclusive of our ideas."
Read another way, that means if the unions aren't at the table with their thumbs on the scale to guarantee outcomes, there ain't no way reform is gonna happen.
It's almost like the mafia in the school systems in the District and other struggling big cities. If you try to do things differently, Rocko and Paulie pay a visit to help you get back in line. Sadly, Michelle Rhee was politically gunned down by her opponents for standing up and saying we ought to look for a better way of teaching kids in the District.
In many respects, education policy is a backward-thinking topic in government circles today. At a time when public institutions are struggling to make ends meet and squeezing even more productivity from every resource, policymakers seem all too eager to simply throw more money at an issue that has clearly showed that cash isn't the magic cure-all for advancing education excellence.
According to the Heritage Foundation, federal, state and local education spending combined exceeds $580 billion annually, roughly 4.2 percent of our nation's gross domestic product. Yet while inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending has more than doubled since 1970 (more than $10,000 per student per year), academic achievement has stagnated while graduation rates have flat-lined.
Michelle Rhee understands that truism. Hers is a philosophy that will be a model, not a martyr, for education in the years and decades to come.
For it's only a matter of time when the silent majority of parents and community leaders rise up and start asking the critical question of the education establishment: "Is that all I'm getting for my tax dollar ... a child who struggles to read at a fifth-grade level when they're about to graduate from high school?"
Yes, parents play a role, and we'll discuss that in another column at a later time. But for this moment in time, Ms. Rhee deserves her moment in the sun - one that will mark the latest evolution of education policy in the United States.
The Obama administration understands what Ms. Rhee was trying to do. Just ask the president's education secretary, Arne Duncan, who favored linking teacher evaluations to student test scores, dismissing underperforming educators in favor of teachers who were as excited as the student they taught to be in the classroom and shared the joy and glory of watching a child learn.
Let's be clear: Ms. Rhee's efforts on behalf of education weren't isolated to that profession alone. Now more than ever, a solid education means a lifetime of solid work. Not just a job, but a career. Our future economic recovery depends on the young minds our teachers educate every day.
Further, our continued dominance as the world's only economic superpower hinges on that same foundation. If we are not properly educating the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs so they can create the next software innovations or next iPad, the Chinese are all too eager to fill that void.
As she gave her final public address as chancellor recently, Ms. Rhee told reporters that her future remained unclear. What is clear, however, is a reform-minded legacy that the District would do well to keep in place long after her departure. The rest of the country knows it needs to head in that direction. It would be nice for the District to actually lead in something, for a change.
- "The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
11/22/10
Pat-Down or Potential Death?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Pat-Down or Potential Death?
You had to imagine it was coming. After weeks of complaints the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been receiving, one incident that occurred over the weekend involving a man who had survived cancer suggests the new guidelines for screening air passengers have gone too far. The scene in question involved a Michigan man leaving flying out of the Detroit airport, but because of a urostomy bag attached to his bladder, when the passenger was aggressively patted down, urine spilled onto his clothes.
Some would rear back in horror and shock at such insensitivity towards this individual. Yes, what happened is regrettable. But isn't this new, more aggressive form of searches aboard U.S. planes warranted and necessary? Are the terrorists not testing every entry point into the U.S.? If prior weeks have been any indication, the aircraft is still the weapon of choice among most of the terrorist world. I hate being patted down, but it sure beats the alternative...
I've seen these T.S.A agents. Some look like they need a shot of caffeine before they could do anything, much less search for weapons or suspicious packages (all the more reason for private screeners where accountabliity can fire one of those loafing at a moment's notice). But now is not the time to ease up on security protocols. The world is simply too dangerous to fly and hope for the best. Just look at Israel and the major security measures they take for each flight. America could learn a thing or two from them.
I hate the intrusive, insensitive manner in which these agents grope me at airports, but I keep telling myself two things: 1) They're not trying to get a cheap thrill here, they're trying to move me and thousands others like me through a line in the fastest time possible; and 2) unless and until there is a better way of monitoring for and preventing security breaches, then I'm willing to do my part and suffer a moment of discomfort.
Freedom isn't free, my friends. And this is one example of the price we all must pay for moving about our great nation.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Pat-Down or Potential Death?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Pat-Down or Potential Death?
You had to imagine it was coming. After weeks of complaints the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been receiving, one incident that occurred over the weekend involving a man who had survived cancer suggests the new guidelines for screening air passengers have gone too far. The scene in question involved a Michigan man leaving flying out of the Detroit airport, but because of a urostomy bag attached to his bladder, when the passenger was aggressively patted down, urine spilled onto his clothes.
Some would rear back in horror and shock at such insensitivity towards this individual. Yes, what happened is regrettable. But isn't this new, more aggressive form of searches aboard U.S. planes warranted and necessary? Are the terrorists not testing every entry point into the U.S.? If prior weeks have been any indication, the aircraft is still the weapon of choice among most of the terrorist world. I hate being patted down, but it sure beats the alternative...
I've seen these T.S.A agents. Some look like they need a shot of caffeine before they could do anything, much less search for weapons or suspicious packages (all the more reason for private screeners where accountabliity can fire one of those loafing at a moment's notice). But now is not the time to ease up on security protocols. The world is simply too dangerous to fly and hope for the best. Just look at Israel and the major security measures they take for each flight. America could learn a thing or two from them.
I hate the intrusive, insensitive manner in which these agents grope me at airports, but I keep telling myself two things: 1) They're not trying to get a cheap thrill here, they're trying to move me and thousands others like me through a line in the fastest time possible; and 2) unless and until there is a better way of monitoring for and preventing security breaches, then I'm willing to do my part and suffer a moment of discomfort.
Freedom isn't free, my friends. And this is one example of the price we all must pay for moving about our great nation.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/19/10
Alaskans Hypocrisy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Alaskans Hypocrisy
Lisa Murkowski was finally declared the winner of the Alaskan Senate race over the official Republican and Tea Party backed candidate Joe Miller. This race might not seem like much, but is a dismaying representation of how, when confronted with a candidate espousing principals they clam to hold dear, many people will instead choose the peddler handing out the most candy. To say this race was business-as-usual and a disappointing example of hypocrisy is an understatement.
Alaskans pride themselves on being tough, salt of the earth folks. They count wearing Carharts and hoodies as their Sunday best. Subsistence fishing and hunting is their heritage even when they have two years worth of salmon and moose in their freezer.
Joe Miller’s platform appealed to this self-perception: Alaskans are tough people who value their freedom and want as little government as possible in their lives. Alaskans don't need welfare, their own self-determination and Mother Nature provides for all their wants and needs. Joe Miller declared that he would take a stand against earmarks, pork, and the way Washington works.
After the primary, Alaskans woke up to the hangover of reality, showed their true colors, and stabbed Miller in the back. Miller won the GOP primary, but rather than retire from the field gracefully, Lisa Murkoski mounted a furious write-in campaign to continue to hold the seat to which her father appointed her. There were no Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell gaffs and bizarre statements from Miller; rather, Murkowski simply appealed to Alaskans true nature as federal government moochers, and Alaskans gladly acquiesced.
Despite the image, all Alaskans depend on welfare. With a population of less than 700,000, Alaska received by far the biggest per-capita chunk of federal stimulus spending. All told, Alaskans receive 8 dollars for every dollar they pay in federal taxes. If you thought getting a one-time $500 dollar check from the IRS was nice, try the at least $1600 tax free, per family member-not just tax payer- that Alaskans are guaranteed by Uncle Sam each year. Additionally, Alaska receives enormous sums from the federal government to maintain two huge military bases just outside of Anchorage just to keep many Alaskans employed and directly tied to federal dollars.
Native Alaskans don't just live in small villages preserving their noble way of life; they control huge native corporations that depend entirely on federal contracts, including missile testing, an all-inclusive "natives only" hospital, and general aid packages. At the same time, they do not pay federal taxes due to their native status.
And, in case you didn't know, Alaska also has the highest amount of millionaires per capita. A poor rough in tumble folk, Alaskans generally aren’t.
Lisa Murkowski had to spend millions of dollars and doled out hundreds of promises that could eventually cost American taxpayers billions to retain her Senate seat. She reminded Alaskans of how much they needed the federal government to subsidize their Alaskan “independence”. Now, she is upset because Republicans are prepared to pass earmark reform. Fortunately for America, most Republicans listened to the People's cries for financial responsibility. Good news for America, bad news to the moocher state of Alaska.
Alaskans Hypocrisy
BY: Armstrong Williams
Alaskans Hypocrisy
Lisa Murkowski was finally declared the winner of the Alaskan Senate race over the official Republican and Tea Party backed candidate Joe Miller. This race might not seem like much, but is a dismaying representation of how, when confronted with a candidate espousing principals they clam to hold dear, many people will instead choose the peddler handing out the most candy. To say this race was business-as-usual and a disappointing example of hypocrisy is an understatement.
Alaskans pride themselves on being tough, salt of the earth folks. They count wearing Carharts and hoodies as their Sunday best. Subsistence fishing and hunting is their heritage even when they have two years worth of salmon and moose in their freezer.
Joe Miller’s platform appealed to this self-perception: Alaskans are tough people who value their freedom and want as little government as possible in their lives. Alaskans don't need welfare, their own self-determination and Mother Nature provides for all their wants and needs. Joe Miller declared that he would take a stand against earmarks, pork, and the way Washington works.
After the primary, Alaskans woke up to the hangover of reality, showed their true colors, and stabbed Miller in the back. Miller won the GOP primary, but rather than retire from the field gracefully, Lisa Murkoski mounted a furious write-in campaign to continue to hold the seat to which her father appointed her. There were no Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell gaffs and bizarre statements from Miller; rather, Murkowski simply appealed to Alaskans true nature as federal government moochers, and Alaskans gladly acquiesced.
Despite the image, all Alaskans depend on welfare. With a population of less than 700,000, Alaska received by far the biggest per-capita chunk of federal stimulus spending. All told, Alaskans receive 8 dollars for every dollar they pay in federal taxes. If you thought getting a one-time $500 dollar check from the IRS was nice, try the at least $1600 tax free, per family member-not just tax payer- that Alaskans are guaranteed by Uncle Sam each year. Additionally, Alaska receives enormous sums from the federal government to maintain two huge military bases just outside of Anchorage just to keep many Alaskans employed and directly tied to federal dollars.
Native Alaskans don't just live in small villages preserving their noble way of life; they control huge native corporations that depend entirely on federal contracts, including missile testing, an all-inclusive "natives only" hospital, and general aid packages. At the same time, they do not pay federal taxes due to their native status.
And, in case you didn't know, Alaska also has the highest amount of millionaires per capita. A poor rough in tumble folk, Alaskans generally aren’t.
Lisa Murkowski had to spend millions of dollars and doled out hundreds of promises that could eventually cost American taxpayers billions to retain her Senate seat. She reminded Alaskans of how much they needed the federal government to subsidize their Alaskan “independence”. Now, she is upset because Republicans are prepared to pass earmark reform. Fortunately for America, most Republicans listened to the People's cries for financial responsibility. Good news for America, bad news to the moocher state of Alaska.
11/18/10
Wealthy Liberals excessive regulation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Wealthy Liberals excessive regulation
Liberal policies of excessive regulation protect the businesses of the very wealthy from young entrepreneurs who are trying to compete with them in order to create their own new wealth and power. Excessive regulation creates expensive barriers to entry into industry, imposing high fixed costs on every business that inherently favor large-scale enterprises over the smaller upstarts, because the large company can spread these fixed costs over a larger number of units sold. The smaller company must use precious working capital for lawyers and accountants to become familiar with and navigate through a dense thicket of rules. A host of state and federal licensure, insurance and employee compensation requirements bring about increases in the cost of labor, which the large, established companies can better afford than their newer competition. Thus, excessive regulation creates protective cartels in insurance, banking and finance, pharmaceuticals, communications and media, transportation and utilities. Excessive regulations are barriers-of-entry into markets controlled by established businesses.
Perhaps, the very wealthy liberals are not irrational when they support liberal policies of high taxes and excessive regulation. They are thwarting the up-and-coming entrepreneurs who are competing with them in the competitive market. In this way the very rich protect their established businesses, wealth and power. Unfortunately in the process, they harm the vast majority of Americans by thwarting new businesses and delaying innovation that will result in more jobs, better and cheaper products and services, and ultimately a better standard of living.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Wealthy Liberals excessive regulation
BY: Armstrong Williams
Wealthy Liberals excessive regulation
Liberal policies of excessive regulation protect the businesses of the very wealthy from young entrepreneurs who are trying to compete with them in order to create their own new wealth and power. Excessive regulation creates expensive barriers to entry into industry, imposing high fixed costs on every business that inherently favor large-scale enterprises over the smaller upstarts, because the large company can spread these fixed costs over a larger number of units sold. The smaller company must use precious working capital for lawyers and accountants to become familiar with and navigate through a dense thicket of rules. A host of state and federal licensure, insurance and employee compensation requirements bring about increases in the cost of labor, which the large, established companies can better afford than their newer competition. Thus, excessive regulation creates protective cartels in insurance, banking and finance, pharmaceuticals, communications and media, transportation and utilities. Excessive regulations are barriers-of-entry into markets controlled by established businesses.
Perhaps, the very wealthy liberals are not irrational when they support liberal policies of high taxes and excessive regulation. They are thwarting the up-and-coming entrepreneurs who are competing with them in the competitive market. In this way the very rich protect their established businesses, wealth and power. Unfortunately in the process, they harm the vast majority of Americans by thwarting new businesses and delaying innovation that will result in more jobs, better and cheaper products and services, and ultimately a better standard of living.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/17/10
Chinese and US deficit consequences
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Armstrong Williams
Date: Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:35 AM
Subject: Devaluing U.S Dollar, Chinese consequences
To: Armstrong Williams, army2029@aol.com
BY: Armstrong Williams
Chinese and US Deficit Consequences
In conversations with the Chinese and Hong Kong banking and business community and reading the Chinese English language press, the criticism of America’s fiscal and monetary policy is deafening. HK’s dollar and China’s RMB are tied to the US dollar. The Chinese firmly believe that the US is using expansion of the US dollar supply, euphemistically referred to as “quantitative easing” (QE II), to devalue the dollar in order to create jobs in the US at the expense of emerging nations. They are also concerned that the excess dollars will flow into HK, China and other countries with exchange rates tied to the dollar. This dollar inflow is expected to create commodity and real estate bubbles, and generate inflation. This principal unintended consequence of QE II is agricultural inflation that will result in food shortages in the undeveloped world.
President Obama’s trip to Asia last week was a public relations disaster for US economic leadership in the world. Obama is viewed by the Chinese, and most of the finance ministers of the G-20, as a hypocrite who criticizes China for currency manipulation to fuel exports on the one hand while his administration justifies the Fed’s currency manipulation through QE II on the other.
The Chinese are very critical that the US is using expansionary monetary policy as a substitute to deal with the government’s fiscal deficits and slow economic growth. They believe the US has to address the root cause of the deficit which is unfunded government spending. They are also skeptical that unfunded government spending policy will create long-term jobs. The US has to address issues of debt financed consumer spending and government disincentives to private sector growth.
This criticism is especially interesting given that China is still very much a state controlled economy. Perhaps it takes a society with a history of state control to appreciate the limits of government intervention in and manipulation of the economy.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Chinese and US deficit consequences
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Armstrong Williams
Date: Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:35 AM
Subject: Devaluing U.S Dollar, Chinese consequences
To: Armstrong Williams
BY: Armstrong Williams
Chinese and US Deficit Consequences
In conversations with the Chinese and Hong Kong banking and business community and reading the Chinese English language press, the criticism of America’s fiscal and monetary policy is deafening. HK’s dollar and China’s RMB are tied to the US dollar. The Chinese firmly believe that the US is using expansion of the US dollar supply, euphemistically referred to as “quantitative easing” (QE II), to devalue the dollar in order to create jobs in the US at the expense of emerging nations. They are also concerned that the excess dollars will flow into HK, China and other countries with exchange rates tied to the dollar. This dollar inflow is expected to create commodity and real estate bubbles, and generate inflation. This principal unintended consequence of QE II is agricultural inflation that will result in food shortages in the undeveloped world.
President Obama’s trip to Asia last week was a public relations disaster for US economic leadership in the world. Obama is viewed by the Chinese, and most of the finance ministers of the G-20, as a hypocrite who criticizes China for currency manipulation to fuel exports on the one hand while his administration justifies the Fed’s currency manipulation through QE II on the other.
The Chinese are very critical that the US is using expansionary monetary policy as a substitute to deal with the government’s fiscal deficits and slow economic growth. They believe the US has to address the root cause of the deficit which is unfunded government spending. They are also skeptical that unfunded government spending policy will create long-term jobs. The US has to address issues of debt financed consumer spending and government disincentives to private sector growth.
This criticism is especially interesting given that China is still very much a state controlled economy. Perhaps it takes a society with a history of state control to appreciate the limits of government intervention in and manipulation of the economy.
--
Armstrong
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/16/10
The Tea Party and fiscal governance
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Tea Party and fiscal governance
For the immediate term, the Tea Party affected politics in Washington
dramatically. The outcry forced many liberal candidates to run away
from their records or actively campaign against the Obama
Administration platform like Senator-elect Joe Manchin of West
Virginia, who sounds more Republican than Sen. Olympia Snowe. It
certainly reminded Republicans of their disastrous economic policies
that focused on expanding government and buying off voters to create a
mythical “permanent majority” of the Bush era. Hopefully, it also
reminded the Democrats that America is not as left leaning as they
thought.
But will the Tea Party have a lasting effect of pulling government
largess back? That remains to be seen. It is my hope that everyday
Americans will continue to make their voices heard when government
oversteps its bounds, no matter which party it affects. Our government
must serve The People’s interest first and foremost, not partisan
ideology; after all, they work for us.
Will the Tea Party elected candidates finally make both parties fiscal responsible in the new Congress?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Tea Party and fiscal governance
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Tea Party and fiscal governance
For the immediate term, the Tea Party affected politics in Washington
dramatically. The outcry forced many liberal candidates to run away
from their records or actively campaign against the Obama
Administration platform like Senator-elect Joe Manchin of West
Virginia, who sounds more Republican than Sen. Olympia Snowe. It
certainly reminded Republicans of their disastrous economic policies
that focused on expanding government and buying off voters to create a
mythical “permanent majority” of the Bush era. Hopefully, it also
reminded the Democrats that America is not as left leaning as they
thought.
But will the Tea Party have a lasting effect of pulling government
largess back? That remains to be seen. It is my hope that everyday
Americans will continue to make their voices heard when government
oversteps its bounds, no matter which party it affects. Our government
must serve The People’s interest first and foremost, not partisan
ideology; after all, they work for us.
Will the Tea Party elected candidates finally make both parties fiscal responsible in the new Congress?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/15/10
The U.S. looming trade war with China
When times were good, it was easy for America to overlook the effects of China's currency manipulation. U.S. unemployment hovered around 5 percent, and growth averaged about the same. Even though U.S. jobs got shipped overseas, cheap Chinese imports flooded the markets and softened the impact of declining consumer purchasing power. China helped to further bolster our consumption by purchasing more than $1 trillion in U.S. debt.
Times have changed. With official unemployment hovering at around 10 percent and inflation near zero, China poses a severe problem to the U.S. recovery through its currency manipulation. Chinese imports - cheapened by the subsidies China gives to its producers - prevent U.S. manufacturers from producing and selling goods in the United States. This makes a recovery in domestic employment all the more difficult.
It appears the two nations interests have diverged to the point where a trade war is almost inevitable. We see the opening salvos already. Chinas recent announcement that it will restrict rare earth mineral exports is basically a move against Japan, a U.S. ally in the Group of 20 coalition of industrial economies. The Chinese premier is going around embracing the Greek government, offering to buy worthless Greek bonds - again to try to weaken the U.S. coalition within the G-20. In a further saber-rattling maneuver, China banned imports of chicken feet from the U.S. - a food considered a delicacy in China but a useless byproduct of poultry production in the U.S.
For its part, the U.S. has signaled that it is willing to do whatever it takes to cheapen the value of the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve has significantly increased its production of money in the past two years. As a result, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has plummeted versus other world currencies. The value of all the Treasury bonds the Chinese purchased has similarly plummeted. The Chinese government grumbled early this year - encouraging the U.S. to be a more responsible debtor. The West countered by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an imprisoned Chinese dissident.
Neither side wants to resort to the nuclear option - outright trade restrictions. Banning Chinese imports would have immediate and drastic effects on the Chinese economy. Factories would close. Millions of people would become instantly unemployed. And a rapidly developing Chinese consumer base would essentially disappear overnight.
On the U.S. side, further reductions in the value of the dollar would hurt savers, especially seniors who have saved for retirement by investing in U.S. bonds. Furthermore, U.S. retailers would see a drastic increase in costs. Inflation would rise rapidly, and consumer purchasing power would plummet.
Both sides would suffer bitter losses, and the question arises as to who could outlast the other. Arguably, the Chinese have less to lose. They already experience a relatively low standard of living. But that standard has been improving of late, and many Chinese could be loath to return to the days of mass starvation they experienced under previous governments. Americans by comparison are spoiled. Could we really do without our creature comforts and endure a bare level of subsistence? The recent declines in employment and housing may have conditioned us for such a reality.
It also comes down to which economy is more nimble. Both are like huge aircraft carriers, and turning on a dime is impossible. China is riding the tiger of growth and holding on for dear life. Its not a beast that's easily tamed in a country of more than 1 billion people. The best the government can do is to attempt to guide it in the right direction. America, on the other hand, has tried to use government policy to waken a slumbering bear. If it succeeds, the bear may wake up angry and strike at whoever's around. Thus, artificially stimulating growth may have destructive inflationary effects.
This does not have to be a zero-sum game, however. China faces difficulties in growing its domestic economy if it does not open up to other ideas. Its draconian government policies - one child and restrictions on free speech and political organizing - wont work in the information-based economy of the future. Perhaps the Chinese could do well to import some of our social and political freedoms. They also have to begin stimulating internal demand - and that requires the higher wages that would result from a realistic currency policy.
On the other hand, the law of consumption has all but derailed the U.S. economy. Consumers up to their necks in debt will soon drown if they do not spend less and produce more. Perhaps we can learn from China's example of prolific productivity gains. That requires paying down our debts, retooling the work force with better education and reinvigorating the spirit of creativity and innovation that got us to the moon and back in record time.
How will these competing aims translate into a viable trade policy that averts a destructive conflict? The answer is not easy, but it starts with communicating and fostering mutual long-term interests. A strong U.S. economy is arguably in the long-term interests of China.
Could it make some sacrifices in the short term that would aid in the U.S. recovery? The answer seems fairly obvious.
- Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
The U.S. looming trade war with China
When times were good, it was easy for America to overlook the effects of China's currency manipulation. U.S. unemployment hovered around 5 percent, and growth averaged about the same. Even though U.S. jobs got shipped overseas, cheap Chinese imports flooded the markets and softened the impact of declining consumer purchasing power. China helped to further bolster our consumption by purchasing more than $1 trillion in U.S. debt.
Times have changed. With official unemployment hovering at around 10 percent and inflation near zero, China poses a severe problem to the U.S. recovery through its currency manipulation. Chinese imports - cheapened by the subsidies China gives to its producers - prevent U.S. manufacturers from producing and selling goods in the United States. This makes a recovery in domestic employment all the more difficult.
It appears the two nations interests have diverged to the point where a trade war is almost inevitable. We see the opening salvos already. Chinas recent announcement that it will restrict rare earth mineral exports is basically a move against Japan, a U.S. ally in the Group of 20 coalition of industrial economies. The Chinese premier is going around embracing the Greek government, offering to buy worthless Greek bonds - again to try to weaken the U.S. coalition within the G-20. In a further saber-rattling maneuver, China banned imports of chicken feet from the U.S. - a food considered a delicacy in China but a useless byproduct of poultry production in the U.S.
For its part, the U.S. has signaled that it is willing to do whatever it takes to cheapen the value of the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve has significantly increased its production of money in the past two years. As a result, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has plummeted versus other world currencies. The value of all the Treasury bonds the Chinese purchased has similarly plummeted. The Chinese government grumbled early this year - encouraging the U.S. to be a more responsible debtor. The West countered by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an imprisoned Chinese dissident.
Neither side wants to resort to the nuclear option - outright trade restrictions. Banning Chinese imports would have immediate and drastic effects on the Chinese economy. Factories would close. Millions of people would become instantly unemployed. And a rapidly developing Chinese consumer base would essentially disappear overnight.
On the U.S. side, further reductions in the value of the dollar would hurt savers, especially seniors who have saved for retirement by investing in U.S. bonds. Furthermore, U.S. retailers would see a drastic increase in costs. Inflation would rise rapidly, and consumer purchasing power would plummet.
Both sides would suffer bitter losses, and the question arises as to who could outlast the other. Arguably, the Chinese have less to lose. They already experience a relatively low standard of living. But that standard has been improving of late, and many Chinese could be loath to return to the days of mass starvation they experienced under previous governments. Americans by comparison are spoiled. Could we really do without our creature comforts and endure a bare level of subsistence? The recent declines in employment and housing may have conditioned us for such a reality.
It also comes down to which economy is more nimble. Both are like huge aircraft carriers, and turning on a dime is impossible. China is riding the tiger of growth and holding on for dear life. Its not a beast that's easily tamed in a country of more than 1 billion people. The best the government can do is to attempt to guide it in the right direction. America, on the other hand, has tried to use government policy to waken a slumbering bear. If it succeeds, the bear may wake up angry and strike at whoever's around. Thus, artificially stimulating growth may have destructive inflationary effects.
This does not have to be a zero-sum game, however. China faces difficulties in growing its domestic economy if it does not open up to other ideas. Its draconian government policies - one child and restrictions on free speech and political organizing - wont work in the information-based economy of the future. Perhaps the Chinese could do well to import some of our social and political freedoms. They also have to begin stimulating internal demand - and that requires the higher wages that would result from a realistic currency policy.
On the other hand, the law of consumption has all but derailed the U.S. economy. Consumers up to their necks in debt will soon drown if they do not spend less and produce more. Perhaps we can learn from China's example of prolific productivity gains. That requires paying down our debts, retooling the work force with better education and reinvigorating the spirit of creativity and innovation that got us to the moon and back in record time.
How will these competing aims translate into a viable trade policy that averts a destructive conflict? The answer is not easy, but it starts with communicating and fostering mutual long-term interests. A strong U.S. economy is arguably in the long-term interests of China.
Could it make some sacrifices in the short term that would aid in the U.S. recovery? The answer seems fairly obvious.
- Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
11/15/10
Shuler v. Pelosi-a necessary challenge
By: Armstrong Williams
Shuler v. Pelosi – a necessary challenge
A barely-known Democratic member of the House has done what over a half-dozen more qualified of his colleagues have cowered in fear over – mount a challenge to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her bid to remain the highest ranking member when Democrats assume the minority in January.
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), a former Heisman award winner, stepped up yesterday and announced his bid to unseat Pelosi as incoming Minority Leader. This isn’t some empty challenge, even though Shuler stands little chance. It’s one based on recognition of the political reality facing this party now – they’re about to be led over a cliff again by the same liberal shepherd.
Say what you will about the fella, but Shuler is no dummy. While traveling through his district in 2008, I asked a constituent if they knew the first vote their Congressman cast every year. When the local businessman replied he did not, I told him that first vote was Shuler’s “aye” for liberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The gentleman about hit the floor. At first, he didn’t believe me, because Heath Shuler acts and thinks nothing like Pelosi.
I believe the reaction by this and thousands of other constituents struck a nerve with Shuler. He realized then and now that his party can not – it must not – continue with the status quo sure to be promised by Pelosi.
Nothing about her candidacy says Pelosi has learned a lesson from these elections. Like President Obama, Pelosi feels she was right in the work she did, despite the utter repudiation by millions of Americans.
Shuler is not so sure, telling CNN on Sunday, “We have to go into those moderate areas, those swing districts, and be able to get great recruits or get back those members of Congress that we lost…I just don't see that path happening if we have her at the top of the leadership.” Truer words were never spoken.
The odd question for me is: Why can’t Clyburn and Hoyer see this blinding glimpse of the obvious? Pelosi bought these two off for nothing more than political table scraps. “Assistant Leader”? Please. As if Pelosi will surrender any more of the power she lost as Speaker.
Yet Shuler's move may be the beginning of the end for Pelosi. She surely will survive this challenge, but what about the next one? What happens when, not if, her leadership on a particular measure comes under question from within her own ranks? The rift has been exposed now. And every move she makes from now on will be under intense scrutiny. Better settle in for a long 2011, folks...
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www
Shuler v. Pelosi-a necessary challenge
By: Armstrong Williams
Shuler v. Pelosi – a necessary challenge
A barely-known Democratic member of the House has done what over a half-dozen more qualified of his colleagues have cowered in fear over – mount a challenge to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her bid to remain the highest ranking member when Democrats assume the minority in January.
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), a former Heisman award winner, stepped up yesterday and announced his bid to unseat Pelosi as incoming Minority Leader. This isn’t some empty challenge, even though Shuler stands little chance. It’s one based on recognition of the political reality facing this party now – they’re about to be led over a cliff again by the same liberal shepherd.
Say what you will about the fella, but Shuler is no dummy. While traveling through his district in 2008, I asked a constituent if they knew the first vote their Congressman cast every year. When the local businessman replied he did not, I told him that first vote was Shuler’s “aye” for liberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The gentleman about hit the floor. At first, he didn’t believe me, because Heath Shuler acts and thinks nothing like Pelosi.
I believe the reaction by this and thousands of other constituents struck a nerve with Shuler. He realized then and now that his party can not – it must not – continue with the status quo sure to be promised by Pelosi.
Nothing about her candidacy says Pelosi has learned a lesson from these elections. Like President Obama, Pelosi feels she was right in the work she did, despite the utter repudiation by millions of Americans.
Shuler is not so sure, telling CNN on Sunday, “We have to go into those moderate areas, those swing districts, and be able to get great recruits or get back those members of Congress that we lost…I just don't see that path happening if we have her at the top of the leadership.” Truer words were never spoken.
The odd question for me is: Why can’t Clyburn and Hoyer see this blinding glimpse of the obvious? Pelosi bought these two off for nothing more than political table scraps. “Assistant Leader”? Please. As if Pelosi will surrender any more of the power she lost as Speaker.
Yet Shuler's move may be the beginning of the end for Pelosi. She surely will survive this challenge, but what about the next one? What happens when, not if, her leadership on a particular measure comes under question from within her own ranks? The rift has been exposed now. And every move she makes from now on will be under intense scrutiny. Better settle in for a long 2011, folks...
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www
11/12/10
Palin Loyalty tough to beat in a GOP primary race
BY: Armstrong Williams
Palin Loyalty tough to beat in a GOP primary race
I have no desire to talk about the already-crowded field of prospective Republican presidential candidates now. I’m not sure if that’s because it’s too early or I’m simply too scared of what is quickly becoming obvious. At this point in mid-November, we know a few things: Mitt Romney is definitely running. So are Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty. Sen. John Thune and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels are quietly pondering the idea, but as the decision date draws close, you can bet they’ll be in the GOP mix. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour should run, if only so we can hear his popular witticisms.
There will be others, of course, but the one person every pundit is asking about is Sarah Palin. Will she take the plunge in the wake of a successful season for her brand of Tea Party politics or will she continue to make moose gobs of money on the speaker circuit?
If the Republican primary process even remotely reflected how party members felt about her, Palin would not finish near the top if votes were cast today. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 67% of Americans say Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president. No surprise there. Yet when Republicans were asked the same question, fewer than half (47%) said she was indeed qualified, while 46% said she was not. Those are fairly interesting numbers, particularly among party followers.
A quick glance at the GOP nomination process, however, coupled with the presumed crowded field, and one can easily see how Palin not only captures the nomination, but wins it fairly easily.
Think of it as the Palin Loyalty Factor (PLF). If there are 7-9 GOP candidates headed into Iowa and New Hampshire, several will draw from the same base of voters, splitting an already small segment of voters who would look beyond Palin’s charisma and appeal for something of more substance. Yet Palin’s voter corps would, through thick and thin, still register in the 15%-20% range, a percentage that, while small in nominal terms, would easily form a plurality of Republican voters and send her over the top.
The PLF would be hard to undermine, as well, because the intensity of her voters is remarkably strong. I’ll be interested to see how Gov. Palin conducts herself in the months to come, challenging the President’s agenda while holding Republicans’ feet to the fire of her conservative principles. Many will attempt to glean glimpses into how Palin would run a presidential bid based on how she moves through 2011. We know one thing: Palin has a lot to prove to voters to win their support in a general matchup against Obama.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Palin Loyalty tough to beat in a GOP primary race
BY: Armstrong Williams
Palin Loyalty tough to beat in a GOP primary race
I have no desire to talk about the already-crowded field of prospective Republican presidential candidates now. I’m not sure if that’s because it’s too early or I’m simply too scared of what is quickly becoming obvious. At this point in mid-November, we know a few things: Mitt Romney is definitely running. So are Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty. Sen. John Thune and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels are quietly pondering the idea, but as the decision date draws close, you can bet they’ll be in the GOP mix. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour should run, if only so we can hear his popular witticisms.
There will be others, of course, but the one person every pundit is asking about is Sarah Palin. Will she take the plunge in the wake of a successful season for her brand of Tea Party politics or will she continue to make moose gobs of money on the speaker circuit?
If the Republican primary process even remotely reflected how party members felt about her, Palin would not finish near the top if votes were cast today. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 67% of Americans say Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president. No surprise there. Yet when Republicans were asked the same question, fewer than half (47%) said she was indeed qualified, while 46% said she was not. Those are fairly interesting numbers, particularly among party followers.
A quick glance at the GOP nomination process, however, coupled with the presumed crowded field, and one can easily see how Palin not only captures the nomination, but wins it fairly easily.
Think of it as the Palin Loyalty Factor (PLF). If there are 7-9 GOP candidates headed into Iowa and New Hampshire, several will draw from the same base of voters, splitting an already small segment of voters who would look beyond Palin’s charisma and appeal for something of more substance. Yet Palin’s voter corps would, through thick and thin, still register in the 15%-20% range, a percentage that, while small in nominal terms, would easily form a plurality of Republican voters and send her over the top.
The PLF would be hard to undermine, as well, because the intensity of her voters is remarkably strong. I’ll be interested to see how Gov. Palin conducts herself in the months to come, challenging the President’s agenda while holding Republicans’ feet to the fire of her conservative principles. Many will attempt to glean glimpses into how Palin would run a presidential bid based on how she moves through 2011. We know one thing: Palin has a lot to prove to voters to win their support in a general matchup against Obama.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/11/10
U.S - China Trade wars
BY: Armstrong Williams
U.S - China Trade wars
A trade war with China is almost inevitable. We see the opening salvos already. China’s recent announcement that it will restrict rare earth mineral exports is basically a move against Japan, a U.S. ally in the G-20 coalition of industrial economies. The Chinese premier is going around embracing the Greek government, offering to buy worthless Greek bonds — again to try to weaken the U.S. coalition within the G-20. In a further saber-rattling maneuver, China banned imports of chicken feet from the U.S. — a food considered a delicacy in China, but a useless byproduct of poultry production in the U.S.
For its part, the U.S. has signaled that it is willing to do whatever it takes to cheapen the value of the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve has significantly increased its production of money in the past two years. As a result, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has plummeted versus other world currencies. The value of all the Treasury bonds the Chinese purchased has similarly plummeted. The Chinese government grumbled early this year — encouraging the U.S. to be a more responsible debtor. The west countered by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident.
Neither side wants to resort to the nuclear option — outright trade restrictions. Banning Chinese imports would have immediate and drastic effects on the Chinese economy. Factories would close. Millions of people would become instantly unemployed. And a rapidly developing Chinese consumer base would essentially disappear overnight.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
U.S - China Trade wars
BY: Armstrong Williams
U.S - China Trade wars
A trade war with China is almost inevitable. We see the opening salvos already. China’s recent announcement that it will restrict rare earth mineral exports is basically a move against Japan, a U.S. ally in the G-20 coalition of industrial economies. The Chinese premier is going around embracing the Greek government, offering to buy worthless Greek bonds — again to try to weaken the U.S. coalition within the G-20. In a further saber-rattling maneuver, China banned imports of chicken feet from the U.S. — a food considered a delicacy in China, but a useless byproduct of poultry production in the U.S.
For its part, the U.S. has signaled that it is willing to do whatever it takes to cheapen the value of the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve has significantly increased its production of money in the past two years. As a result, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has plummeted versus other world currencies. The value of all the Treasury bonds the Chinese purchased has similarly plummeted. The Chinese government grumbled early this year — encouraging the U.S. to be a more responsible debtor. The west countered by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident.
Neither side wants to resort to the nuclear option — outright trade restrictions. Banning Chinese imports would have immediate and drastic effects on the Chinese economy. Factories would close. Millions of people would become instantly unemployed. And a rapidly developing Chinese consumer base would essentially disappear overnight.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/10/10
Doomed to repeat financial mistakes
BY: Armstrong Williams
Doomed to repeat financial mistakes
The American Dream and capitalistic system is based on being a winner. There are many examples today where children are given participation awards instead of blue ribbons for the winner. Look at youth sports in your community that do not keep score, so no one loses. Grade inflation so that lazy students are equal to the hard working ones. All these ideas are made to boost the esteem of our children, yet it only cripples them later in life. They grow up having not dealt with the hard truth that life is not fair, that not every one is a winner. What this has done is create a generation of Americans that feel entitled, thinking life will hand them winnings. They truly never grasp how to handle set backs and later empower themselves to over come mistakes and bad judgement.
Many individuals in our country do not understand that wealth is not about spending money, it is about making money. Rarely do they learn the supply side of the almighty dollar. The old saying goes, “You have to spend money to make money.” This does not mean you simply spend every penny on “stuff”; rather you should invest it in opportunities. Anyone can spend money, and that is what has lead to many of the financial problems so many are suffering. Creating wealth is about hard work and sacrifice, not buying a new BMW or Louboutin shoes.
Creating wealth is about taking risks. You try to do as much groundwork as possible to reduce uncertainties, but at the end of the day, you roll the dice. The smart ones learn from each roll, both good and bad. What worked, what did not; what mistakes can be learned from and mitigated in the future. The character of a man is not judged on how he falls, but how he picks himself back up. Winners learn why they fell and change strategies, fools and losers do not. The fools take imprudent risks time after time, never knowing why they hit it big other than luck. Eventually that luck runs out and they are at a loss as to how to get back on their feet. The losers never learn from their mistakes; thus are doomed to constantly repeat them. Both suffer from Einstein’s definition of insane, “Doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result.”
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Doomed to repeat financial mistakes
BY: Armstrong Williams
Doomed to repeat financial mistakes
The American Dream and capitalistic system is based on being a winner. There are many examples today where children are given participation awards instead of blue ribbons for the winner. Look at youth sports in your community that do not keep score, so no one loses. Grade inflation so that lazy students are equal to the hard working ones. All these ideas are made to boost the esteem of our children, yet it only cripples them later in life. They grow up having not dealt with the hard truth that life is not fair, that not every one is a winner. What this has done is create a generation of Americans that feel entitled, thinking life will hand them winnings. They truly never grasp how to handle set backs and later empower themselves to over come mistakes and bad judgement.
Many individuals in our country do not understand that wealth is not about spending money, it is about making money. Rarely do they learn the supply side of the almighty dollar. The old saying goes, “You have to spend money to make money.” This does not mean you simply spend every penny on “stuff”; rather you should invest it in opportunities. Anyone can spend money, and that is what has lead to many of the financial problems so many are suffering. Creating wealth is about hard work and sacrifice, not buying a new BMW or Louboutin shoes.
Creating wealth is about taking risks. You try to do as much groundwork as possible to reduce uncertainties, but at the end of the day, you roll the dice. The smart ones learn from each roll, both good and bad. What worked, what did not; what mistakes can be learned from and mitigated in the future. The character of a man is not judged on how he falls, but how he picks himself back up. Winners learn why they fell and change strategies, fools and losers do not. The fools take imprudent risks time after time, never knowing why they hit it big other than luck. Eventually that luck runs out and they are at a loss as to how to get back on their feet. The losers never learn from their mistakes; thus are doomed to constantly repeat them. Both suffer from Einstein’s definition of insane, “Doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result.”
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/09/10
Deriding the middle
BY: Armstrong Williams
Deriding the middle
Word Count: 912
If there is one thing that we can count on from the immediate
aftermath of an election, it is the annoying and unceasing bleating
from the Left about the intelligence of the electorate. The electorate
they are referring to is not actually America as a whole; rather, it
is the 35% of voters that consider themselves moderates. It is these
moderates that act as the arbitrators of this nation, determining
which party will win a given election. In return, they receive the
praise or derision of the Left, depending on which choice they make.
From 2000-2005, the moderates were cast as a bunch of crazy, inbred
warmongers too stupid to know which party was actually looking out for
them. 2006-2009, by contrast, were a time of rational enlightenment
full of swamp draining, Hope, and Change. The days following the
elections of 2010 have brought a predictable chorus from the left. The
moderates are now “insane, hormonal teenagers” and fools that are
dooming America to finical insolvency because they do not want with
yet another stimulus or ObamaCare. Talk about bi-polar.
Let us think about it for a minute. For 7 out of the past 11 years,
the left has derided, in the most salacious terms possible, the voters
most responsible for deciding the party in power. For all their
complaints about the “evil” conservatives and Tea Partiers dumbing
down America, promoting irrational choices and behavior, and lowering
the public discourse; they are the ones slinging the most mud at a
group of people that tend to represent the epitome of the sensible
middle-class. How does such wild swing of praise and criticism help
the public discourse?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Deriding the middle
BY: Armstrong Williams
Deriding the middle
Word Count: 912
If there is one thing that we can count on from the immediate
aftermath of an election, it is the annoying and unceasing bleating
from the Left about the intelligence of the electorate. The electorate
they are referring to is not actually America as a whole; rather, it
is the 35% of voters that consider themselves moderates. It is these
moderates that act as the arbitrators of this nation, determining
which party will win a given election. In return, they receive the
praise or derision of the Left, depending on which choice they make.
From 2000-2005, the moderates were cast as a bunch of crazy, inbred
warmongers too stupid to know which party was actually looking out for
them. 2006-2009, by contrast, were a time of rational enlightenment
full of swamp draining, Hope, and Change. The days following the
elections of 2010 have brought a predictable chorus from the left. The
moderates are now “insane, hormonal teenagers” and fools that are
dooming America to finical insolvency because they do not want with
yet another stimulus or ObamaCare. Talk about bi-polar.
Let us think about it for a minute. For 7 out of the past 11 years,
the left has derided, in the most salacious terms possible, the voters
most responsible for deciding the party in power. For all their
complaints about the “evil” conservatives and Tea Partiers dumbing
down America, promoting irrational choices and behavior, and lowering
the public discourse; they are the ones slinging the most mud at a
group of people that tend to represent the epitome of the sensible
middle-class. How does such wild swing of praise and criticism help
the public discourse?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/08/10
An early win for both parties
BY: Armstrong Williams
An early win for both parties
President Obama sat down this weekend with Steve Croft of 60 Minutes and gave an interesting interview – his first since the thumping his party took on Election Day. It was interesting because he was particularly sober and somber in his demeanor and presence. In some small ways, I saw a willingness to be open to compromise – to begin to signal a consensus is out there with the Republicans. I choose my words carefully because all of this could change come Monday morning, but for now, there is an opening for an early win for both parties. And here it is:
America is reeling from a shaky economy that can’t seem to get back on its feet. The next big test on its balance is the expiring Bush tax breaks at the end of this year. Virtually every economist of all persuasions would say, irrespective of who gets relief, raising taxes on ANYONE right now is the wrong way to go.
Couple that reality with the pledge of incoming Republicans to cut spending. A ripe yet difficult area that’s in desperate need of some trimming is the Defense budget. Yes, a sacred cow to Republicans, but it can no longer be that way in this new era where tough decisions loom around every corner. The sooner Republicans put everything on the table, the sooner Democrats will realize they themselves have a responsibility to do the same, and offer up their own sacred cows such as duplicative programs throughout the federal government.
Swapping job-creating tax relief while cutting the Pentagon’s budget would bring Mr. Obama and his cohorts to the table on an issue they have heretofore been reluctant to engage – spending. And offering up the Defense budget as one of its first areas for waste fraud and abuse would send a strong message to the country the GOP has taken this leadership stuff seriously. They knew they’d need to examine the program eventually, doing it now sets the right tone while wrangling a tough but correct victory on tax relief for all Americans.
The “tax and spend” mantra of Democrats must finally be traded for a new slogan of “cut and cut” by Republicans – cut taxes and cut spending – then watch this economy rebound.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
An early win for both parties
BY: Armstrong Williams
An early win for both parties
President Obama sat down this weekend with Steve Croft of 60 Minutes and gave an interesting interview – his first since the thumping his party took on Election Day. It was interesting because he was particularly sober and somber in his demeanor and presence. In some small ways, I saw a willingness to be open to compromise – to begin to signal a consensus is out there with the Republicans. I choose my words carefully because all of this could change come Monday morning, but for now, there is an opening for an early win for both parties. And here it is:
America is reeling from a shaky economy that can’t seem to get back on its feet. The next big test on its balance is the expiring Bush tax breaks at the end of this year. Virtually every economist of all persuasions would say, irrespective of who gets relief, raising taxes on ANYONE right now is the wrong way to go.
Couple that reality with the pledge of incoming Republicans to cut spending. A ripe yet difficult area that’s in desperate need of some trimming is the Defense budget. Yes, a sacred cow to Republicans, but it can no longer be that way in this new era where tough decisions loom around every corner. The sooner Republicans put everything on the table, the sooner Democrats will realize they themselves have a responsibility to do the same, and offer up their own sacred cows such as duplicative programs throughout the federal government.
Swapping job-creating tax relief while cutting the Pentagon’s budget would bring Mr. Obama and his cohorts to the table on an issue they have heretofore been reluctant to engage – spending. And offering up the Defense budget as one of its first areas for waste fraud and abuse would send a strong message to the country the GOP has taken this leadership stuff seriously. They knew they’d need to examine the program eventually, doing it now sets the right tone while wrangling a tough but correct victory on tax relief for all Americans.
The “tax and spend” mantra of Democrats must finally be traded for a new slogan of “cut and cut” by Republicans – cut taxes and cut spending – then watch this economy rebound.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/07/10
The GOP's guide to good governance
Now that the Republicans have taken back Congress, their most difficult hurdle is ahead. President Obama has made it clear that he will not tack to the center a la Bill Clinton following 1994's bloodbath, so we can expect a lot of gridlock — the Republicans will not bring the administration's policies to a vote, but they do not have enough votes to easily override a veto unless they can get many Democrats to jump ship. However, even the threat of a veto should not prevent Republicans from passing the following legislation.
The first thing Republicans need to do is to renew the Bush tax cuts. Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and $2.6 trillion through 2020. Now if every single penny of those increases went to paying off our debt, maybe I would support letting them expire; however, we all know that this money will be appropriated elsewhere and will only increase our grandchildren's burden and guarantee our slide into a second-rate world power. These cuts affect more than just the wealthy. The lowest personal income bracket jumps 50 percent — from 10 percent to 15 percent. The 25 percent bracket rises to 28 percent, and the old 28 percent goes up to 31 percent.
Next on the agenda is overturning Obamacare. The costs for Obamacare have already risen to more than $1.05 trillion, and the CBO has admitted both that it will not decrease the cost of health care (as we've seen through the increase in premiums in response) and will not save the government/taxpayers money. Large corporations have said they will be cutting out health care for many of its workers due to the expenses Obamacare is placing on them. This plan certainly is not bringing affordable health care to the people, but rather taking away employee-provided health care benefits.
The GOP must make good on its platform of cutting the size of government. For too long it has given lip service to one of the fundamental tenets of the party. For most Republicans, a budget "cut" simply means approving federal budgets for less than what agencies want, but still higher than past years. In other words, they simply do not expand at as fast a rate as the Democrats want.
The entire idea of keeping taxes low is to starve the government so it cannot expand, but especially the Bush-era GOP forgot this idea entirely and gave us tax cuts and bigger budgets, and that's the biggest reason the party lost power in 2006. The Democrats had been out of power long enough and voters had forgotten how much the Democrats could spend like drunken sailors in Bangkok. Hopefully, both parties and the voters have learned their lessons on the real cost of runaway government spending.
They must, at long last, address Social Security. For all the talk back in 2000 of a "lockbox" on Social Security, neither the GOP nor the Democrats did any such thing. This year's annual report from the Social Security actuary concluded that Social Security will be in the red, for the first time ever, starting this year. That is five years earlier than the dire predictions of yesteryear, yet no one is talking about this.
Instead you have fools like the New York Times' Paul Krugman talking up more stimulus while Mr. Obama runs around with his hands in the air yelling, "Let me be clear: It's Bush's fault," rather than coming up with practical solutions. It is simple, folks: Find the problem and address it. We know the issue, so grow some stones and fix Social Security now.
Finally, we must re-instill the idea of realpolitik into our foreign policy. Realpolitik is the idea that foreign diplomacy should be conducted practically and pragmatically rather than moralistically or idealistically. The Bush Doctrine was a piece of overly idealistic poppycock. We cannot practically or financially afford to forcefully bring democracy and freedom to every nation, and not every nation's people want our brand of democracy and freedom anyway. We need to bring to a successful conclusion the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to quit supporting Israel and deal with the Islamic street in more practical terms. We need to encourage a strong India and Japan to counter China's rise while encouraging China, Japan and South Korea to solve their North Korea problem for themselves.
We should look for partners closer to home and strengthen those ties rather than gallivant across the world. Mexico is having devastating problems with crime and drug cartels that are spilling over into our Southwestern states. Helping Mexico makes sense: It directly affects the U.S.; bringing democracy to small towns in Iraq and Afghanistan does not. Working with the Cubans to drill oil off the Cuban coast makes sense, holding on to an outdated embargo while the Chinese make off with Cuban oil does not. The list goes on.
The reason people have given the GOP a second chance after four years is simple — its fiscal ideals. Unlike libertarians, conservatives understand you need some government. The private sponsorship of every government-provided service is patently ridiculous — the Microsoft Court of Appeals or the New York Sewage System sponsored by General Electric.
Government is necessary, but it does not need to be all things to all people, especially not to the people of every nation.
What American government is supposed to do is give people a chance to take personal business risks, not protect them from risk. The government is not supposed to tell you to tighten your belt, then complain that you are not spending enough to help the economy while spending more money itself. It is supposed to encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses, while preventing big businesses from exploiting monopolies and running off to other countries and headquartering there. The GOP does this by championing the idea that the less money you pay to the government, the less government can interfere with your personal life. When given a blank check, governments attempt to reach into every facet of your life and make the decisions for you; it becomes a tyranny.
By passing the above agenda, the GOP will be reasserting the government's pact with the American people and we can begin to look ahead to a brighter future rather than continuing to blame the past.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
The GOP's guide to good governance
Now that the Republicans have taken back Congress, their most difficult hurdle is ahead. President Obama has made it clear that he will not tack to the center a la Bill Clinton following 1994's bloodbath, so we can expect a lot of gridlock — the Republicans will not bring the administration's policies to a vote, but they do not have enough votes to easily override a veto unless they can get many Democrats to jump ship. However, even the threat of a veto should not prevent Republicans from passing the following legislation.
The first thing Republicans need to do is to renew the Bush tax cuts. Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and $2.6 trillion through 2020. Now if every single penny of those increases went to paying off our debt, maybe I would support letting them expire; however, we all know that this money will be appropriated elsewhere and will only increase our grandchildren's burden and guarantee our slide into a second-rate world power. These cuts affect more than just the wealthy. The lowest personal income bracket jumps 50 percent — from 10 percent to 15 percent. The 25 percent bracket rises to 28 percent, and the old 28 percent goes up to 31 percent.
Next on the agenda is overturning Obamacare. The costs for Obamacare have already risen to more than $1.05 trillion, and the CBO has admitted both that it will not decrease the cost of health care (as we've seen through the increase in premiums in response) and will not save the government/taxpayers money. Large corporations have said they will be cutting out health care for many of its workers due to the expenses Obamacare is placing on them. This plan certainly is not bringing affordable health care to the people, but rather taking away employee-provided health care benefits.
The GOP must make good on its platform of cutting the size of government. For too long it has given lip service to one of the fundamental tenets of the party. For most Republicans, a budget "cut" simply means approving federal budgets for less than what agencies want, but still higher than past years. In other words, they simply do not expand at as fast a rate as the Democrats want.
The entire idea of keeping taxes low is to starve the government so it cannot expand, but especially the Bush-era GOP forgot this idea entirely and gave us tax cuts and bigger budgets, and that's the biggest reason the party lost power in 2006. The Democrats had been out of power long enough and voters had forgotten how much the Democrats could spend like drunken sailors in Bangkok. Hopefully, both parties and the voters have learned their lessons on the real cost of runaway government spending.
They must, at long last, address Social Security. For all the talk back in 2000 of a "lockbox" on Social Security, neither the GOP nor the Democrats did any such thing. This year's annual report from the Social Security actuary concluded that Social Security will be in the red, for the first time ever, starting this year. That is five years earlier than the dire predictions of yesteryear, yet no one is talking about this.
Instead you have fools like the New York Times' Paul Krugman talking up more stimulus while Mr. Obama runs around with his hands in the air yelling, "Let me be clear: It's Bush's fault," rather than coming up with practical solutions. It is simple, folks: Find the problem and address it. We know the issue, so grow some stones and fix Social Security now.
Finally, we must re-instill the idea of realpolitik into our foreign policy. Realpolitik is the idea that foreign diplomacy should be conducted practically and pragmatically rather than moralistically or idealistically. The Bush Doctrine was a piece of overly idealistic poppycock. We cannot practically or financially afford to forcefully bring democracy and freedom to every nation, and not every nation's people want our brand of democracy and freedom anyway. We need to bring to a successful conclusion the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to quit supporting Israel and deal with the Islamic street in more practical terms. We need to encourage a strong India and Japan to counter China's rise while encouraging China, Japan and South Korea to solve their North Korea problem for themselves.
We should look for partners closer to home and strengthen those ties rather than gallivant across the world. Mexico is having devastating problems with crime and drug cartels that are spilling over into our Southwestern states. Helping Mexico makes sense: It directly affects the U.S.; bringing democracy to small towns in Iraq and Afghanistan does not. Working with the Cubans to drill oil off the Cuban coast makes sense, holding on to an outdated embargo while the Chinese make off with Cuban oil does not. The list goes on.
The reason people have given the GOP a second chance after four years is simple — its fiscal ideals. Unlike libertarians, conservatives understand you need some government. The private sponsorship of every government-provided service is patently ridiculous — the Microsoft Court of Appeals or the New York Sewage System sponsored by General Electric.
Government is necessary, but it does not need to be all things to all people, especially not to the people of every nation.
What American government is supposed to do is give people a chance to take personal business risks, not protect them from risk. The government is not supposed to tell you to tighten your belt, then complain that you are not spending enough to help the economy while spending more money itself. It is supposed to encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses, while preventing big businesses from exploiting monopolies and running off to other countries and headquartering there. The GOP does this by championing the idea that the less money you pay to the government, the less government can interfere with your personal life. When given a blank check, governments attempt to reach into every facet of your life and make the decisions for you; it becomes a tyranny.
By passing the above agenda, the GOP will be reasserting the government's pact with the American people and we can begin to look ahead to a brighter future rather than continuing to blame the past.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
11/05/10
Where Do We Go From Here?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Where Do We Go From Here?
The hardest part for any successful political movement is the moment
you succeed; the Tea Party is at such a point. Complaining is easy,
governing is hard.
Tea Party organizations like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works and the Tea
Party Express promise to remain as a Sword of Damocles, ready to fall
on any wayward Tea Partiers or Elephants that fail to adhere to fiscal
responsibility by cultivating and funding primary challengers against
perceived traitors.
Expectations must be tempered. The TP augmented the GOP, but the GOP
only controls the House. The Dems still control the Senate and WH.
This means gridlock. Obamacare can’t be repealed as they do not have
enough votes to override, however they can craft a budget that split
difference between Obama’s dreams and Tea Party idealism. It’s easy to
be disappointed, but consider the following- Congress will have to
decide whether or not to raise the debt ceiling in March. The Tea
Party is opposed to such action, yet a government shut down did not
help the Republicans back in 1995, and could damage conservatives
again. So what will it be, taking the brunt of criticism for unpopular
policy, or giving ground on idealism?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Where Do We Go From Here?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Where Do We Go From Here?
The hardest part for any successful political movement is the moment
you succeed; the Tea Party is at such a point. Complaining is easy,
governing is hard.
Tea Party organizations like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works and the Tea
Party Express promise to remain as a Sword of Damocles, ready to fall
on any wayward Tea Partiers or Elephants that fail to adhere to fiscal
responsibility by cultivating and funding primary challengers against
perceived traitors.
Expectations must be tempered. The TP augmented the GOP, but the GOP
only controls the House. The Dems still control the Senate and WH.
This means gridlock. Obamacare can’t be repealed as they do not have
enough votes to override, however they can craft a budget that split
difference between Obama’s dreams and Tea Party idealism. It’s easy to
be disappointed, but consider the following- Congress will have to
decide whether or not to raise the debt ceiling in March. The Tea
Party is opposed to such action, yet a government shut down did not
help the Republicans back in 1995, and could damage conservatives
again. So what will it be, taking the brunt of criticism for unpopular
policy, or giving ground on idealism?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/04/10
A President who just doesn't get it
BY: Armstrong Williams
A President who just doesn't get it
Like many Americans and nearly every pol in Washington, I watched President Obama's news conference yesterday afternoon and came away with a few observations. I believe him (for now) that he wants to work with Republicans to move legislation. I, however, feel that comity will dissipate quickly the first chance the White House gets to wage class warfare against the Republicans. Someone has convinced him attacking this unknown constituency called "the wealthy" is a surefire winner for Obama. It also tells me this president is an idealogue more than anything else. In that regard, he looks NOTHING like his predecessors. Not even failed President Carter, and certainly nothing like Bill Clinton, who himself would have handled the day after those devastating losses far differently.
Just ask Clinton's top political advisor, James Carville, who when asked on CNN what pages Obama has left in the political playbook, Carville amusingly said, "It's called the Constitution..." The inference was clear - Obama must face the reality that he can't jam unpopular policies through and expect a large Democratic majority to rubber stamp them. We now have a true balance of power again in Washington, and everyone is waiting to see how Mr. Obama responds.
Judging by his words yesterday, Americans should settle in for more gridlock during these next two years. Yes, at times the President seemed conciliatory. His "shellacking" comment was as accurate as it was self-deprecating. But that's where the humility ended.
Phrases such as, "I didn't communicate my message better." and "We should have started earlier in convincing the American people..." are not admissions of mistakes or even acknowledgements that, if he'd had a chance to do it all over again, things would be done differently. No, those are remarks from a person who to this day believes in his heart he was right all along. A super majority of the voters didn't see it that way, but doggone it, Obama sure did, and that's all that matters. Folks, that thought process achieves new levels of arrogance, and leaves me with little hope for the next two years. "Communicating our message better" is what losers say when they're too proud to admit they lost. That's not presidential, that's pathetic. As smart as the President is, he knew exactly what he was doing when he chose those words, and that alone makes his sincerity yesterday all the more suspect.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A President who just doesn't get it
BY: Armstrong Williams
A President who just doesn't get it
Like many Americans and nearly every pol in Washington, I watched President Obama's news conference yesterday afternoon and came away with a few observations. I believe him (for now) that he wants to work with Republicans to move legislation. I, however, feel that comity will dissipate quickly the first chance the White House gets to wage class warfare against the Republicans. Someone has convinced him attacking this unknown constituency called "the wealthy" is a surefire winner for Obama. It also tells me this president is an idealogue more than anything else. In that regard, he looks NOTHING like his predecessors. Not even failed President Carter, and certainly nothing like Bill Clinton, who himself would have handled the day after those devastating losses far differently.
Just ask Clinton's top political advisor, James Carville, who when asked on CNN what pages Obama has left in the political playbook, Carville amusingly said, "It's called the Constitution..." The inference was clear - Obama must face the reality that he can't jam unpopular policies through and expect a large Democratic majority to rubber stamp them. We now have a true balance of power again in Washington, and everyone is waiting to see how Mr. Obama responds.
Judging by his words yesterday, Americans should settle in for more gridlock during these next two years. Yes, at times the President seemed conciliatory. His "shellacking" comment was as accurate as it was self-deprecating. But that's where the humility ended.
Phrases such as, "I didn't communicate my message better." and "We should have started earlier in convincing the American people..." are not admissions of mistakes or even acknowledgements that, if he'd had a chance to do it all over again, things would be done differently. No, those are remarks from a person who to this day believes in his heart he was right all along. A super majority of the voters didn't see it that way, but doggone it, Obama sure did, and that's all that matters. Folks, that thought process achieves new levels of arrogance, and leaves me with little hope for the next two years. "Communicating our message better" is what losers say when they're too proud to admit they lost. That's not presidential, that's pathetic. As smart as the President is, he knew exactly what he was doing when he chose those words, and that alone makes his sincerity yesterday all the more suspect.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/03/10
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to recall again this is the United States of America
Republicans would do well to acknowledge early that they could easily lose their majority in two-to-four years. Recognizing that reality doesn’t hasten its arrival. The electorate is simply that volatile. And the sooner that’s acknowledged, the freer the GOP will be to do the right thing.
What they choose to do with this awesome sixty seat gain in the House responsibility rests solely in their hands. They should seize this moment and tackle the most pressing, intractable problems our country faces. Not sheepishly move to issues that will not better this country in wholesale ways. Am I talking about “over-reaching”? No. Rather, they need to address the calamitous problems that have gone unfettered for far too long.
Should Republicans respect the views of the minority and ignore the feelings of their fringe element and allow them to offer amendments on the floor and in committee? This is what Republicans demanded for years, and it’s time now to lead by example. Besides, Democrats won’t do the admirable thing and offer substantive policy alternatives. Instead, you can bet they’ll offer amendments meant to embarrass the GOP and prop up a flailing president. But at least Republicans can set the right tone, and show the American people who serves who.
More important than anything else, Republicans in both chambers must think differently about the constituents, and country, they serve. For far too long, politicians on both sides blocked entire measures, appointees and major initiatives for lame, parochial reasons. We presently have no national nuclear waste disposal program because of one man, Harry Reid, even though Yucca Mountain has been deemed time and again as the single best repository for such spent fuel. That’s not leadership, folks, and it’s certainly not in the interests of our country at large.
For the love of country, can we please have a majority that puts the country’s interests ahead of a congressman’s interests? Yes, members should “vote the district” first, but please don’t continue to fund pork projects we can’t afford with money we don’t have.
For too long, individual members and Senators looked after themselves first, and the country second. We have reached a tipping point in this country where we can no longer afford such narrow-minded policymaking.
It’s time to recall again this is the United States of America.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
BY: Armstrong Williams
Time to recall again this is the United States of America
Republicans would do well to acknowledge early that they could easily lose their majority in two-to-four years. Recognizing that reality doesn’t hasten its arrival. The electorate is simply that volatile. And the sooner that’s acknowledged, the freer the GOP will be to do the right thing.
What they choose to do with this awesome sixty seat gain in the House responsibility rests solely in their hands. They should seize this moment and tackle the most pressing, intractable problems our country faces. Not sheepishly move to issues that will not better this country in wholesale ways. Am I talking about “over-reaching”? No. Rather, they need to address the calamitous problems that have gone unfettered for far too long.
Should Republicans respect the views of the minority and ignore the feelings of their fringe element and allow them to offer amendments on the floor and in committee? This is what Republicans demanded for years, and it’s time now to lead by example. Besides, Democrats won’t do the admirable thing and offer substantive policy alternatives. Instead, you can bet they’ll offer amendments meant to embarrass the GOP and prop up a flailing president. But at least Republicans can set the right tone, and show the American people who serves who.
More important than anything else, Republicans in both chambers must think differently about the constituents, and country, they serve. For far too long, politicians on both sides blocked entire measures, appointees and major initiatives for lame, parochial reasons. We presently have no national nuclear waste disposal program because of one man, Harry Reid, even though Yucca Mountain has been deemed time and again as the single best repository for such spent fuel. That’s not leadership, folks, and it’s certainly not in the interests of our country at large.
For the love of country, can we please have a majority that puts the country’s interests ahead of a congressman’s interests? Yes, members should “vote the district” first, but please don’t continue to fund pork projects we can’t afford with money we don’t have.
For too long, individual members and Senators looked after themselves first, and the country second. We have reached a tipping point in this country where we can no longer afford such narrow-minded policymaking.
It’s time to recall again this is the United States of America.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/02/10
Obama's liberal minority in the Senate
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama’s liberal minority in the Senate
It’s safe to say there’s nothing assured for Senate Democrats tomorrow night. Even if they manage to keep their majority, the grip on that power will be tenuous at best. As recent history has shown, anything less than 60 spells looming problems for the party in power in the upper chamber.
Yet even if President Obama calls sure-to-be Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Election night to congratulate him for keeping the Senate, there’s no guarantee he’ll have the votes to continue pushing his extreme, liberal agenda.
If the Left didn’t have the dogma scared out of them enough to pull them more to the middle this year, then nothing will. However, returning Senators and even the new ones will think twice before voting “aye” for any more of Obama’s policies without assurances that the American people are in agreement.
Just ask Sen. Patty Murray. The Washington state Democrat looks as though she’ll barely eke by her Republican opponent. Yet she’ll be a new person come January, with a fresh perspective on what exactly the “will of the people” really is. She may even adopt her own little litmus test – the WWBD rule: “What Would Ben [Nelson] Do?”
The Nebraska Senator is seen by many as the middle-of-the-road moderate voice of the entire chamber. And many would do well to follow his lead on future policy stances.
But set Murray aside or even Sen. Barbara Boxer, who received her own scare this year. Should West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin pull out a victory in the Mountaineer State, about the only thing he has in common with Obama is the D behind their names.
Manchin was for cap-and-trade before he was against it. And after Tuesday, he’ll always be against it. There goes Obama’s climate control agenda. Manchin is also pro-life and, in his own words, very much a different style of Democrat than what Washington D.C. is used to.
Seat by seat, the makeup of the 112th Senate will be far different in terms of ideology for Obama, should he manage to keep his party in power. That spells an agenda that will pull back to the middle whether he says so or not.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's liberal minority in the Senate
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama’s liberal minority in the Senate
It’s safe to say there’s nothing assured for Senate Democrats tomorrow night. Even if they manage to keep their majority, the grip on that power will be tenuous at best. As recent history has shown, anything less than 60 spells looming problems for the party in power in the upper chamber.
Yet even if President Obama calls sure-to-be Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Election night to congratulate him for keeping the Senate, there’s no guarantee he’ll have the votes to continue pushing his extreme, liberal agenda.
If the Left didn’t have the dogma scared out of them enough to pull them more to the middle this year, then nothing will. However, returning Senators and even the new ones will think twice before voting “aye” for any more of Obama’s policies without assurances that the American people are in agreement.
Just ask Sen. Patty Murray. The Washington state Democrat looks as though she’ll barely eke by her Republican opponent. Yet she’ll be a new person come January, with a fresh perspective on what exactly the “will of the people” really is. She may even adopt her own little litmus test – the WWBD rule: “What Would Ben [Nelson] Do?”
The Nebraska Senator is seen by many as the middle-of-the-road moderate voice of the entire chamber. And many would do well to follow his lead on future policy stances.
But set Murray aside or even Sen. Barbara Boxer, who received her own scare this year. Should West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin pull out a victory in the Mountaineer State, about the only thing he has in common with Obama is the D behind their names.
Manchin was for cap-and-trade before he was against it. And after Tuesday, he’ll always be against it. There goes Obama’s climate control agenda. Manchin is also pro-life and, in his own words, very much a different style of Democrat than what Washington D.C. is used to.
Seat by seat, the makeup of the 112th Senate will be far different in terms of ideology for Obama, should he manage to keep his party in power. That spells an agenda that will pull back to the middle whether he says so or not.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/01/10
Six tips for the 112th Congress
Tuesday's election results likely will signal a historic shift in Congress. In some ways, the final picture of the makeup of the 112th Congress may remain hazy and unclear for several days afterward.
Just a few short months ago, no one but maybe an optimistic National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions could have predicted such possible seismic shifts in the political makeup. And I've heard more than a handful of Republican friends and colleagues mutter to me, "Now what do we do if the prognosticators are accurate?"
Let's begin with these six steps:
• Govern, don't goad: It's pretty simple, voters didn't so much as vote in Republicans than they voted out Democrats. They didn't make John A. Boehner the presumed speaker of the House to simply goad and get even. They voted for Republicans to govern, and to govern well. That means not worrying about what Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland or Henry A. Waxman of California says or does in committee, but simply bearing down on important legislation and getting the job done. If Democrats stand in the way, then fine, make that case in November 2012. Remember, this mess wasn't created in four years (and Republicans certainly contributed to it during the early 2000s) and it will take far longer to clean it up.
• Forget your enemy; build allies instead: For the better part of the past 16 years, congressional Democrats and Republicans played a simple yet twisted game of binary politics — if the other side is losing, we must be winning. Once they realized that equation, both sides sought to undo the other more so than to actually govern. So for 2011, instead of trying to destroy their opponents, Republicans instead should focus on building a coalition of the willing. Draw in moderates, Blue Dogs, anyone who is open-minded on the various issues Congress will face. If the polls from Tuesday show one thing, it is that voters are tired of the bitterness. Growing a majority in 2012 means growing your base of support with the electorate, and that means posting early successes no matter how the "ayes" and "nays" are counted.
• Scratch the "majority of the majority" rule: This concept is clearly inside-baseball tactics, but both sides have been practicing the "majority of the majority" rule for the past decade. The basic idea is the House speaker will not move any bill to the House floor unless that measure can win with a Republican- or Democrat-only majority of votes. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert practiced it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to perfect it. Both led to many embarrassing moments in the chamber when the votes simply weren't there because the other party was left out of the negotiations. That's not how the Founders intended. And Speaker Boehner would do well to banish such tactics from his office for good.
• Realize there is no permanent majority: It's axiomatic in Washington — politicians tend to lose quickly the things they hold on to so tightly. Majorities are not meant to be protected, but rather used to effectuate change. One thing is clear as the dust settles from Tuesday — there is no honeymoon for Republicans. Anyone who believes the GOP can saunter into the majority, assess the landscape and then gingerly begin to move legislation from a perch of confident deliberation hasn't been paying attention. Republicans have made it very clear what they want to do if they take control.
There is no room nor patience for them to worry about term limits on chairmanships or dawdle on bills that may endanger some of their weaker freshmen. Republicans would do well to acknowledge early that they could easily lose their majority in two to four years. Recognizing that reality doesn't hasten its arrival. The electorate is simply that volatile. And the sooner that's acknowledged, the freer the GOP will be to do the right thing.
What the party chooses to do with this awesome responsibility rests solely in its hands. Republicans should seize this moment and tackle the most pressing, intractable problems our country faces — not sheepishly move to issues that will not better this country in wholesale ways. Am I talking about "overreaching?" No. Rather, they need to address the calamitous problems that have gone unfettered for far too long.
• Respect the minority: Pretty novel, huh? Possible? You bet. Why should Republicans respect the views of the minority by allowing them to offer amendments on the floor and in committee? Because that's what Republicans demanded for years, and it's time now to lead by example. Besides, Democrats won't do the admirable thing and offer substantive policy alternatives. Instead, you can bet they'll offer amendments meant to embarrass the GOP and prop up a flailing president. But at least Republicans can set the right tone and show the American people who serves whom.
• Think locally, act nationally: More important than anything else, Republicans in both chambers must think differently about the constituents, and country, they serve. For far too long, politicians on both sides blocked entire measures, appointees and major initiatives for lame, parochial reasons. We presently have no national nuclear waste disposal program because of one man — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — even though Yucca Mountain has been deemed time and again as the single best repository for such spent fuel. That's not leadership, folks, and it's certainly not in the interests of our country at large.
For the love of Pete, can we please have a majority that puts the country's interests ahead of a congressman's interests? Yes, members should "vote the district" first, but please don't continue to fund pork projects we can't afford with money we don't have.
For too long, individual members and senators looked after themselves first and the country second. We have reached a tipping point in this country where we can no longer afford such narrow-minded policymaking.
It's time to recall again that this is the United States of America.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
Six tips for the 112th Congress
Tuesday's election results likely will signal a historic shift in Congress. In some ways, the final picture of the makeup of the 112th Congress may remain hazy and unclear for several days afterward.
Just a few short months ago, no one but maybe an optimistic National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions could have predicted such possible seismic shifts in the political makeup. And I've heard more than a handful of Republican friends and colleagues mutter to me, "Now what do we do if the prognosticators are accurate?"
Let's begin with these six steps:
• Govern, don't goad: It's pretty simple, voters didn't so much as vote in Republicans than they voted out Democrats. They didn't make John A. Boehner the presumed speaker of the House to simply goad and get even. They voted for Republicans to govern, and to govern well. That means not worrying about what Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland or Henry A. Waxman of California says or does in committee, but simply bearing down on important legislation and getting the job done. If Democrats stand in the way, then fine, make that case in November 2012. Remember, this mess wasn't created in four years (and Republicans certainly contributed to it during the early 2000s) and it will take far longer to clean it up.
• Forget your enemy; build allies instead: For the better part of the past 16 years, congressional Democrats and Republicans played a simple yet twisted game of binary politics — if the other side is losing, we must be winning. Once they realized that equation, both sides sought to undo the other more so than to actually govern. So for 2011, instead of trying to destroy their opponents, Republicans instead should focus on building a coalition of the willing. Draw in moderates, Blue Dogs, anyone who is open-minded on the various issues Congress will face. If the polls from Tuesday show one thing, it is that voters are tired of the bitterness. Growing a majority in 2012 means growing your base of support with the electorate, and that means posting early successes no matter how the "ayes" and "nays" are counted.
• Scratch the "majority of the majority" rule: This concept is clearly inside-baseball tactics, but both sides have been practicing the "majority of the majority" rule for the past decade. The basic idea is the House speaker will not move any bill to the House floor unless that measure can win with a Republican- or Democrat-only majority of votes. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert practiced it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to perfect it. Both led to many embarrassing moments in the chamber when the votes simply weren't there because the other party was left out of the negotiations. That's not how the Founders intended. And Speaker Boehner would do well to banish such tactics from his office for good.
• Realize there is no permanent majority: It's axiomatic in Washington — politicians tend to lose quickly the things they hold on to so tightly. Majorities are not meant to be protected, but rather used to effectuate change. One thing is clear as the dust settles from Tuesday — there is no honeymoon for Republicans. Anyone who believes the GOP can saunter into the majority, assess the landscape and then gingerly begin to move legislation from a perch of confident deliberation hasn't been paying attention. Republicans have made it very clear what they want to do if they take control.
There is no room nor patience for them to worry about term limits on chairmanships or dawdle on bills that may endanger some of their weaker freshmen. Republicans would do well to acknowledge early that they could easily lose their majority in two to four years. Recognizing that reality doesn't hasten its arrival. The electorate is simply that volatile. And the sooner that's acknowledged, the freer the GOP will be to do the right thing.
What the party chooses to do with this awesome responsibility rests solely in its hands. Republicans should seize this moment and tackle the most pressing, intractable problems our country faces — not sheepishly move to issues that will not better this country in wholesale ways. Am I talking about "overreaching?" No. Rather, they need to address the calamitous problems that have gone unfettered for far too long.
• Respect the minority: Pretty novel, huh? Possible? You bet. Why should Republicans respect the views of the minority by allowing them to offer amendments on the floor and in committee? Because that's what Republicans demanded for years, and it's time now to lead by example. Besides, Democrats won't do the admirable thing and offer substantive policy alternatives. Instead, you can bet they'll offer amendments meant to embarrass the GOP and prop up a flailing president. But at least Republicans can set the right tone and show the American people who serves whom.
• Think locally, act nationally: More important than anything else, Republicans in both chambers must think differently about the constituents, and country, they serve. For far too long, politicians on both sides blocked entire measures, appointees and major initiatives for lame, parochial reasons. We presently have no national nuclear waste disposal program because of one man — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — even though Yucca Mountain has been deemed time and again as the single best repository for such spent fuel. That's not leadership, folks, and it's certainly not in the interests of our country at large.
For the love of Pete, can we please have a majority that puts the country's interests ahead of a congressman's interests? Yes, members should "vote the district" first, but please don't continue to fund pork projects we can't afford with money we don't have.
For too long, individual members and senators looked after themselves first and the country second. We have reached a tipping point in this country where we can no longer afford such narrow-minded policymaking.
It's time to recall again that this is the United States of America.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
11/01/10
Press and the blame game
There’s always plenty of blame to go around come Election Day. This year is no different. Republicans blame Democrats for this economic mess we’re in. Democrats blame Republicans for putting us there. Obama blames Bush for just about everything. White House senior adviser David Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs blame the “unnamed” donors for the money deficit Democrats face.
Democrats are even blaming pollsters for their ill fortunes. Early on Sunday morning, Dem operatives issued an e-mail titled “Public Polling is Crap this Cycle” in response to a survey showing Nevada Democratic Rep. Dina Titus down by nearly double digits to her GOP opponent.
While blame is often a convenient crutch to cover otherwise incompetent performances, blaming the media for mistakes and attempts to tilt the balance of power should really be out of bounds for politicians. Leave that to guys like me.
But this year, it seems everything is fair game, even threatening reporters if they get too close or probe too much. New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino threatened to “take you out, buddy” when he jabbed a finger in the chest of one Empire State reporter for asking about one of Paladino’s daughters.
Yes, sometimes reporters cross the line of what is in bounds and what should be left alone. And at a time when the print media is struggling to stay alive, it’s easy to see how journalists push the envelope to grab a story.
Regardless of the aggressiveness of the media — or even the public’s disdain of the press — elected officials and candidates alike should rise above the fray and set the example in action they say they want to be in mere words.
What happened to the unflappable statesman who used the media as his/her megaphone? Today it almost seems vogue to take a swing, verbal or otherwise, at the press.
Sarah Palin calls them “the lame-stream media.” Yes, she may get a bad rap every now and again. But her popularity and star status is largely the result of an insatiable press corps. Are they trying to catch her and other Tea Party activists in a gaffe? You bet. All the more reason to be on one’s best behavior with the Fourth Estate.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Press and the blame game
There’s always plenty of blame to go around come Election Day. This year is no different. Republicans blame Democrats for this economic mess we’re in. Democrats blame Republicans for putting us there. Obama blames Bush for just about everything. White House senior adviser David Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs blame the “unnamed” donors for the money deficit Democrats face.
Democrats are even blaming pollsters for their ill fortunes. Early on Sunday morning, Dem operatives issued an e-mail titled “Public Polling is Crap this Cycle” in response to a survey showing Nevada Democratic Rep. Dina Titus down by nearly double digits to her GOP opponent.
While blame is often a convenient crutch to cover otherwise incompetent performances, blaming the media for mistakes and attempts to tilt the balance of power should really be out of bounds for politicians. Leave that to guys like me.
But this year, it seems everything is fair game, even threatening reporters if they get too close or probe too much. New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino threatened to “take you out, buddy” when he jabbed a finger in the chest of one Empire State reporter for asking about one of Paladino’s daughters.
Yes, sometimes reporters cross the line of what is in bounds and what should be left alone. And at a time when the print media is struggling to stay alive, it’s easy to see how journalists push the envelope to grab a story.
Regardless of the aggressiveness of the media — or even the public’s disdain of the press — elected officials and candidates alike should rise above the fray and set the example in action they say they want to be in mere words.
What happened to the unflappable statesman who used the media as his/her megaphone? Today it almost seems vogue to take a swing, verbal or otherwise, at the press.
Sarah Palin calls them “the lame-stream media.” Yes, she may get a bad rap every now and again. But her popularity and star status is largely the result of an insatiable press corps. Are they trying to catch her and other Tea Party activists in a gaffe? You bet. All the more reason to be on one’s best behavior with the Fourth Estate.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
11/01/10
Press & the Blame Game
BY: Armstrong Williams
Press & the Blame Game
There’s always plenty of blame to go round come Election Day. This year is no different. Republicans blame Democrats for this economic mess we’re in. Democrats blame Republicans for putting us there. Obama blames Bush for just about everything. White House senior advisor David Axelrod and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blame the “unnamed” donors for the money deficit Democrats face.
Democrats are even blaming pollsters for their ill-fortunes. Early on Sunday morning, Dem operatives issued an email titled “Public Polling is Crap this Cycle” in response to a survey showing Nevada Democratic Rep. Dina Titus down by nearly double digits to her GOP opponent.
While blame is often a convenient crutch to cover otherwise incompetent performances, blaming the media for mistakes and attempts to tilt the balance of power should really be out of bounds for politicians. Leave that to guys like me.
But this year, it seems everything is fair game, even threatening reporters if they get too close or probe too much. New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino threatened to “take you out, buddy” when he jabbed a finger in the chest of one Empire State reporter for asking about one of Paladino’s daughters.
Yes, sometimes reporters cross the line of what is inbounds and what should be left alone. And at a time when the print media is struggling to stay alive, it’s easy to see how journalists push the envelope to grab a story.
Regardless of the aggressiveness of the media – or even the public’s disdain of the press – elected officials and candidates alike should rise above the fray and set the example in action they say they want to be in mere words.
What happened to the unflappable statesman who used the media as his/her megaphone? Today it almost seems vogue to take a swing, verbal or otherwise, at the press.
Sarah Palin calls them “the lame-stream media.” Yes, she may get a bad rap every now and again. But her popularity and star status is largely the result of an insatiable press corps. Are they trying to catch her and other Tea Party activists in a gaffe? You bet. All the more reason to be on one’s best behavior, not their worst, with the Fourth Estate.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Press & the Blame Game
BY: Armstrong Williams
Press & the Blame Game
There’s always plenty of blame to go round come Election Day. This year is no different. Republicans blame Democrats for this economic mess we’re in. Democrats blame Republicans for putting us there. Obama blames Bush for just about everything. White House senior advisor David Axelrod and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blame the “unnamed” donors for the money deficit Democrats face.
Democrats are even blaming pollsters for their ill-fortunes. Early on Sunday morning, Dem operatives issued an email titled “Public Polling is Crap this Cycle” in response to a survey showing Nevada Democratic Rep. Dina Titus down by nearly double digits to her GOP opponent.
While blame is often a convenient crutch to cover otherwise incompetent performances, blaming the media for mistakes and attempts to tilt the balance of power should really be out of bounds for politicians. Leave that to guys like me.
But this year, it seems everything is fair game, even threatening reporters if they get too close or probe too much. New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino threatened to “take you out, buddy” when he jabbed a finger in the chest of one Empire State reporter for asking about one of Paladino’s daughters.
Yes, sometimes reporters cross the line of what is inbounds and what should be left alone. And at a time when the print media is struggling to stay alive, it’s easy to see how journalists push the envelope to grab a story.
Regardless of the aggressiveness of the media – or even the public’s disdain of the press – elected officials and candidates alike should rise above the fray and set the example in action they say they want to be in mere words.
What happened to the unflappable statesman who used the media as his/her megaphone? Today it almost seems vogue to take a swing, verbal or otherwise, at the press.
Sarah Palin calls them “the lame-stream media.” Yes, she may get a bad rap every now and again. But her popularity and star status is largely the result of an insatiable press corps. Are they trying to catch her and other Tea Party activists in a gaffe? You bet. All the more reason to be on one’s best behavior, not their worst, with the Fourth Estate.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/29/10
Build a coalition of the willing
It's pretty simple. Voters will not so much as vote Republicans in as they’ll vote Democrats out.
They want to make Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) the Speaker of the House to simply goad and get even.
On Tuesday they will vote for Republicans to govern, and to govern well. That means not worrying about what Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland or Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California says or does in committee, but simply bearing down on important legislation and getting the job done.
If Democrats stand in the way, then fine, make that case in November 2012. Remember, this mess wasn't created in four years (and Republicans certainly contributed to it during the early 2000s) and it will take far longer to clean it up.
For the better part of the past 16 years, congressional Democrats and Republicans played a simple yet twisted game of binary politics — if the other side is losing, we must be winning. Once they realized that equation, both sides sought to undo the other, more so than to actually govern.
So for 2011, instead of trying to destroy their opponent, Republicans should instead focus on building a coalition of the willing. Draw in moderates, Blue Dogs, anyone who is open-minded on the various issues Congress will face.
The Nov. 2 voting aftermath will show one thing: that voters are tired of the bitterness. Growing a majority in 2012 means growing your base of support with the electorate, and that means posting early successes no matter how the ayes and nays are counted.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Build a coalition of the willing
It's pretty simple. Voters will not so much as vote Republicans in as they’ll vote Democrats out.
They want to make Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) the Speaker of the House to simply goad and get even.
On Tuesday they will vote for Republicans to govern, and to govern well. That means not worrying about what Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland or Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California says or does in committee, but simply bearing down on important legislation and getting the job done.
If Democrats stand in the way, then fine, make that case in November 2012. Remember, this mess wasn't created in four years (and Republicans certainly contributed to it during the early 2000s) and it will take far longer to clean it up.
For the better part of the past 16 years, congressional Democrats and Republicans played a simple yet twisted game of binary politics — if the other side is losing, we must be winning. Once they realized that equation, both sides sought to undo the other, more so than to actually govern.
So for 2011, instead of trying to destroy their opponent, Republicans should instead focus on building a coalition of the willing. Draw in moderates, Blue Dogs, anyone who is open-minded on the various issues Congress will face.
The Nov. 2 voting aftermath will show one thing: that voters are tired of the bitterness. Growing a majority in 2012 means growing your base of support with the electorate, and that means posting early successes no matter how the ayes and nays are counted.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/29/10
Build a coalition of the willing
BY: Armstrong Williams
Build a Coalition of the willing.
It's pretty simple, voters will not so much as vote Republicans in than they voted Democrats out. They want make John Boehner the Speaker of the House to simply goad and get even. On Tuesday they will vote for Republicans to govern, and to govern well. That means not worrying about what Steny Hoyer of Maryland or Henry Waxman of California says or does in committee, but simply bearing down on important legislation and getting the job done. If Democrats stand in the way, then fine, make that case in November 2012. Remember, this mess wasn't created in four years (and Republicans certainly contributed to it during the early 2000s) and it will take far longer to clean it up.
For the better part of the past 16 years, congressional Democrats and Republicans played a simple yet twisted game of binary politics — if the other side is losing, we must be winning. Once they realized that equation, both sides sought to undo the other more so than to actually govern. So for 2011, instead of trying to destroy their opponent, Republicans should instead focus on building a coalition of the willing. Draw in moderates, Blue Dogs, anyone who is open-minded on the various issues Congress will face. The Nov. 2 voting aftermath will show one thing, voters are tired of the bitterness. Growing a majority in 2012 means growing your base of support with the electorate, and that means posting early successes no matter how the ayes and nays are counted.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Build a coalition of the willing
BY: Armstrong Williams
Build a Coalition of the willing.
It's pretty simple, voters will not so much as vote Republicans in than they voted Democrats out. They want make John Boehner the Speaker of the House to simply goad and get even. On Tuesday they will vote for Republicans to govern, and to govern well. That means not worrying about what Steny Hoyer of Maryland or Henry Waxman of California says or does in committee, but simply bearing down on important legislation and getting the job done. If Democrats stand in the way, then fine, make that case in November 2012. Remember, this mess wasn't created in four years (and Republicans certainly contributed to it during the early 2000s) and it will take far longer to clean it up.
For the better part of the past 16 years, congressional Democrats and Republicans played a simple yet twisted game of binary politics — if the other side is losing, we must be winning. Once they realized that equation, both sides sought to undo the other more so than to actually govern. So for 2011, instead of trying to destroy their opponent, Republicans should instead focus on building a coalition of the willing. Draw in moderates, Blue Dogs, anyone who is open-minded on the various issues Congress will face. The Nov. 2 voting aftermath will show one thing, voters are tired of the bitterness. Growing a majority in 2012 means growing your base of support with the electorate, and that means posting early successes no matter how the ayes and nays are counted.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/28/10
Obama's supreme pre-election arrogance
Obama’s arrogance continues to astound.
I honestly don’t think he can see the coming Republican tsunami. He does not think this election is a referendum on him or his policies; rather, the electorate is just being fussy.
Today he is calling unions and urban radio stations encouraging them to vote because if they do in the same numbers as ’08, Dems will win easily. Well, guess what Mr. President, even your once-biggest supporters aren’t keen to see your agenda enacted.
Both Reagan and Clinton were able to recover from bad midterms by working with the other side, compromising to get their overarching agenda passed. Obama has made it clear that any supporters who are jumping off the bandwagon can go home and pout because he’s going to ram his vision of Hope and Change through no matter who stands in his way.
These are not the words of a compromiser, nor a man who understands nuance, as the press so praised him for back in ’08. His world is black and white; you are wrong and he is right.
This foolhardy narcissism will lead to the complete and utter failure of the Obama presidency, and Jimmy Carter will go to his grave knowing he wasn’t the worst president.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's supreme pre-election arrogance
Obama’s arrogance continues to astound.
I honestly don’t think he can see the coming Republican tsunami. He does not think this election is a referendum on him or his policies; rather, the electorate is just being fussy.
Today he is calling unions and urban radio stations encouraging them to vote because if they do in the same numbers as ’08, Dems will win easily. Well, guess what Mr. President, even your once-biggest supporters aren’t keen to see your agenda enacted.
Both Reagan and Clinton were able to recover from bad midterms by working with the other side, compromising to get their overarching agenda passed. Obama has made it clear that any supporters who are jumping off the bandwagon can go home and pout because he’s going to ram his vision of Hope and Change through no matter who stands in his way.
These are not the words of a compromiser, nor a man who understands nuance, as the press so praised him for back in ’08. His world is black and white; you are wrong and he is right.
This foolhardy narcissism will lead to the complete and utter failure of the Obama presidency, and Jimmy Carter will go to his grave knowing he wasn’t the worst president.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/28/10
Obama's Supreme Pre-election arrogance
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Supreme Pre-election Arrogance
Obama’s arrogance continues to astound. I honestly don’t think he can
see the coming Republican tsunami. He does not think this election is
a referendum on him or his policies; rather, the electorate is just
being fussy. Today he is calling unions and urban radio stations
encouraging them to vote because if they do in the same numbers as
’08, Dems will win easily. Well guess what Mr. President, even your
once biggest supporters aren’t keen to see your agenda enacted.
Both Reagan and Clinton were able to recover from bad midterms by
working with the other side, compromising to get their overarching
agenda passed. Obama has made it clear that any supporters that are
jumping off the bandwagon can go home and pout because he’s going to
ram his vision of Hope and Change through no matter who stands in his
way. These are not the words of a compromiser, nor a man that
understands nuance as the press so praised him for back in ’08. His
world is black and white; you are wrong and he is right.
This foolhardy narcissism will lead to the complete and utter failure
of the Obama presidency, and Jimmy Carter will go to his grave knowing
he wasn’t the worst President.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's Supreme Pre-election arrogance
BY: Armstrong Williams
Obama's Supreme Pre-election Arrogance
Obama’s arrogance continues to astound. I honestly don’t think he can
see the coming Republican tsunami. He does not think this election is
a referendum on him or his policies; rather, the electorate is just
being fussy. Today he is calling unions and urban radio stations
encouraging them to vote because if they do in the same numbers as
’08, Dems will win easily. Well guess what Mr. President, even your
once biggest supporters aren’t keen to see your agenda enacted.
Both Reagan and Clinton were able to recover from bad midterms by
working with the other side, compromising to get their overarching
agenda passed. Obama has made it clear that any supporters that are
jumping off the bandwagon can go home and pout because he’s going to
ram his vision of Hope and Change through no matter who stands in his
way. These are not the words of a compromiser, nor a man that
understands nuance as the press so praised him for back in ’08. His
world is black and white; you are wrong and he is right.
This foolhardy narcissism will lead to the complete and utter failure
of the Obama presidency, and Jimmy Carter will go to his grave knowing
he wasn’t the worst President.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/27/10
TIPS
Something happened yesterday in the financial markets that hasn't occurred in over 50 years.
Creditors were paying to lend money to your federal government.
Investors were paying a negative .5 percent on Treasury inflation protected securities, known as TIPS.
TIPS are inflation-adjusted securities that protect investors from inflation. A negative yield on TIPS means that sophisticated investors are beginning to see significant inflation on the horizon.
Within the next two years the deficit chickens will come home to roost in the form of major inflation. Are we now headed for another era of former President Jimmy Carter, where we had slow growth, high unemployment, and extremely high inflation — the worst of all economic worlds?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
TIPS
Something happened yesterday in the financial markets that hasn't occurred in over 50 years.
Creditors were paying to lend money to your federal government.
Investors were paying a negative .5 percent on Treasury inflation protected securities, known as TIPS.
TIPS are inflation-adjusted securities that protect investors from inflation. A negative yield on TIPS means that sophisticated investors are beginning to see significant inflation on the horizon.
Within the next two years the deficit chickens will come home to roost in the form of major inflation. Are we now headed for another era of former President Jimmy Carter, where we had slow growth, high unemployment, and extremely high inflation — the worst of all economic worlds?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/27/10
TIPS
BY: Armstrong Williams
TIPS
Something happened yesterday in the financial markets that hasn't occurred in over 50 years. Creditors were paying to lend money to your federal government. Investors were paying a negative .5% on treasury inflation protected securities, known as TIPS. TIPS are an inflation adjusted securities which protect investors from inflation. A negative yield on TIPS means that sophisticated investors are beginning to see significant inflation on the horizon. Within the next two years the deficit chickens will come home to roost in the form of major inflation. Are we now headed for another era of former President Jimmy Carter, where we had slow growth, high unemployment, and extremely high inflation - the worst of all economic world's.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
TIPS
BY: Armstrong Williams
TIPS
Something happened yesterday in the financial markets that hasn't occurred in over 50 years. Creditors were paying to lend money to your federal government. Investors were paying a negative .5% on treasury inflation protected securities, known as TIPS. TIPS are an inflation adjusted securities which protect investors from inflation. A negative yield on TIPS means that sophisticated investors are beginning to see significant inflation on the horizon. Within the next two years the deficit chickens will come home to roost in the form of major inflation. Are we now headed for another era of former President Jimmy Carter, where we had slow growth, high unemployment, and extremely high inflation - the worst of all economic world's.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/26/10
Liberals: Open mouth, insert foot
Liberal arrogance continues to humor and entertain us in this volatile and hostile midterm election cycle.
During a recent Tea Party rally, Sarah Palin said, “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet!” Liberal intellectual superiority couldn't wait to pounce on Palin's supposed historical gaffe. Their media and blogosphere machine went into full-frontal attack trying to make a fool of Palin for getting the date wrong on what they assumed was a reference to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
One such blogger questioned, “What happened in 1773?” PBS host Gwen Ifill wrote on her twitter, “Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm.” If you recall, Gwen Ifill moderated the Palin-Biden debate. Many remember her clear bias as she allowed Biden’s repeated gaffes to go unchallenged.
How could the masses of liberals who are hell-bent on discrediting Mama Grizzly not realize that she was most likely referring to the Boston Tea Party? These shameless liberals are supposedly some of the most respected at their game, yet it’s incomprehensible they wouldn’t know the date of the most famous Tea Party of all.
We have come to expect this from liberals who are willing to attack anything Palin without second thought about her references. Isn't it ironic that seeking to undermine her intellectual capacity, they made fools of themselves? It has to baffle one that the very things that liberals accuse conservatives of, they have mastered themselves.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Liberals: Open mouth, insert foot
Liberal arrogance continues to humor and entertain us in this volatile and hostile midterm election cycle.
During a recent Tea Party rally, Sarah Palin said, “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet!” Liberal intellectual superiority couldn't wait to pounce on Palin's supposed historical gaffe. Their media and blogosphere machine went into full-frontal attack trying to make a fool of Palin for getting the date wrong on what they assumed was a reference to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
One such blogger questioned, “What happened in 1773?” PBS host Gwen Ifill wrote on her twitter, “Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm.” If you recall, Gwen Ifill moderated the Palin-Biden debate. Many remember her clear bias as she allowed Biden’s repeated gaffes to go unchallenged.
How could the masses of liberals who are hell-bent on discrediting Mama Grizzly not realize that she was most likely referring to the Boston Tea Party? These shameless liberals are supposedly some of the most respected at their game, yet it’s incomprehensible they wouldn’t know the date of the most famous Tea Party of all.
We have come to expect this from liberals who are willing to attack anything Palin without second thought about her references. Isn't it ironic that seeking to undermine her intellectual capacity, they made fools of themselves? It has to baffle one that the very things that liberals accuse conservatives of, they have mastered themselves.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/26/10
Liberals: open mouth, insert foot
BY: Armstrong Williams
Liberals: open mouth, insert foot
Liberal arrogance continues to humor and entertain us in this volatile and hostile mid-term election cycle . During a recent Tea Party rally, Sarah Palin said, “Don’t party like its 1773 yet!” Liberal intellectual superiority couldn't wait to pounce on Palin's supposedly historical gaffe. Their media and blogosphere machine went into full frontal attack trying to make a fool of Palin for getting the date wrong on what they assumed was a reference to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
One such blogger questioned, “What happened in 1773?” PBS host Gwen Ifill wrote on her twitter, “Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,”. If you recall, Gwen Ifill moderated the Palin vs Biden debate. Many remember her clear bias as she allowed Biden’s repeated gaffes to go unchallenged.
How could the masses of liberals who are hell bent on discrediting Mama Grizzly not realize that she was most likely referring to the Boston Tea Party ? These shamless liberals are supposedly some of the most respected at their game, yet it’s incomprehensible they wouldn’t know the date of the most famous Tea Party of all.
We have come to expect this from liberals who are willing to attack anything Palin without second thought about thinking through her references. Isn't it ironic that seeking to undermine her intellectual capacity, they made fools of themselves. It has to baffle one that the very things that liberals accuse conservatives of, they have mastered themselves.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Liberals: open mouth, insert foot
BY: Armstrong Williams
Liberals: open mouth, insert foot
Liberal arrogance continues to humor and entertain us in this volatile and hostile mid-term election cycle . During a recent Tea Party rally, Sarah Palin said, “Don’t party like its 1773 yet!” Liberal intellectual superiority couldn't wait to pounce on Palin's supposedly historical gaffe. Their media and blogosphere machine went into full frontal attack trying to make a fool of Palin for getting the date wrong on what they assumed was a reference to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
One such blogger questioned, “What happened in 1773?” PBS host Gwen Ifill wrote on her twitter, “Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,”. If you recall, Gwen Ifill moderated the Palin vs Biden debate. Many remember her clear bias as she allowed Biden’s repeated gaffes to go unchallenged.
How could the masses of liberals who are hell bent on discrediting Mama Grizzly not realize that she was most likely referring to the Boston Tea Party ? These shamless liberals are supposedly some of the most respected at their game, yet it’s incomprehensible they wouldn’t know the date of the most famous Tea Party of all.
We have come to expect this from liberals who are willing to attack anything Palin without second thought about thinking through her references. Isn't it ironic that seeking to undermine her intellectual capacity, they made fools of themselves. It has to baffle one that the very things that liberals accuse conservatives of, they have mastered themselves.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/25/10
Ginni Thomas' example of forgiveness
Despite what the secular Left would have you believe, America is a nation of faith. The country was founded on the first principle that we are God's creation and, as such, have both rights and responsibilities.
Amazingly enough, that simple point is controversial today, at least among those in the mainstream media. Acts of faith that can be understood as such are portrayed as psychological hang-ups or political maneuverings, or are assigned dark and scurrilous motives.
And yet by any measure, the vast majority of Americans are people of faith themselves. They're the majority. The Left hates this, because when it comes down to it, they just don't understand religious commitment or the motivations it provides.
We see a perfect example of this in the near-universal media condemnation of Ginni Thomas.
Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, and as Christians, we're not only forgiven for our own wrongs, but we're called to forgive others for theirs. That's not easy, and we don't always get the reaction we want, but it's an important part of our faith.
And it's essential for our own interior health, as well. Forgiveness is about letting go and moving on. It's the law of release. Whose offense you fail to forgive, you carry the burden of for the rest of your life. Remember: Not all prisons are made of concrete and steel. There are the prisons of the mind, such as bitterness and unforgiveness.
Obviously, from her recent outreach to Ms. Anita Hill, Ginni Thomas has thought often about the offense between Ms. Hill and her husband, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. With an unwavering loyalty to both her husband and the Christian faith, she followed the admonition of her Creator to engage in a dialogue of reconciliation, with the hope of releasing everyone from this burden. Her now-well-reported answering-machine message was a first, brave step.
Now I'm not going to get into the specifics of what did or did not happen between Justice Thomas and Ms. Hill decades ago. And I'm not saying this is how I would have handled the situation. That isn't my point here. Rather, I want to focus on the courage of Ginni Thomas in reaching out to a woman who she believes hurt her family, and what her example should teach us.
Try to see things as she did. When she picked up the phone and called Ms. Hill, she had no idea what kind of response she'd get. She stepped out in faith, surely with the prayer to her own Forgiver in her mind ("Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"). Ginni Thomas wanted an apology — yes — but she did it because she wanted to forgive.
She tried sincerely to elevate the issue to a place of healing. Contrary to what many think, forgiveness isn't about right and wrong — it's about reconciliation. When you forgive someone, you eliminate forever a wall that stands between you.
That was what Ginni Thomas tried to do, and she has been ridiculed for it.
Note what she told ABC News about the incident:
"I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended."
Imagine what might have happened if that olive branch had been accepted. What kind of example would it set for the rest of us if Anita Hill and Mrs. Clarence Thomas could reconcile in charity and mutual respect?
Look at where we are today: The political tone on both sides of the aisle these days has gotten so vicious that we're no longer even talking to one another. We shout; we don't listen; we don't reach out. We do the opposite of what Ginni Thomas did. God gives us the teaching moments we need, when we need them. And we needed this one.
Whatever you think of the Thomas/Hill dispute, Ginni Thomas followed the mandates of her faith, regardless of the risk of rejection. She didn't hide her phone call — she left a message on Ms. Hill's voice mail knowing full well it could be played for others. She made herself vulnerable so that she could help heal an old wound.
Would you have the courage to do that? Would I? Instead of scorning her, we should be looking to her example.
Of course, those who feel called to forgive some past wrong find another lesson in Ginni Thomas' recent treatment: When you reach out to your offender, there's a price to pay. Every good action has its own cost. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. There are times in life when you have to act regardless of the consequences. Others may not like it, and we might have our names dragged through the media mud because of it, but at the end of the day, we need to live with ourselves. When you forgive, you find peace, and there's nothing greater than that.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
Ginni Thomas' example of forgiveness
Despite what the secular Left would have you believe, America is a nation of faith. The country was founded on the first principle that we are God's creation and, as such, have both rights and responsibilities.
Amazingly enough, that simple point is controversial today, at least among those in the mainstream media. Acts of faith that can be understood as such are portrayed as psychological hang-ups or political maneuverings, or are assigned dark and scurrilous motives.
And yet by any measure, the vast majority of Americans are people of faith themselves. They're the majority. The Left hates this, because when it comes down to it, they just don't understand religious commitment or the motivations it provides.
We see a perfect example of this in the near-universal media condemnation of Ginni Thomas.
Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, and as Christians, we're not only forgiven for our own wrongs, but we're called to forgive others for theirs. That's not easy, and we don't always get the reaction we want, but it's an important part of our faith.
And it's essential for our own interior health, as well. Forgiveness is about letting go and moving on. It's the law of release. Whose offense you fail to forgive, you carry the burden of for the rest of your life. Remember: Not all prisons are made of concrete and steel. There are the prisons of the mind, such as bitterness and unforgiveness.
Obviously, from her recent outreach to Ms. Anita Hill, Ginni Thomas has thought often about the offense between Ms. Hill and her husband, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. With an unwavering loyalty to both her husband and the Christian faith, she followed the admonition of her Creator to engage in a dialogue of reconciliation, with the hope of releasing everyone from this burden. Her now-well-reported answering-machine message was a first, brave step.
Now I'm not going to get into the specifics of what did or did not happen between Justice Thomas and Ms. Hill decades ago. And I'm not saying this is how I would have handled the situation. That isn't my point here. Rather, I want to focus on the courage of Ginni Thomas in reaching out to a woman who she believes hurt her family, and what her example should teach us.
Try to see things as she did. When she picked up the phone and called Ms. Hill, she had no idea what kind of response she'd get. She stepped out in faith, surely with the prayer to her own Forgiver in her mind ("Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"). Ginni Thomas wanted an apology — yes — but she did it because she wanted to forgive.
She tried sincerely to elevate the issue to a place of healing. Contrary to what many think, forgiveness isn't about right and wrong — it's about reconciliation. When you forgive someone, you eliminate forever a wall that stands between you.
That was what Ginni Thomas tried to do, and she has been ridiculed for it.
Note what she told ABC News about the incident:
"I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended."
Imagine what might have happened if that olive branch had been accepted. What kind of example would it set for the rest of us if Anita Hill and Mrs. Clarence Thomas could reconcile in charity and mutual respect?
Look at where we are today: The political tone on both sides of the aisle these days has gotten so vicious that we're no longer even talking to one another. We shout; we don't listen; we don't reach out. We do the opposite of what Ginni Thomas did. God gives us the teaching moments we need, when we need them. And we needed this one.
Whatever you think of the Thomas/Hill dispute, Ginni Thomas followed the mandates of her faith, regardless of the risk of rejection. She didn't hide her phone call — she left a message on Ms. Hill's voice mail knowing full well it could be played for others. She made herself vulnerable so that she could help heal an old wound.
Would you have the courage to do that? Would I? Instead of scorning her, we should be looking to her example.
Of course, those who feel called to forgive some past wrong find another lesson in Ginni Thomas' recent treatment: When you reach out to your offender, there's a price to pay. Every good action has its own cost. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. There are times in life when you have to act regardless of the consequences. Others may not like it, and we might have our names dragged through the media mud because of it, but at the end of the day, we need to live with ourselves. When you forgive, you find peace, and there's nothing greater than that.
• Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/@arightside.
10/25/10
Fired for honoring a U.S. soldier and son
They say bad things happen in threes. If that’s true, then the third incident of nannyism occurred over the weekend.
First there was the odd and sad case of a citizen whose house was allowed to burn down as firefighters stood around with their hands in their pockets because the homeowner failed to pay a $75 “fire tax.” Then came the sacking of journalist Juan Williams by “thought police” NPR for his candid (and true) views on how Americans feel when boarding planes.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard of Dwayne Hammond, the proud American who loves his son and the country he fights for, whose only “crime” was he was wearing a shirt declaring that devotion. And he lost his job over it.
No, Mr. Hammond didn’t say or do anything outrageous on national television. He was simply tending to his business setting up a stage at USC in California for an upcoming Obama rally when he was singled out for his attire and summarily let go.
The infraction that led to his termination? He was wearing a Bush T-shirt. Or so claims the union that employed Hammond. Apparently, no union worker worth his salt would ever be caught dead heralding a “Bush.”
But once again, these knee-jerk liberals got it wrong.
It turns out Hammond was wearing a sweatshirt and hat that touted the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier — the same ship his son serves on.
Hammond’s reply, “You know what, this is ridiculous. My son's been in the Navy for three years; he's serving proudly.”
Ridiculous indeed. Is the left so obsessed with pinning the blame of its failed policies on anyone but Obama that it foams uncontrollably at the mouth and seeks to “cleanse” any who dares to acknowledge a GOP president? Is this the new Obama jobs plan — fire anyone who looks like a conservative, or chooses to fraternize with one, and give the job to a Democrat supporter?
And Democrats wonder why they’re going to lose so many seats next week …
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Fired for honoring a U.S. soldier and son
They say bad things happen in threes. If that’s true, then the third incident of nannyism occurred over the weekend.
First there was the odd and sad case of a citizen whose house was allowed to burn down as firefighters stood around with their hands in their pockets because the homeowner failed to pay a $75 “fire tax.” Then came the sacking of journalist Juan Williams by “thought police” NPR for his candid (and true) views on how Americans feel when boarding planes.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard of Dwayne Hammond, the proud American who loves his son and the country he fights for, whose only “crime” was he was wearing a shirt declaring that devotion. And he lost his job over it.
No, Mr. Hammond didn’t say or do anything outrageous on national television. He was simply tending to his business setting up a stage at USC in California for an upcoming Obama rally when he was singled out for his attire and summarily let go.
The infraction that led to his termination? He was wearing a Bush T-shirt. Or so claims the union that employed Hammond. Apparently, no union worker worth his salt would ever be caught dead heralding a “Bush.”
But once again, these knee-jerk liberals got it wrong.
It turns out Hammond was wearing a sweatshirt and hat that touted the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier — the same ship his son serves on.
Hammond’s reply, “You know what, this is ridiculous. My son's been in the Navy for three years; he's serving proudly.”
Ridiculous indeed. Is the left so obsessed with pinning the blame of its failed policies on anyone but Obama that it foams uncontrollably at the mouth and seeks to “cleanse” any who dares to acknowledge a GOP president? Is this the new Obama jobs plan — fire anyone who looks like a conservative, or chooses to fraternize with one, and give the job to a Democrat supporter?
And Democrats wonder why they’re going to lose so many seats next week …
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/25/10
Fired for honoring a U.S. soldier and son
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fired for honoring a U.S. soldier and son
They say bad things happen in 3s. If that’s true, then the third incident of nannyism occurred over the weekend.
First there was the odd and sad case of a citizen whose house was allowed to burn down as firefighters stood around with their hands in their pockets because the homeowner failed to pay a $75 “fire tax.” Then came the sacking of journalist Juan Williams by “thought police” NPR for his candid (and true) views on how Americans feel when boarding planes.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard of Dwayne Hammond – the proud American who loves his son and the country he fights for whose only “crime” was he was wearing a shirt declaring that devotion. And he lost his job over it.
No, Mr. Hammond didn’t say or do anything outrageous on national television. He was simply tending to his business setting up a stage at USC in California for an upcoming Obama rally when he was singled out for his attire and summarily let go.
The infraction which led to his termination? He was wearing a Bush t-shirt. Or so claims the union that employed Hammond. Apparently, no union worker worth his salt would ever be caught dead heralding a “Bush.”
But once again, these knee-jerk liberals got it wrong.
It turns out Hammond was wearing a sweatshirt and hat that touted the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier – the same ship his son serves on.
Hammond’s reply, “You know what, this is ridiculous. My son's been in the navy for three years; he's serving proudly.”
Ridiculous indeed. Is the Left so obsessed with pinning the blame of its failed policies on anyone but Obama that it foams uncontrollably at the mouth and seeks to “cleanse” any who dares to acknowledge a GOP president? Is this the new Obama jobs plan - fire anyone who looks like a conservative, or chooses to fraternize with one, and give the job to a Democrat supporter?
And Democrats wonder why they’re going to lose so many seats next week…
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Fired for honoring a U.S. soldier and son
BY: Armstrong Williams
Fired for honoring a U.S. soldier and son
They say bad things happen in 3s. If that’s true, then the third incident of nannyism occurred over the weekend.
First there was the odd and sad case of a citizen whose house was allowed to burn down as firefighters stood around with their hands in their pockets because the homeowner failed to pay a $75 “fire tax.” Then came the sacking of journalist Juan Williams by “thought police” NPR for his candid (and true) views on how Americans feel when boarding planes.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard of Dwayne Hammond – the proud American who loves his son and the country he fights for whose only “crime” was he was wearing a shirt declaring that devotion. And he lost his job over it.
No, Mr. Hammond didn’t say or do anything outrageous on national television. He was simply tending to his business setting up a stage at USC in California for an upcoming Obama rally when he was singled out for his attire and summarily let go.
The infraction which led to his termination? He was wearing a Bush t-shirt. Or so claims the union that employed Hammond. Apparently, no union worker worth his salt would ever be caught dead heralding a “Bush.”
But once again, these knee-jerk liberals got it wrong.
It turns out Hammond was wearing a sweatshirt and hat that touted the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier – the same ship his son serves on.
Hammond’s reply, “You know what, this is ridiculous. My son's been in the navy for three years; he's serving proudly.”
Ridiculous indeed. Is the Left so obsessed with pinning the blame of its failed policies on anyone but Obama that it foams uncontrollably at the mouth and seeks to “cleanse” any who dares to acknowledge a GOP president? Is this the new Obama jobs plan - fire anyone who looks like a conservative, or chooses to fraternize with one, and give the job to a Democrat supporter?
And Democrats wonder why they’re going to lose so many seats next week…
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/22/10
NPR & terrorists — 1; Americans — 0
This week, in a rare moment of candor, Juan Williams set down his journalist hat and spoke the truth about his feelings when on a plane with passengers wearing traditional Muslim garb. Yes, he was on national television. Yes, he was on conservative Bill O’Reilly’s show — a usual hotbed of fiery rhetoric. But his words were neither bombastic nor laced with hatred.
Williams was simply relaying a plausible, completely natural reaction when the human equation mixes American aircraft and a religious movement where its fanatics view mass death as a justified expression of practicing faith. And he lost his job over it.
Score one for the terrorists. In its zeal not to offend anyone at all costs — even if it means the suspension of human behavior in the face of reality — NPR mocked the often-personal fears of every American and relegated them to a form of twisted bigotry.
Has one of the most listened-to radio networks forgotten what happened to this country nine years ago? Does it really expect Americans to return to a state of normalcy to where the NPR “thought police” can now impart its own form of justice?
What’s bigoted or even unnatural about a reaction based on actual incidents of terrorism we hear on NPR news all the time?
Quick to its own defense, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller responded that "our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story. They should be reporting the story." C’mon, was Williams really reporting anything on O’Reilly? He was acting as an analyst. That role involves editorial parsing of events. Period. NPR understands that concept, otherwise they wouldn’t have their own stable of journalists-turned-analysts.
Liberals and conservatives alike were quick to elevate this kerfuffle into a larger battle of good-versus-evil over issues such as public financing of NPR or First Amendment guarantees, but it doesn’t need to go there.
Juan Williams was terminated from his job for thinking like … speaking like … and simply being an American. There’s something inherently un-American about how NPR responded.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
NPR & terrorists — 1; Americans — 0
This week, in a rare moment of candor, Juan Williams set down his journalist hat and spoke the truth about his feelings when on a plane with passengers wearing traditional Muslim garb. Yes, he was on national television. Yes, he was on conservative Bill O’Reilly’s show — a usual hotbed of fiery rhetoric. But his words were neither bombastic nor laced with hatred.
Williams was simply relaying a plausible, completely natural reaction when the human equation mixes American aircraft and a religious movement where its fanatics view mass death as a justified expression of practicing faith. And he lost his job over it.
Score one for the terrorists. In its zeal not to offend anyone at all costs — even if it means the suspension of human behavior in the face of reality — NPR mocked the often-personal fears of every American and relegated them to a form of twisted bigotry.
Has one of the most listened-to radio networks forgotten what happened to this country nine years ago? Does it really expect Americans to return to a state of normalcy to where the NPR “thought police” can now impart its own form of justice?
What’s bigoted or even unnatural about a reaction based on actual incidents of terrorism we hear on NPR news all the time?
Quick to its own defense, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller responded that "our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story. They should be reporting the story." C’mon, was Williams really reporting anything on O’Reilly? He was acting as an analyst. That role involves editorial parsing of events. Period. NPR understands that concept, otherwise they wouldn’t have their own stable of journalists-turned-analysts.
Liberals and conservatives alike were quick to elevate this kerfuffle into a larger battle of good-versus-evil over issues such as public financing of NPR or First Amendment guarantees, but it doesn’t need to go there.
Juan Williams was terminated from his job for thinking like … speaking like … and simply being an American. There’s something inherently un-American about how NPR responded.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/22/10
NPR & Terrorists - 1. Americans - 0
This week in a rare moment of candor, Juan Williams set down his journalism hat and spoke the truth about his feelings when on a plane with passengers wearing traditional Muslim garb. Yes, he was on national television. Yes, he was on conservative Bill O'Reilly's show – a usual hotbed of fiery rhetoric. But his words were neither bombastic nor laced with hatred.
Williams was simply relaying a plausible, completely natural reaction when the human equation mixes American aircraft and a religious movement where its fanatics view mass death as a justified expression of practicing faith. And he lost his job over it.
Score one for the terrorists. In its zeal not to offend anyone at all costs -- even if it means the suspension of human behavior in the face of reality -- NPR mocked the often personal fears of every American and relegated them to a form of twisted bigotry.
Has one of the most listened-to radio networks forgotten what happened to this country nine years ago? Does it really expect Americans to return to a state of normalcy to where the NPR "thought police" can now impart its own form of justice?
What's bigoted or even unnatural about a reaction based on actual incidents of terrorism we hear on NPR news all the time?
Quick to its own defense, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller responded that "our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story. They should be reporting the story." C'mon, was Williams really reporting anything on O'Reilly? He was acting as an analyst. That role involves editorial parsing of events. Period. NPR understands that concept, otherwise they wouldn't have their own stable of journalists-turned-analysts.
Liberals and conservatives alike were quick to elevate this kerfuffle into a larger battle of good-versus-evil over issues such as public financing of NPR or First Amendment guarantees, but it doesn't need to go there.
Juan Williams was terminated from his job for thinking like…speaking like… and simply being an American. There's something inherently un-American about how NPR responded.
NPR & Terrorists - 1. Americans - 0
This week in a rare moment of candor, Juan Williams set down his journalism hat and spoke the truth about his feelings when on a plane with passengers wearing traditional Muslim garb. Yes, he was on national television. Yes, he was on conservative Bill O'Reilly's show – a usual hotbed of fiery rhetoric. But his words were neither bombastic nor laced with hatred.
Williams was simply relaying a plausible, completely natural reaction when the human equation mixes American aircraft and a religious movement where its fanatics view mass death as a justified expression of practicing faith. And he lost his job over it.
Score one for the terrorists. In its zeal not to offend anyone at all costs -- even if it means the suspension of human behavior in the face of reality -- NPR mocked the often personal fears of every American and relegated them to a form of twisted bigotry.
Has one of the most listened-to radio networks forgotten what happened to this country nine years ago? Does it really expect Americans to return to a state of normalcy to where the NPR "thought police" can now impart its own form of justice?
What's bigoted or even unnatural about a reaction based on actual incidents of terrorism we hear on NPR news all the time?
Quick to its own defense, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller responded that "our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story. They should be reporting the story." C'mon, was Williams really reporting anything on O'Reilly? He was acting as an analyst. That role involves editorial parsing of events. Period. NPR understands that concept, otherwise they wouldn't have their own stable of journalists-turned-analysts.
Liberals and conservatives alike were quick to elevate this kerfuffle into a larger battle of good-versus-evil over issues such as public financing of NPR or First Amendment guarantees, but it doesn't need to go there.
Juan Williams was terminated from his job for thinking like…speaking like… and simply being an American. There's something inherently un-American about how NPR responded.
10/21/10
Ginni Thomas and Forgiveness
BY: Armstrong Williams
Ginni Thomas and Forgiveness
Forgiveness is about letting go and moving on. It's the law of release. Who's offense you fail to forgive, you carry the burden of for the rest of your life. Obviously from her recent outreach to Ms. Anita Hill, Ginni Thomas has thought often about the offense between Hill and her husband. With an unwavering loyalty to both her husband and Christian faith, she followed the admonishment of her Creator to engage in a dialogue of reconciliation towards releasing everyone from this burden. Just remember not all prisons are made of concrete and steel. There are the prisons of the mind such as bitterness and unforgiveness. Thomas tried to sincerely elevate the issue to a place of healing and not who is right or who is wrong. However, Ginni Thomas miscalculated Ms. Hill's reaction to her olive branch. It is clear by Ms. Hill's response that right or wrong is more important than healing and reconciliation.
Was Ginni Thomas correct in following the mandates of her faith, regardless of the risk of rejection? Remember, individuals such as Mrs. Thomas don't risk national and global ridicule unless motivated by strong conviction. She considered the risk and potential fallout, yet did the righteous thing . Would you?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Ginni Thomas and Forgiveness
BY: Armstrong Williams
Ginni Thomas and Forgiveness
Forgiveness is about letting go and moving on. It's the law of release. Who's offense you fail to forgive, you carry the burden of for the rest of your life. Obviously from her recent outreach to Ms. Anita Hill, Ginni Thomas has thought often about the offense between Hill and her husband. With an unwavering loyalty to both her husband and Christian faith, she followed the admonishment of her Creator to engage in a dialogue of reconciliation towards releasing everyone from this burden. Just remember not all prisons are made of concrete and steel. There are the prisons of the mind such as bitterness and unforgiveness. Thomas tried to sincerely elevate the issue to a place of healing and not who is right or who is wrong. However, Ginni Thomas miscalculated Ms. Hill's reaction to her olive branch. It is clear by Ms. Hill's response that right or wrong is more important than healing and reconciliation.
Was Ginni Thomas correct in following the mandates of her faith, regardless of the risk of rejection? Remember, individuals such as Mrs. Thomas don't risk national and global ridicule unless motivated by strong conviction. She considered the risk and potential fallout, yet did the righteous thing . Would you?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/20/10
What is Education Reform ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What is Education Reform ?
These are interesting times for education reform in America today. A lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle are calling for it, but no one seems to know what “reform” really looks like.
The issue reached new levels of salience just a few weeks ago when “Waiting for Superman” – the new Davis Guggenheim documentary following five students and their futures in charter schools – opened to nation-wide critical acclaim.
There’s no question this country must have a serious debate on what reform is needed in our education system. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), U.S. students in 10th grade rank 28th in math and 22nd in science out of a total of 39 countries in proficiency.
Once the hotbed of innovation, medical and technical advancements, America is now sucking the exhaust fumes of revving machines such as India, China and other advancing nations. We are beyond arrested development. We are regressing.
It’s one thing to grasp this reality. It’s quite another to do something about it.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
What is Education Reform ?
BY: Armstrong Williams
What is Education Reform ?
These are interesting times for education reform in America today. A lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle are calling for it, but no one seems to know what “reform” really looks like.
The issue reached new levels of salience just a few weeks ago when “Waiting for Superman” – the new Davis Guggenheim documentary following five students and their futures in charter schools – opened to nation-wide critical acclaim.
There’s no question this country must have a serious debate on what reform is needed in our education system. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), U.S. students in 10th grade rank 28th in math and 22nd in science out of a total of 39 countries in proficiency.
Once the hotbed of innovation, medical and technical advancements, America is now sucking the exhaust fumes of revving machines such as India, China and other advancing nations. We are beyond arrested development. We are regressing.
It’s one thing to grasp this reality. It’s quite another to do something about it.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/19/10
The Continued Obama Health Care Lies?
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Continued Obama Health Care Lies !
Based on anecdotal evidence from business owners, insurance brokers and the media, insurance premiums on policies renewed for 2010 and 2011 are increasing 20 percent to 40 percent. These rising premiums are driven by mandated coverage that includes free or low-cost preventive care, non-exclusion of children with pre-existing medical conditions, required coverage for children up to age 26 and elimination of lifetime medical reimbursement limits.
Americans may recall that Mr. Obama promised, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." While this mandated coverage in the health care reform legislation may be desired by some people who are willing to pay the cost, there are certainly other medical insurance consumers who would rather have their current lower-cost coverage. However, under the legislation, contrary to the president's assurance, they are not permitted to keep their preferred lower-cost health care plans.
The health care reform legislation also will have a devastating impact on the spending power of working Americans and our economy as the higher premiums kick in. In order to understand this impact, it is instructive to look at the actual impact of the legislation on a small company. In 2010, some company's plan cost approximately $15,000 per year for family health care coverage, of which the company paid 60 percent and the employee paid 40 percent. For 2011, the premium for this coverage will increase 30 percent, or $4,500. The average non-management employee in this company earns $30,000 per year. The employee's share of the increased premium will cost $1,800. That is equivalent to a 6 percent pay cut for the average worker. The legislation will not allow them to keep their old policy at a lower cost.
Do you now feel misled by the Obama Administration or just out right lied to to further their passage of this atrocious bill ?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Continued Obama Health Care Lies?
BY: Armstrong Williams
The Continued Obama Health Care Lies !
Based on anecdotal evidence from business owners, insurance brokers and the media, insurance premiums on policies renewed for 2010 and 2011 are increasing 20 percent to 40 percent. These rising premiums are driven by mandated coverage that includes free or low-cost preventive care, non-exclusion of children with pre-existing medical conditions, required coverage for children up to age 26 and elimination of lifetime medical reimbursement limits.
Americans may recall that Mr. Obama promised, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." While this mandated coverage in the health care reform legislation may be desired by some people who are willing to pay the cost, there are certainly other medical insurance consumers who would rather have their current lower-cost coverage. However, under the legislation, contrary to the president's assurance, they are not permitted to keep their preferred lower-cost health care plans.
The health care reform legislation also will have a devastating impact on the spending power of working Americans and our economy as the higher premiums kick in. In order to understand this impact, it is instructive to look at the actual impact of the legislation on a small company. In 2010, some company's plan cost approximately $15,000 per year for family health care coverage, of which the company paid 60 percent and the employee paid 40 percent. For 2011, the premium for this coverage will increase 30 percent, or $4,500. The average non-management employee in this company earns $30,000 per year. The employee's share of the increased premium will cost $1,800. That is equivalent to a 6 percent pay cut for the average worker. The legislation will not allow them to keep their old policy at a lower cost.
Do you now feel misled by the Obama Administration or just out right lied to to further their passage of this atrocious bill ?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/18/10
Desperation at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The desperation at the White House these final weeks before Election Day is almost palpable.
For some strange reason, Democrats, led by Obama’s political team, believe they have an election winner in charging Republicans with laundering foreign donations into domestic campaigns.
The proof? They have none, but that hasn’t gotten in the way of some bizarre storyline they’re peddling that millions of Chinese and God-knows-from-who-else dollars are undermining elections this year.
The Hill had two strong stories on the matter yesterday, following yet another salvo by White House senior adviser David Axelrod during his Sunday talk show circuit. If you recall, Axelrod fired these same charges last Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” When asked by host Bob Schieffer to offer any evidence that proved groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were filtering the foreign money, Axelrod replied, “How do you know they’re not?” To wit, Schieffer replied, “Is that the best you got?”
Again this Sunday, Axelrod said the burden of proof was on groups such as the Chamber to disprove his allegation. Huh?
Let’s assume for a moment the American people even know what folks like Axelrod, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and others are alleging. They’re basing this argument in part on a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. Clearly, Obama himself was upset by that ruling, and he’s hell-bent on using some real-life example of the consequences. The only problem is, no one knows anything about this, let alone understands it.
Yet instead of letting the issue go because it clearly has no political traction, Axelrod and other White House cronies continue to parrot the nonsense.
To me, it threatens to undermine the good credibility of folks such as Gibbs, who is largely respected in his role. Instead of pushing an agenda every Democrat can get behind, such as how the health law seems to be working (their view, not mine), Gibbs chose to call out a Chamber lobbyist by name and tussle with NBC host David Gregory on the veracity of such allegations. C’mon, such back-and-forth is beneath the Office of White House Press Secretary. Would Mike McCurry be seen doing such a thing? Marlin Fitzwater?
The irony of this entire ploy of desperation is Democrats are not entirely sinless on these same allegations. The White House to this day will not disclose certain names of its donors during Obama’s presidential run, nor pressure its allies such as Big Labor to do the same with their donations in this cycle.
Either way, Democrats running for reelection this year need far more help than half-cocked misfires when there are so many other issues and policy challenges worth debating and contrasting for the American voter.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Desperation at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The desperation at the White House these final weeks before Election Day is almost palpable.
For some strange reason, Democrats, led by Obama’s political team, believe they have an election winner in charging Republicans with laundering foreign donations into domestic campaigns.
The proof? They have none, but that hasn’t gotten in the way of some bizarre storyline they’re peddling that millions of Chinese and God-knows-from-who-else dollars are undermining elections this year.
The Hill had two strong stories on the matter yesterday, following yet another salvo by White House senior adviser David Axelrod during his Sunday talk show circuit. If you recall, Axelrod fired these same charges last Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” When asked by host Bob Schieffer to offer any evidence that proved groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were filtering the foreign money, Axelrod replied, “How do you know they’re not?” To wit, Schieffer replied, “Is that the best you got?”
Again this Sunday, Axelrod said the burden of proof was on groups such as the Chamber to disprove his allegation. Huh?
Let’s assume for a moment the American people even know what folks like Axelrod, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and others are alleging. They’re basing this argument in part on a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. Clearly, Obama himself was upset by that ruling, and he’s hell-bent on using some real-life example of the consequences. The only problem is, no one knows anything about this, let alone understands it.
Yet instead of letting the issue go because it clearly has no political traction, Axelrod and other White House cronies continue to parrot the nonsense.
To me, it threatens to undermine the good credibility of folks such as Gibbs, who is largely respected in his role. Instead of pushing an agenda every Democrat can get behind, such as how the health law seems to be working (their view, not mine), Gibbs chose to call out a Chamber lobbyist by name and tussle with NBC host David Gregory on the veracity of such allegations. C’mon, such back-and-forth is beneath the Office of White House Press Secretary. Would Mike McCurry be seen doing such a thing? Marlin Fitzwater?
The irony of this entire ploy of desperation is Democrats are not entirely sinless on these same allegations. The White House to this day will not disclose certain names of its donors during Obama’s presidential run, nor pressure its allies such as Big Labor to do the same with their donations in this cycle.
Either way, Democrats running for reelection this year need far more help than half-cocked misfires when there are so many other issues and policy challenges worth debating and contrasting for the American voter.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/18/10
Obamacare is killing recovery
Obama Care Killing Recovery
By
Armstrong Williams
October 18, 2010
Six months ago, the Health Care Reform Act became law. Prior to its passage, Nancy Pelosi condescendingly announced “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it “. President Obama also assured Americans that health care “reforms…. will finally reduce the costs of health care…. Families will save on their premiums.” Contrary to the President’s assurance, unfortunately, the Health Care reform legislation is already causing a substantial increase in medical insurance premiums. We are also finding expensive provisions in this act that we did not know were there, including a hidden 3.8% sales tax on the sale of certain residential real estate and a burdensome IRS filing requirement on small business.
Based on anecdotal evidence from business owners, insurance brokers and the media, insurance premiums on policies renewed for 2010 and 2011 are increasing 20% to 40%. These rising premiums are driven by mandated coverage which includes free or low cost preventive care, non-exclusion of children with pre-existing medical conditions, required coverage for children up to age 26 and elimination of lifetime medical reimbursement limits.
Americans may recall that the President Obama promised “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” While this mandated coverage in the health care reform legislation may be desired by some people who are willing to pay the cost, there are certainly other medical insurance consumers who would rather have their current lower cost coverage. However, under the legislation, contrary to the President’s assurance, they are not permitted to keep their preferred lower cost health care plans.
The Health Care Reform legislation will also have a devastating impact on the spending power of working Americans and our economy as the higher premiums kick in. In order to understand this impact, it is instructive to look at the actual impact of the legislation on a small company. In 2010, this company’s plan cost approximately $15,000 per year for family health care coverage, of which the company paid 60% and the employee paid 40%. For 2011, the premium for this coverage will increase 30% or $4,500. The average non-management employee in this company earns $30,000 per year. The employee’s share of the increased premium will cost $1,800. That is equivalent to a 6% pay cut for the average worker! The legislation will not allow him to keep his old policy at a lower cost.
The unintended consequence of this reduction in spending power on American workers is a shift in spending from non-medical consumption to medical consumption. This will translate into a negative impact on spending for consumer items needed to help support the tepid American economic recovery.
The impact of this increased premium on the employer is equally devastating. The employer will bear $2,700 of the increased premium per employee. That means the direct cost of his labor increases 7%! If the business has 100 employees, this will cost the business $270,000. The increased cost will either come out of profits, in which case the employer will have less to invest in his business to create additional jobs; or it will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, which will result in less consumption. In either event, the increased premium costs will have a negative impact on the country’s fragile economic recovery.
The long-term economic impact of Obama Care is even more ominous. No evidence or analysis thus far shows that Obama care will reduce the cost of medical cost in the US. All the evidence is to the contrary. Consequently, companies are expecting premium costs per employee to skyrocket. This will further reduce the competitiveness of American labor. Companies will have less money to invest in their American businesses, thereby creating even fewer jobs. Companies that have the option will decide to set up new production in lower cost countries with more competitive labor and medical costs.
Hidden in the bowels of the Health Care Reform Act is a 3.8% sales tax on home sales beginning in 2013. The tax experts are not yet certain how this tax will work because it was not publicly discussed in Congress prior to the passage of the Health Care Reform Act. Did you hear the pundits discuss it? In principle this tax applies only to wealthy individuals with profits in excess of $250,000 (single taxpayer) or $500,000 (joint taxpayers) from the sale of their primary residence. However it also appears to apply to profits on second homes and residential investments. This tax will have a major impact on upper middle income baby boomers living in high cost metropolitan areas who want to downsize from their long held large family home. This tax will certainly have a chilling impact on the nation’s morbid housing market.
If middle class Americans think they will escape this tax, think again. At some point in the near future, inflation from the Federal Reserve printing money to finance the President’s huge budget deficits will drive up the nominal price of housing. Even modest 3 bedroom homes will sell for big nominal dollars. At that point the middle class will be ensnared with the tax. Look at history. The income tax was originally sold to the American people as only taxing the top 2%!
Speaker Pelosi may have unintentionally taught Congress and the American people a lesson. Read a bill and understand the impact of the bill before you pass it. It is unlikely that the Democratic Congress wanted to pass a medical reform bill that kills jobs and impedes the country from recovering from the Great Recession. Unfortunately, in their haste to control 20% of the economy represented by health care, they have passed a “Jobs Reduction Act”.
Six months ago, the Health Care Reform Act became law. Prior to its passage, Nancy Pelosi condescendingly announced “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it “. President Obama also assured Americans that health care “reforms…. will finally reduce the costs of health care…. Families will save on their premiums.” Contrary to the President’s assurance, unfortunately, the Health Care reform legislation is already causing a substantial increase in medical insurance premiums. We are also finding expensive provisions in this act that we did not know were there, including a hidden 3.8% sales tax on the sale of certain residential real estate and a burdensome IRS filing requirement on small business.
Based on anecdotal evidence from business owners, insurance brokers and the media, insurance premiums on policies renewed for 2010 and 2011 are increasing 20% to 40%. These rising premiums are driven by mandated coverage which includes free or low cost preventive care, non-exclusion of children with pre-existing medical conditions, required coverage for children up to age 26 and elimination of lifetime medical reimbursement limits.
Americans may recall that the President Obama promised “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” While this mandated coverage in the health care reform legislation may be desired by some people who are willing to pay the cost, there are certainly other medical insurance consumers who would rather have their current lower cost coverage. However, under the legislation, contrary to the President’s assurance, they are not permitted to keep their preferred lower cost health care plans.
The Health Care Reform legislation will also have a devastating impact on the spending power of working Americans and our economy as the higher premiums kick in. In order to understand this impact, it is instructive to look at the actual impact of the legislation on a small company. In 2010, this company’s plan cost approximately $15,000 per year for family health care coverage, of which the company paid 60% and the employee paid 40%. For 2011, the premium for this coverage will increase 30% or $4,500. The average non-management employee in this company earns $30,000 per year. The employee’s share of the increased premium will cost $1,800. That is equivalent to a 6% pay cut for the average worker! The legislation will not allow him to keep his old policy at a lower cost.
The unintended consequence of this reduction in spending power on American workers is a shift in spending from non-medical consumption to medical consumption. This will translate into a negative impact on spending for consumer items needed to help support the tepid American economic recovery.
The impact of this increased premium on the employer is equally devastating. The employer will bear $2,700 of the increased premium per employee. That means the direct cost of his labor increases 7%! If the business has 100 employees, this will cost the business $270,000. The increased cost will either come out of profits, in which case the employer will have less to invest in his business to create additional jobs; or it will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, which will result in less consumption. In either event, the increased premium costs will have a negative impact on the country’s fragile economic recovery.
The long-term economic impact of Obama Care is even more ominous. No evidence or analysis thus far shows that Obama care will reduce the cost of medical cost in the US. All the evidence is to the contrary. Consequently, companies are expecting premium costs per employee to skyrocket. This will further reduce the competitiveness of American labor. Companies will have less money to invest in their American businesses, thereby creating even fewer jobs. Companies that have the option will decide to set up new production in lower cost countries with more competitive labor and medical costs.
Speaker Pelosi may have unintentionally taught Congress and the American people a lesson. Read a bill and understand the impact of the bill before you pass it. It is unlikely that the Democratic Congress wanted to pass a medical reform bill that kills jobs and impedes the country from recovering from the Great Recession. Unfortunately, in their haste to control 20% of the economy represented by health care, they have passed a “Jobs Reduction Act”.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obamacare is killing recovery
Obama Care Killing Recovery
By
Armstrong Williams
October 18, 2010
Six months ago, the Health Care Reform Act became law. Prior to its passage, Nancy Pelosi condescendingly announced “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it “. President Obama also assured Americans that health care “reforms…. will finally reduce the costs of health care…. Families will save on their premiums.” Contrary to the President’s assurance, unfortunately, the Health Care reform legislation is already causing a substantial increase in medical insurance premiums. We are also finding expensive provisions in this act that we did not know were there, including a hidden 3.8% sales tax on the sale of certain residential real estate and a burdensome IRS filing requirement on small business.
Based on anecdotal evidence from business owners, insurance brokers and the media, insurance premiums on policies renewed for 2010 and 2011 are increasing 20% to 40%. These rising premiums are driven by mandated coverage which includes free or low cost preventive care, non-exclusion of children with pre-existing medical conditions, required coverage for children up to age 26 and elimination of lifetime medical reimbursement limits.
Americans may recall that the President Obama promised “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” While this mandated coverage in the health care reform legislation may be desired by some people who are willing to pay the cost, there are certainly other medical insurance consumers who would rather have their current lower cost coverage. However, under the legislation, contrary to the President’s assurance, they are not permitted to keep their preferred lower cost health care plans.
The Health Care Reform legislation will also have a devastating impact on the spending power of working Americans and our economy as the higher premiums kick in. In order to understand this impact, it is instructive to look at the actual impact of the legislation on a small company. In 2010, this company’s plan cost approximately $15,000 per year for family health care coverage, of which the company paid 60% and the employee paid 40%. For 2011, the premium for this coverage will increase 30% or $4,500. The average non-management employee in this company earns $30,000 per year. The employee’s share of the increased premium will cost $1,800. That is equivalent to a 6% pay cut for the average worker! The legislation will not allow him to keep his old policy at a lower cost.
The unintended consequence of this reduction in spending power on American workers is a shift in spending from non-medical consumption to medical consumption. This will translate into a negative impact on spending for consumer items needed to help support the tepid American economic recovery.
The impact of this increased premium on the employer is equally devastating. The employer will bear $2,700 of the increased premium per employee. That means the direct cost of his labor increases 7%! If the business has 100 employees, this will cost the business $270,000. The increased cost will either come out of profits, in which case the employer will have less to invest in his business to create additional jobs; or it will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, which will result in less consumption. In either event, the increased premium costs will have a negative impact on the country’s fragile economic recovery.
The long-term economic impact of Obama Care is even more ominous. No evidence or analysis thus far shows that Obama care will reduce the cost of medical cost in the US. All the evidence is to the contrary. Consequently, companies are expecting premium costs per employee to skyrocket. This will further reduce the competitiveness of American labor. Companies will have less money to invest in their American businesses, thereby creating even fewer jobs. Companies that have the option will decide to set up new production in lower cost countries with more competitive labor and medical costs.
Hidden in the bowels of the Health Care Reform Act is a 3.8% sales tax on home sales beginning in 2013. The tax experts are not yet certain how this tax will work because it was not publicly discussed in Congress prior to the passage of the Health Care Reform Act. Did you hear the pundits discuss it? In principle this tax applies only to wealthy individuals with profits in excess of $250,000 (single taxpayer) or $500,000 (joint taxpayers) from the sale of their primary residence. However it also appears to apply to profits on second homes and residential investments. This tax will have a major impact on upper middle income baby boomers living in high cost metropolitan areas who want to downsize from their long held large family home. This tax will certainly have a chilling impact on the nation’s morbid housing market.
If middle class Americans think they will escape this tax, think again. At some point in the near future, inflation from the Federal Reserve printing money to finance the President’s huge budget deficits will drive up the nominal price of housing. Even modest 3 bedroom homes will sell for big nominal dollars. At that point the middle class will be ensnared with the tax. Look at history. The income tax was originally sold to the American people as only taxing the top 2%!
Speaker Pelosi may have unintentionally taught Congress and the American people a lesson. Read a bill and understand the impact of the bill before you pass it. It is unlikely that the Democratic Congress wanted to pass a medical reform bill that kills jobs and impedes the country from recovering from the Great Recession. Unfortunately, in their haste to control 20% of the economy represented by health care, they have passed a “Jobs Reduction Act”.
Six months ago, the Health Care Reform Act became law. Prior to its passage, Nancy Pelosi condescendingly announced “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it “. President Obama also assured Americans that health care “reforms…. will finally reduce the costs of health care…. Families will save on their premiums.” Contrary to the President’s assurance, unfortunately, the Health Care reform legislation is already causing a substantial increase in medical insurance premiums. We are also finding expensive provisions in this act that we did not know were there, including a hidden 3.8% sales tax on the sale of certain residential real estate and a burdensome IRS filing requirement on small business.
Based on anecdotal evidence from business owners, insurance brokers and the media, insurance premiums on policies renewed for 2010 and 2011 are increasing 20% to 40%. These rising premiums are driven by mandated coverage which includes free or low cost preventive care, non-exclusion of children with pre-existing medical conditions, required coverage for children up to age 26 and elimination of lifetime medical reimbursement limits.
Americans may recall that the President Obama promised “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” While this mandated coverage in the health care reform legislation may be desired by some people who are willing to pay the cost, there are certainly other medical insurance consumers who would rather have their current lower cost coverage. However, under the legislation, contrary to the President’s assurance, they are not permitted to keep their preferred lower cost health care plans.
The Health Care Reform legislation will also have a devastating impact on the spending power of working Americans and our economy as the higher premiums kick in. In order to understand this impact, it is instructive to look at the actual impact of the legislation on a small company. In 2010, this company’s plan cost approximately $15,000 per year for family health care coverage, of which the company paid 60% and the employee paid 40%. For 2011, the premium for this coverage will increase 30% or $4,500. The average non-management employee in this company earns $30,000 per year. The employee’s share of the increased premium will cost $1,800. That is equivalent to a 6% pay cut for the average worker! The legislation will not allow him to keep his old policy at a lower cost.
The unintended consequence of this reduction in spending power on American workers is a shift in spending from non-medical consumption to medical consumption. This will translate into a negative impact on spending for consumer items needed to help support the tepid American economic recovery.
The impact of this increased premium on the employer is equally devastating. The employer will bear $2,700 of the increased premium per employee. That means the direct cost of his labor increases 7%! If the business has 100 employees, this will cost the business $270,000. The increased cost will either come out of profits, in which case the employer will have less to invest in his business to create additional jobs; or it will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, which will result in less consumption. In either event, the increased premium costs will have a negative impact on the country’s fragile economic recovery.
The long-term economic impact of Obama Care is even more ominous. No evidence or analysis thus far shows that Obama care will reduce the cost of medical cost in the US. All the evidence is to the contrary. Consequently, companies are expecting premium costs per employee to skyrocket. This will further reduce the competitiveness of American labor. Companies will have less money to invest in their American businesses, thereby creating even fewer jobs. Companies that have the option will decide to set up new production in lower cost countries with more competitive labor and medical costs.
Speaker Pelosi may have unintentionally taught Congress and the American people a lesson. Read a bill and understand the impact of the bill before you pass it. It is unlikely that the Democratic Congress wanted to pass a medical reform bill that kills jobs and impedes the country from recovering from the Great Recession. Unfortunately, in their haste to control 20% of the economy represented by health care, they have passed a “Jobs Reduction Act”.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/18/10
Desperation at 1600 Pennsylvania
The desperation at the White House these final weeks before election day is almost palpable.
For some strange reason, Democrats led by Obama’s political team believe they have an election winner in charging Republicans of laundering foreign donations into domestic campaigns.
The proof? They have none, but that hasn’t gotten in the way of some bizarre storyline they’re peddling that millions of Chinese and God-knows-from-who-else dollars are undermining elections this year.
The Hill had two strong stories on the matter yesterday following yet another salvo by White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod during his Sunday talk show circuit. If you recall, Axelrod fired these same charges last Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation. When asked by host Bob Schieffer to offer any evidence that proved groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was filtering the foreign money, Axelrod replied, “How do you know they’re not?” To wit, Schieffer replied, “Is that the best you got??”
Again this Sunday, Axelrod said the burden of proof was on groups such as the Chamber to disprove his allegation…Huh?
Let’s assume for a moment the American people even know what folks like Axelrod, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, and others are alleging. They’re basing this argument in part on a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. Clearly, Obama himself was upset by that ruling, and he’s hell-bent on using some real-life example of the consequences. The only problem is, no one knows anything about this, let alone understands it.
Yet instead of letting the issue go because it clearly has no political traction, Axelrod and other White House cronies continue to parrot the nonsense.
To me, it threatens to undermine the good credibility of folks such as Gibbs, who is largely respected in his role. Instead of pushing an agenda every Democrat can get behind such as how the health law seems to be working (their view, not mine), Gibbs chose to call out a Chamber lobbyist by name and tussle with NBC host David Gregory on the veracity of such allegations. C’mon, such back-and-forth is beneath the Office of White House Press Secretary. Would Mike McCurry be seen doing such a thing? Marlin Fitzwater?
The irony of this entire ploy of desperation is Democrats are not entirely sinless on these same allegations. The White House to this day will not disclose certain names of its donors during Obama’s presidential run, nor pressure its allies such as Big Labor to do the same with their donations in this cycle.
Either way, Democrats running for re-election this year need far more help than half-cocked misfires when there are so many other issues and policy challenges worth debating and contrasting for the American voter.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Desperation at 1600 Pennsylvania
The desperation at the White House these final weeks before election day is almost palpable.
For some strange reason, Democrats led by Obama’s political team believe they have an election winner in charging Republicans of laundering foreign donations into domestic campaigns.
The proof? They have none, but that hasn’t gotten in the way of some bizarre storyline they’re peddling that millions of Chinese and God-knows-from-who-else dollars are undermining elections this year.
The Hill had two strong stories on the matter yesterday following yet another salvo by White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod during his Sunday talk show circuit. If you recall, Axelrod fired these same charges last Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation. When asked by host Bob Schieffer to offer any evidence that proved groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was filtering the foreign money, Axelrod replied, “How do you know they’re not?” To wit, Schieffer replied, “Is that the best you got??”
Again this Sunday, Axelrod said the burden of proof was on groups such as the Chamber to disprove his allegation…Huh?
Let’s assume for a moment the American people even know what folks like Axelrod, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, and others are alleging. They’re basing this argument in part on a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. Clearly, Obama himself was upset by that ruling, and he’s hell-bent on using some real-life example of the consequences. The only problem is, no one knows anything about this, let alone understands it.
Yet instead of letting the issue go because it clearly has no political traction, Axelrod and other White House cronies continue to parrot the nonsense.
To me, it threatens to undermine the good credibility of folks such as Gibbs, who is largely respected in his role. Instead of pushing an agenda every Democrat can get behind such as how the health law seems to be working (their view, not mine), Gibbs chose to call out a Chamber lobbyist by name and tussle with NBC host David Gregory on the veracity of such allegations. C’mon, such back-and-forth is beneath the Office of White House Press Secretary. Would Mike McCurry be seen doing such a thing? Marlin Fitzwater?
The irony of this entire ploy of desperation is Democrats are not entirely sinless on these same allegations. The White House to this day will not disclose certain names of its donors during Obama’s presidential run, nor pressure its allies such as Big Labor to do the same with their donations in this cycle.
Either way, Democrats running for re-election this year need far more help than half-cocked misfires when there are so many other issues and policy challenges worth debating and contrasting for the American voter.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/15/10
Who is to blame?
Gene Cranick, the man whose home recently burned down in Tennessee, is now the center of a chilling controversy. As his home smoldered to the ground, local firefighters stood idly by without lifting a finger to save it — apparently because he didn’t pay the annual $75 protection fee required by the local government.
Liberals such as Keith Olbermann argue a similar episode of a la carte government could happen if the Tea Party had its way. I won't begin to touch the stupidity of that logic (somebody get the guy a copy of the 10th Amendment, please). But what is frightening are the potential parallels to healthcare and requirements for all Americans to buy the government's form of insurance.
For those of you who might not be familiar with the story, firefighters on the South Fulton, Tenn., scene would only do their job if and when the fire was considered a threat to neighbors' homes. Neighbors, that is, who paid the fee. As the situation unfolded, Gene pleaded that he would pay anything to have the flames extinguished. Firefighters, along with the chief, had no remorse for Gene Cranick, who is now being portrayed as a free-rider.
So who is to blame here? Cranick clearly knew the consequences of his actions, no?
Many homeowners are expected to sympathize with Gene out of their understanding of what it must feel like to lose everything they have. However, other principled Americans are likely to say, “See, that’s what you get — stop riding on the backs of society and carry your share!”
Although dramatic situations rarely occur, I fear the conditions are ripe to be played out over and over again with nationalized healthcare. What will our government do with millions of people who want to free-ride on the backs of national healthcare (not paying while consuming services)?
This is an interesting dilemma. Pay the insurance, required by federal fiat, and your health is all but assured. Don't pay the premium, and you could suffer a fate similar to what Gene Cranick saw, only this time with one's own health. Either way, Americans will cry out there's an injustice here, just as they did in Cranick's situation. Do we really want more secular moralism involved by our government and a "we-know-best-for-you" mentality?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Who is to blame?
Gene Cranick, the man whose home recently burned down in Tennessee, is now the center of a chilling controversy. As his home smoldered to the ground, local firefighters stood idly by without lifting a finger to save it — apparently because he didn’t pay the annual $75 protection fee required by the local government.
Liberals such as Keith Olbermann argue a similar episode of a la carte government could happen if the Tea Party had its way. I won't begin to touch the stupidity of that logic (somebody get the guy a copy of the 10th Amendment, please). But what is frightening are the potential parallels to healthcare and requirements for all Americans to buy the government's form of insurance.
For those of you who might not be familiar with the story, firefighters on the South Fulton, Tenn., scene would only do their job if and when the fire was considered a threat to neighbors' homes. Neighbors, that is, who paid the fee. As the situation unfolded, Gene pleaded that he would pay anything to have the flames extinguished. Firefighters, along with the chief, had no remorse for Gene Cranick, who is now being portrayed as a free-rider.
So who is to blame here? Cranick clearly knew the consequences of his actions, no?
Many homeowners are expected to sympathize with Gene out of their understanding of what it must feel like to lose everything they have. However, other principled Americans are likely to say, “See, that’s what you get — stop riding on the backs of society and carry your share!”
Although dramatic situations rarely occur, I fear the conditions are ripe to be played out over and over again with nationalized healthcare. What will our government do with millions of people who want to free-ride on the backs of national healthcare (not paying while consuming services)?
This is an interesting dilemma. Pay the insurance, required by federal fiat, and your health is all but assured. Don't pay the premium, and you could suffer a fate similar to what Gene Cranick saw, only this time with one's own health. Either way, Americans will cry out there's an injustice here, just as they did in Cranick's situation. Do we really want more secular moralism involved by our government and a "we-know-best-for-you" mentality?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/15/10
Who to blame?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Who is to blame?
Gene Cranick, the man whose home recently burned down in Tennessee, is now the center of a chilling controversy. As his home smoldered to the ground, local firefighters stood idly by without lifting a finger to save it...apparently because he didn’t pay the annual $75 protection fee required by the local government. Liberals such as Keith Olbermann argue a similar episode of a la carte government could happen if the Tea Party had its way. I won't begin to touch the stupidity of that logic (somebody get the guy a copy of the 10th amendment please). But what is frightening are the potential parallels to health care and requirements for all Americans to buy the government's form of insurance.
For those of you that might not be familiar with the story, firefighters on the South Fulton, Tennessee scene would only do their job if and when the fire was considered a threat to neighbors' homes.. neighbors, that is, who paid the fee. As the situation unfolded, Gene pleaded that he would pay anything to have the flames extinguished. Firefighters, along with the chief, had no remorse for Gene Cranick, who is now being portrayed as a free-rider.
So who is to blame here? Cranick clearly knew the consequences of his actions, no?
Many homeowners are expected to sympathize with Gene out of their understanding of what it must feel like to lose everything they have. However, other principled Americans are likely to say, “See that’s what you get, stop riding on the backs of society and carry your share!”
Although dramatic situations rarely occur, I fear the conditions are ripe to be played out over and over again with nationalized healthcare. What will our government do with millions of people who want to free-ride on the backs of national healthcare (not paying while consuming services)?
This is an interesting dilemma. Pay the insurance, required by federal fiat, and your health is all but assured. Don't pay the premium, and you could suffer a fate similar to what Gene Cranick saw, only this time with one's own health. Either way, Americans will cry out there's an injustice here, just as they did in Cranick's situation. Do we really want more secular moralism involved by our government and a "we-know-best-for-you" mentality?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Who to blame?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Who is to blame?
Gene Cranick, the man whose home recently burned down in Tennessee, is now the center of a chilling controversy. As his home smoldered to the ground, local firefighters stood idly by without lifting a finger to save it...apparently because he didn’t pay the annual $75 protection fee required by the local government. Liberals such as Keith Olbermann argue a similar episode of a la carte government could happen if the Tea Party had its way. I won't begin to touch the stupidity of that logic (somebody get the guy a copy of the 10th amendment please). But what is frightening are the potential parallels to health care and requirements for all Americans to buy the government's form of insurance.
For those of you that might not be familiar with the story, firefighters on the South Fulton, Tennessee scene would only do their job if and when the fire was considered a threat to neighbors' homes.. neighbors, that is, who paid the fee. As the situation unfolded, Gene pleaded that he would pay anything to have the flames extinguished. Firefighters, along with the chief, had no remorse for Gene Cranick, who is now being portrayed as a free-rider.
So who is to blame here? Cranick clearly knew the consequences of his actions, no?
Many homeowners are expected to sympathize with Gene out of their understanding of what it must feel like to lose everything they have. However, other principled Americans are likely to say, “See that’s what you get, stop riding on the backs of society and carry your share!”
Although dramatic situations rarely occur, I fear the conditions are ripe to be played out over and over again with nationalized healthcare. What will our government do with millions of people who want to free-ride on the backs of national healthcare (not paying while consuming services)?
This is an interesting dilemma. Pay the insurance, required by federal fiat, and your health is all but assured. Don't pay the premium, and you could suffer a fate similar to what Gene Cranick saw, only this time with one's own health. Either way, Americans will cry out there's an injustice here, just as they did in Cranick's situation. Do we really want more secular moralism involved by our government and a "we-know-best-for-you" mentality?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/14/10
Delaware debate: A pathological problem on taxes
CNN's coverage of Delaware's Senate race debate was definitely one to watch as a keen microcosm of the larger issues facing voters this November.
Yes, the candidates, Democrat Chris Coons and Republican/Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, were a bit quirky at first in their responses. If you watched, you saw both looking stiff, pale and downright canned in their answers.
Coons especially looked as though, no matter the question, he was going to give you the lines his team concocted the night before. At a time when Delaware voters are fired up, mad as hell and ready for some straight talk, I'm sure Coons's responses were about as flat as a desert road.
But OK, that's to be expected for most debates. What bothers me are the responses of, and therefore the insights into, the candidates. O'Donnell's thoughts on questions surrounding Afghanistan lacked any serious command of the situation on the ground. Coons clearly and correctly pointed out the corruption of the current Karzai government and its raw ineptitude. However, his party's president continues to prop up and support that same government, so I'm not sure how he can play both sides of this topic and not run counter to Obama or appeal to his base.
Where Coons failed miserably was once again on the economy and taxes. Statements such as tax cuts simply “cost” the federal government too much and add to our deficit are such pathetic, inside-Washington pabulum. Only a liberal who would rather spend tax dollars in the Federal City would see money leaving Washington as a “cost.” Ridiculous.
Why does the left insist tax dollars first belong inside the IRS? Yes, tax cuts mean Washington can't spend as much as it wants. But instead of offsetting that absence of funds with less spending, Democrats complain they have less money to pay down the debt. And they expect you to buy that line. Do you see how circular and plain stupid that argument is? "Give me more, and I'll spend it, deficit be damned. Give me less, and I'll complain I can't pay down the deficit." Coons's response betrays a pathological problem for Democrats this year. And only major losses will cure them of said illness.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Delaware debate: A pathological problem on taxes
CNN's coverage of Delaware's Senate race debate was definitely one to watch as a keen microcosm of the larger issues facing voters this November.
Yes, the candidates, Democrat Chris Coons and Republican/Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, were a bit quirky at first in their responses. If you watched, you saw both looking stiff, pale and downright canned in their answers.
Coons especially looked as though, no matter the question, he was going to give you the lines his team concocted the night before. At a time when Delaware voters are fired up, mad as hell and ready for some straight talk, I'm sure Coons's responses were about as flat as a desert road.
But OK, that's to be expected for most debates. What bothers me are the responses of, and therefore the insights into, the candidates. O'Donnell's thoughts on questions surrounding Afghanistan lacked any serious command of the situation on the ground. Coons clearly and correctly pointed out the corruption of the current Karzai government and its raw ineptitude. However, his party's president continues to prop up and support that same government, so I'm not sure how he can play both sides of this topic and not run counter to Obama or appeal to his base.
Where Coons failed miserably was once again on the economy and taxes. Statements such as tax cuts simply “cost” the federal government too much and add to our deficit are such pathetic, inside-Washington pabulum. Only a liberal who would rather spend tax dollars in the Federal City would see money leaving Washington as a “cost.” Ridiculous.
Why does the left insist tax dollars first belong inside the IRS? Yes, tax cuts mean Washington can't spend as much as it wants. But instead of offsetting that absence of funds with less spending, Democrats complain they have less money to pay down the debt. And they expect you to buy that line. Do you see how circular and plain stupid that argument is? "Give me more, and I'll spend it, deficit be damned. Give me less, and I'll complain I can't pay down the deficit." Coons's response betrays a pathological problem for Democrats this year. And only major losses will cure them of said illness.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/14/10
Attention, Mr. President: Solutions to your woes
Points on reducing cost:
1. PRIVATIZE!
If we can privatize healthcare, Social Security would be next.
2. Tort is 17 percent of healthcare cost. Put a cap on it.
3. Quality of life versus quantity. Over half of healthcare cost is in the last six months of life.
.
4. Eliminate or significantly reduce state differences with national guidelines.
Regardless of which party takes over Congress, we must have a plan to mitigate cost, because ObamaCare is NOT going to go away completely.
Attention, Mr. President: Solutions to your woes
Points on reducing cost:
1. PRIVATIZE!
If we can privatize healthcare, Social Security would be next.
2. Tort is 17 percent of healthcare cost. Put a cap on it.
3. Quality of life versus quantity. Over half of healthcare cost is in the last six months of life.
.
4. Eliminate or significantly reduce state differences with national guidelines.
Regardless of which party takes over Congress, we must have a plan to mitigate cost, because ObamaCare is NOT going to go away completely.
10/14/10
Delaware Debate
BY: Armstrong Williams
Delaware debate
A Pathological Problem on Taxes
CNN's coverage of Delaware's Senate race debate was definitely one to watch
as a keen microcosm of the larger issues facing voters this November.
Yes, the candidates, Democrat Chris Coons and Republican/Tea Party Christine
O'Donnell, were a bit quirky at first in their responses. If you watched, you
saw both looking stiff, pale and downright canned in their answers.
Coons especially looked as though, no matter the question, he was going to give
you the lines his team concocted the night before.
At a time when Delaware voters are fired up, mad as hell, and ready for some
straight talk, I'm sure Coons's responses were about as flat as a desert road.
But ok, that's to be expected for most debates.
What bothers me are the responses of, and therefore the insights into, the
candidates.
O'Donnell's thoughts on questions surrounding Afghanistan lacked any serious
command of the situation on the ground. Coons clearly and correctly pointed out
the corruption of the current Karzai government and its raw ineptitude. However,
his party's president continues to prop up and support that same government, so
I'm not sure how he can play both sides of this topic and not run counter to
Obama or appeal to his base.
Where Coons failed miserably was once again on the economy and taxes.
Statements such as tax cuts simply 'cost' the federal government too much and
add to our deficit is such pathetic, inside-Washington pabulum. Only a liberal
who would rather spend tax dollars in the Federal City would see money leaving
Washington as a 'cost'.
Ridiculous. Why does the Left insist tax dollars first belong inside the IRS?
Yes, tax cuts mean Washington can't spend as much as it wants. But instead of
offsetting that absence of funds with less spending, Democrats complain they
have less money to pay down the debt.
And they expect you to buy that line.
Do you see how circular and plain stupid that argument is? "Give me more, and
I'll spend it, deficit be damned. Give me less, and I'll complain I can't pay
down the deficit."
Coons's response betrays a pathological problem for Democrats this year. And
only major losses will cure them of said illness.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Delaware Debate
BY: Armstrong Williams
Delaware debate
A Pathological Problem on Taxes
CNN's coverage of Delaware's Senate race debate was definitely one to watch
as a keen microcosm of the larger issues facing voters this November.
Yes, the candidates, Democrat Chris Coons and Republican/Tea Party Christine
O'Donnell, were a bit quirky at first in their responses. If you watched, you
saw both looking stiff, pale and downright canned in their answers.
Coons especially looked as though, no matter the question, he was going to give
you the lines his team concocted the night before.
At a time when Delaware voters are fired up, mad as hell, and ready for some
straight talk, I'm sure Coons's responses were about as flat as a desert road.
But ok, that's to be expected for most debates.
What bothers me are the responses of, and therefore the insights into, the
candidates.
O'Donnell's thoughts on questions surrounding Afghanistan lacked any serious
command of the situation on the ground. Coons clearly and correctly pointed out
the corruption of the current Karzai government and its raw ineptitude. However,
his party's president continues to prop up and support that same government, so
I'm not sure how he can play both sides of this topic and not run counter to
Obama or appeal to his base.
Where Coons failed miserably was once again on the economy and taxes.
Statements such as tax cuts simply 'cost' the federal government too much and
add to our deficit is such pathetic, inside-Washington pabulum. Only a liberal
who would rather spend tax dollars in the Federal City would see money leaving
Washington as a 'cost'.
Ridiculous. Why does the Left insist tax dollars first belong inside the IRS?
Yes, tax cuts mean Washington can't spend as much as it wants. But instead of
offsetting that absence of funds with less spending, Democrats complain they
have less money to pay down the debt.
And they expect you to buy that line.
Do you see how circular and plain stupid that argument is? "Give me more, and
I'll spend it, deficit be damned. Give me less, and I'll complain I can't pay
down the deficit."
Coons's response betrays a pathological problem for Democrats this year. And
only major losses will cure them of said illness.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/13/10
Attention Mr. President: Solutions to your Woes
By: Armstrong Williams
Points on reducing cost:
1. PRIVATIZE!
If we can privatize health care, Social Security would be next.
2. Tort is 17% of health care cost. Put a cap on it.
3. Quality of life versus quantity. Over half of health care cost is in the last six months of life.
.
4. Eliminate or significantly reduce state differences with national guidelines.
Regardless of which party takes over Congress we must have a plan to mitigate cost because
Obama Care is NOT going to go away completely.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Attention Mr. President: Solutions to your Woes
By: Armstrong Williams
Points on reducing cost:
1. PRIVATIZE!
If we can privatize health care, Social Security would be next.
2. Tort is 17% of health care cost. Put a cap on it.
3. Quality of life versus quantity. Over half of health care cost is in the last six months of life.
.
4. Eliminate or significantly reduce state differences with national guidelines.
Regardless of which party takes over Congress we must have a plan to mitigate cost because
Obama Care is NOT going to go away completely.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/12/10
Napolitano immigration outrage
The Nicky Diaz story has revealed more about the Obama administration’s immigration policy than the president himself. We the people no longer need to assume the administration policies that protect America from continuously being invaded by illegal immigrants. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently exposed the illegal immigration platform of the current administration on “The O’Reilly Factor.”
If you aren’t familiar with the Nicky Diaz story, she has become a high-profile, controversial figure in illegal immigration politics. She was the former housekeeper of Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate, from 2000-2009. Diaz used a fake Social Security number to get the job, and when Mrs. Whitman became aware of her status she immediately fired her.
This led to Diaz suing Whitman over being owed a reported $6,210. The arrogance and contempt for the rule of law by these criminals is maddening.
Janet Napolitano was a recent guest on O'Reilly's show to discuss this outrage and her Homeland Department plans to bring closure to this less-than-complicated matter. O'Reilly simply wanted to know what legal precedents Napolitano would put in place for Diaz and others. And the kicker is: Napolitano has no clue. In fact, she wants to pawn it off on the voters of California to decide. Since when has illegal immigration become a state issue? She was pretty verbal with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.
Furthermore, Napolitano revealed that the current administration is focused on deporting those who have committed crimes. It's mind-numbing that those who use false Social Security numbers are given some sort of free pass. Reportedly, as much as 70 percent of the immigrants who entered into this country illegally have committed crimes.
We know what Napolitano should do with Diaz; she needs to be deported immediately. If Diaz has any plan of returning to our country after being deported, then she needs to abide by and honor our immigration laws. Our nation’s lawmakers must stop sending contradictory messages to illegal immigrants that using fake Social Security numbers is OK!
Napolitano immigration outrage
The Nicky Diaz story has revealed more about the Obama administration’s immigration policy than the president himself. We the people no longer need to assume the administration policies that protect America from continuously being invaded by illegal immigrants. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently exposed the illegal immigration platform of the current administration on “The O’Reilly Factor.”
If you aren’t familiar with the Nicky Diaz story, she has become a high-profile, controversial figure in illegal immigration politics. She was the former housekeeper of Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate, from 2000-2009. Diaz used a fake Social Security number to get the job, and when Mrs. Whitman became aware of her status she immediately fired her.
This led to Diaz suing Whitman over being owed a reported $6,210. The arrogance and contempt for the rule of law by these criminals is maddening.
Janet Napolitano was a recent guest on O'Reilly's show to discuss this outrage and her Homeland Department plans to bring closure to this less-than-complicated matter. O'Reilly simply wanted to know what legal precedents Napolitano would put in place for Diaz and others. And the kicker is: Napolitano has no clue. In fact, she wants to pawn it off on the voters of California to decide. Since when has illegal immigration become a state issue? She was pretty verbal with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.
Furthermore, Napolitano revealed that the current administration is focused on deporting those who have committed crimes. It's mind-numbing that those who use false Social Security numbers are given some sort of free pass. Reportedly, as much as 70 percent of the immigrants who entered into this country illegally have committed crimes.
We know what Napolitano should do with Diaz; she needs to be deported immediately. If Diaz has any plan of returning to our country after being deported, then she needs to abide by and honor our immigration laws. Our nation’s lawmakers must stop sending contradictory messages to illegal immigrants that using fake Social Security numbers is OK!
10/12/10
Napolitano Immigration Outrage
By: Armstrong Williams
Napolitano Immigration Outrage
The Nicky Diaz story has revealed more about the Obama Administrations immigration policy than the President himself. We the people no longer need to assume the Administration policies that protect America from continuously being invaded by illegal immigrants. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, recently exposed the illegal immigration platform of the current Administration on the O’Reilly Factor.
If you aren’t familiar with the Nicky Diaz story, she has become a high profile, controversial figure in illegal immigration politics. She was the former housekeeper of Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate, from 2000-2009. Diaz used a fake social security number to get the Job, and when Mrs. Whitman became aware of her status she immediately fired her.
This lead to Diaz suing Whitman over being owed a reported $6,210. The arrogance and contempt for the Rule of Law by these criminals are maddening.
Janet Napolitano was a recent guest on O'Reilly's show to discuss this outrage and her Homeland department plans to bring closure to this less than complicated matter. O'Reilly simply wanted to know what legal precedence Napolitano would put in place for Diaz and others. And the kicker is: Napolitano has no clue. In fact, she wants to pan it off on the voters of California to decide. Since when has illegal immigration become a state issue? She was pretty verbal with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.
Furthermore, Napolitano revealed that the current administration is focused on deporting those who have committed crimes. It's mind numbing that those who use false social security numbers are given some sort of free pass. Reportedly, as much as 70% of the immigrants who entered into this country illegally have committed crimes.
We know what Napolitano should do with Diaz, she needs to be deported immediately. If Diaz has any plan of returning to our country after being deported, then she needs to abide by and honor our immigration laws. Our nation law makers must stop sending contradictory messages to illegal immigrants that using fake social security numbers are okay!
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Napolitano Immigration Outrage
By: Armstrong Williams
Napolitano Immigration Outrage
The Nicky Diaz story has revealed more about the Obama Administrations immigration policy than the President himself. We the people no longer need to assume the Administration policies that protect America from continuously being invaded by illegal immigrants. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, recently exposed the illegal immigration platform of the current Administration on the O’Reilly Factor.
If you aren’t familiar with the Nicky Diaz story, she has become a high profile, controversial figure in illegal immigration politics. She was the former housekeeper of Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate, from 2000-2009. Diaz used a fake social security number to get the Job, and when Mrs. Whitman became aware of her status she immediately fired her.
This lead to Diaz suing Whitman over being owed a reported $6,210. The arrogance and contempt for the Rule of Law by these criminals are maddening.
Janet Napolitano was a recent guest on O'Reilly's show to discuss this outrage and her Homeland department plans to bring closure to this less than complicated matter. O'Reilly simply wanted to know what legal precedence Napolitano would put in place for Diaz and others. And the kicker is: Napolitano has no clue. In fact, she wants to pan it off on the voters of California to decide. Since when has illegal immigration become a state issue? She was pretty verbal with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.
Furthermore, Napolitano revealed that the current administration is focused on deporting those who have committed crimes. It's mind numbing that those who use false social security numbers are given some sort of free pass. Reportedly, as much as 70% of the immigrants who entered into this country illegally have committed crimes.
We know what Napolitano should do with Diaz, she needs to be deported immediately. If Diaz has any plan of returning to our country after being deported, then she needs to abide by and honor our immigration laws. Our nation law makers must stop sending contradictory messages to illegal immigrants that using fake social security numbers are okay!
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/11/10
Is this the change you were promised?
In three weeks, it is time for America to vote for change.
The Democrats have had their run in Congress for four years now and never have we seen such low approval ratings.
They claimed to offer us a positive difference from an out-of-touch GOP back in 2006, but have proven to be worse. They neither drained the swamp of corruption nor listened to the voices of their constituents.
Once Obama was elected, the Democrats went mad with power, deaf to the public, and delusional in their grasp. The deficit exploded, the cost of healthcare surged (despite promises to the contrary), the economy stagnated despite three rounds of stimulus, unemployment got worse, they intensified the War on Terror, failed to pass a budget and taxes are about to skyrocket.
Is this the change you thought you were promised?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Is this the change you were promised?
In three weeks, it is time for America to vote for change.
The Democrats have had their run in Congress for four years now and never have we seen such low approval ratings.
They claimed to offer us a positive difference from an out-of-touch GOP back in 2006, but have proven to be worse. They neither drained the swamp of corruption nor listened to the voices of their constituents.
Once Obama was elected, the Democrats went mad with power, deaf to the public, and delusional in their grasp. The deficit exploded, the cost of healthcare surged (despite promises to the contrary), the economy stagnated despite three rounds of stimulus, unemployment got worse, they intensified the War on Terror, failed to pass a budget and taxes are about to skyrocket.
Is this the change you thought you were promised?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/11/10
Why Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker in 2011
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Nancy Pelosi Will Not be Speaker in 2011
October 11, 2010
There's an interesting storyline playing out in the corridors of the Capitol this week. Yes, Congress is in its fall recess, members having returned home for the last stretch of campaigning before that first Tuesday in November. But all is not so quiet on the Eastern front; the Washington punditocracy is still flourishing, reading the tea leaves to discover the fate of every House and Senate incumbent.
What ultimately happens on Election Day will certainly impact the makeup of House and Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle. Many are speculating just how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will govern in a new era with far fewer Democrats and, most likely, a lost majority.
Last week, some Hill papers openly wondered what type of vengeance a scorned Pelosi would exact on those who dared to question her decisions and legislative strategies that put the rank-and-file in such dire straits.
Such predictions on Pelosi's future behavior and how she'll handle those unfaithful members are misguided and a waste of time. No matter what happens on Election Day, less than a month from today, Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker of the House in 2011 and may not be leading Democrats in Congress at all.
There are three primary reasons for this conclusion:
The first is obvious – it goes without saying that a GOP takeover means the end of Pelosi as Speaker; Republicans won't vote her as Speaker. However, Pelosi is too liberal, not only for the country, but even her caucus. Few constituents realize that the first vote each member takes soon after he or she is sworn in is a vote for the Speaker. Up until this year, not many cared. But when so many are losing their jobs, and realizing the policies of the Pelosi/Reid Congress are partially to blame, they begin to wonder why a Heath Shuler out of rural North Carolina, for example, would dare to support such a diametrical political opposite to their views and way of life.
Put simply, incoming freshman Democrats as well as sophomores who barely survive this cycle will look up from the ashes and heaps of political rubble and realize they can't afford to go through that firestorm again, no matter how much money Pelosi raises from her San Francisco liberal friends. Want to know who else understands that viewpoint? Majority Leader (and moderate) Steny Hoyer. He gets it. Through it all, he has remained loyal, but quiet; staying in the shadows and watching this vignette unfold.
The second reason is the Denny Hastert Syndrome. The former GOP Speaker was highly regarded for his ability to move legislation with Republican-only votes. But his grand strategy soon began to fail as he repeatedly forced his rank-and-file to rubber stamp progressive, trillion-dollar policies of an increasingly unpopular president.
Sound familiar? Like Hastert to Bush, Speaker Pelosi is too closely tied to President Obama. The old saw that read, The president proposes, and the Congress disposes is totally lost on Pelosi's House, and for that she will pay a price. The electorate (especially independent voters) likes a balance of power. And while Minority Leader Pelosi espoused such views when Bush was president, she certainly hasn't followed her own advice now that Obama is in the White House.
Finally, the continued ethical lapses of House Democrats will contribute to Pelosi's fall next year. She personally took ownership of draining the swamp that had corrupted so many Republicans and led to that party's losses in 2006. Yet, with every day that passes, more and more allegations of ethical dereliction turn up at levels that would make even Mark Foley blush. Through her own pledges, responsibility for those issues lays squarely at the feet of Pelosi. And to set the ultimate example that Democrats too, have learned their lesson, she must be the sacrificial lamb.
Critics will say no average American follows the inner-workings of the Congress very closely; that they could no more name Pelosi as the current speaker than they can Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. That idea has become a myth with the advent of 24-hour cable news and the internet, but even then it is of no matter. The only votes that count for Speaker are not cast by 200 million Americans, but rather by 434 who know her very well. And therein lies her problem.
Members of Congress, especially Democrats, know that with Pelosi, past is prologue. That if they vote for her as Speaker again, they're apt to see a return to the same headstrong liberal agenda that put them in the box they were in this year.
No rank-and-file Democrat wants to go through that hell again. In fact, I don't believe Pelosi can survive a challenge to return as minority leader in the House should Democrats lose the majority. Speakers rarely survive as their party's head following a major turnover of the House. If the Democrats manage to hold on, we can expect a coup; if the polls hold true to form, a loss of an overwhelming majority will leave Pelosi with no legitimate claim to lead her party. The taste of defeat will be so strong in the mouths of those who survived that they will want to seek a new shepherd to lead them back to the land of Canaan.
As the polling wizards work their statistical magic to determine who will wield the Speaker's gavel for the next Congress, one outcome seems clear- win or lose, Nancy Pelosi will not survive a bruised Democratic vote in the first days of 2011. Her unapologetically liberal ways have finally caught up with her.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Why Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker in 2011
BY: Armstrong Williams
Why Nancy Pelosi Will Not be Speaker in 2011
October 11, 2010
There's an interesting storyline playing out in the corridors of the Capitol this week. Yes, Congress is in its fall recess, members having returned home for the last stretch of campaigning before that first Tuesday in November. But all is not so quiet on the Eastern front; the Washington punditocracy is still flourishing, reading the tea leaves to discover the fate of every House and Senate incumbent.
What ultimately happens on Election Day will certainly impact the makeup of House and Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle. Many are speculating just how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will govern in a new era with far fewer Democrats and, most likely, a lost majority.
Last week, some Hill papers openly wondered what type of vengeance a scorned Pelosi would exact on those who dared to question her decisions and legislative strategies that put the rank-and-file in such dire straits.
Such predictions on Pelosi's future behavior and how she'll handle those unfaithful members are misguided and a waste of time. No matter what happens on Election Day, less than a month from today, Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker of the House in 2011 and may not be leading Democrats in Congress at all.
There are three primary reasons for this conclusion:
The first is obvious – it goes without saying that a GOP takeover means the end of Pelosi as Speaker; Republicans won't vote her as Speaker. However, Pelosi is too liberal, not only for the country, but even her caucus. Few constituents realize that the first vote each member takes soon after he or she is sworn in is a vote for the Speaker. Up until this year, not many cared. But when so many are losing their jobs, and realizing the policies of the Pelosi/Reid Congress are partially to blame, they begin to wonder why a Heath Shuler out of rural North Carolina, for example, would dare to support such a diametrical political opposite to their views and way of life.
Put simply, incoming freshman Democrats as well as sophomores who barely survive this cycle will look up from the ashes and heaps of political rubble and realize they can't afford to go through that firestorm again, no matter how much money Pelosi raises from her San Francisco liberal friends. Want to know who else understands that viewpoint? Majority Leader (and moderate) Steny Hoyer. He gets it. Through it all, he has remained loyal, but quiet; staying in the shadows and watching this vignette unfold.
The second reason is the Denny Hastert Syndrome. The former GOP Speaker was highly regarded for his ability to move legislation with Republican-only votes. But his grand strategy soon began to fail as he repeatedly forced his rank-and-file to rubber stamp progressive, trillion-dollar policies of an increasingly unpopular president.
Sound familiar? Like Hastert to Bush, Speaker Pelosi is too closely tied to President Obama. The old saw that read, The president proposes, and the Congress disposes is totally lost on Pelosi's House, and for that she will pay a price. The electorate (especially independent voters) likes a balance of power. And while Minority Leader Pelosi espoused such views when Bush was president, she certainly hasn't followed her own advice now that Obama is in the White House.
Finally, the continued ethical lapses of House Democrats will contribute to Pelosi's fall next year. She personally took ownership of draining the swamp that had corrupted so many Republicans and led to that party's losses in 2006. Yet, with every day that passes, more and more allegations of ethical dereliction turn up at levels that would make even Mark Foley blush. Through her own pledges, responsibility for those issues lays squarely at the feet of Pelosi. And to set the ultimate example that Democrats too, have learned their lesson, she must be the sacrificial lamb.
Critics will say no average American follows the inner-workings of the Congress very closely; that they could no more name Pelosi as the current speaker than they can Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. That idea has become a myth with the advent of 24-hour cable news and the internet, but even then it is of no matter. The only votes that count for Speaker are not cast by 200 million Americans, but rather by 434 who know her very well. And therein lies her problem.
Members of Congress, especially Democrats, know that with Pelosi, past is prologue. That if they vote for her as Speaker again, they're apt to see a return to the same headstrong liberal agenda that put them in the box they were in this year.
No rank-and-file Democrat wants to go through that hell again. In fact, I don't believe Pelosi can survive a challenge to return as minority leader in the House should Democrats lose the majority. Speakers rarely survive as their party's head following a major turnover of the House. If the Democrats manage to hold on, we can expect a coup; if the polls hold true to form, a loss of an overwhelming majority will leave Pelosi with no legitimate claim to lead her party. The taste of defeat will be so strong in the mouths of those who survived that they will want to seek a new shepherd to lead them back to the land of Canaan.
As the polling wizards work their statistical magic to determine who will wield the Speaker's gavel for the next Congress, one outcome seems clear- win or lose, Nancy Pelosi will not survive a bruised Democratic vote in the first days of 2011. Her unapologetically liberal ways have finally caught up with her.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8pm and 4-5am, Monday through Friday.
Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/11/10
Is this the Change you were Promised?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is this the Change you were Promised?
In 3 weeks, it is time for America to vote for Change. The Democrats
have had their run in Congress for 4 years now and never have we seen
such low approval ratings. They claimed to offer us a positive
difference from an out of touch GOP back in 2006, but have proven to
be worse. They neither drained the swamp of corruption nor listened
to the voices of their constituents. Once Obama was elected, the
Democrats went mad with power, deaf to the public, and delusional in
their grasp. The deficit exploded, the cost of healthcare surged
(despite promises to the contrary), the economy stagnated despite
three rounds of stimulus, unemployment got worse, they intensified the
War on Terror, failed to pass a budget, and taxes are about to
skyrocket. Is this the Change you thought you were promised?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Is this the Change you were Promised?
BY: Armstrong Williams
Is this the Change you were Promised?
In 3 weeks, it is time for America to vote for Change. The Democrats
have had their run in Congress for 4 years now and never have we seen
such low approval ratings. They claimed to offer us a positive
difference from an out of touch GOP back in 2006, but have proven to
be worse. They neither drained the swamp of corruption nor listened
to the voices of their constituents. Once Obama was elected, the
Democrats went mad with power, deaf to the public, and delusional in
their grasp. The deficit exploded, the cost of healthcare surged
(despite promises to the contrary), the economy stagnated despite
three rounds of stimulus, unemployment got worse, they intensified the
War on Terror, failed to pass a budget, and taxes are about to
skyrocket. Is this the Change you thought you were promised?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/08/10
Entangling alliances with none
If you recall, our Founding Fathers gave us advice as our country looked to the future. George Washington's farewell address urged us to stay away from the affairs of Europe. He recommended our ties be commercial, not political. Thomas Jefferson remarked, Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Fast-forward over 200 years and we cannot say we have followed any of that guidance. This is no more evident example than the never-ending War on Terror.
America used to lead by example. World War II changed everything. We had to lead because it was the only great nation left intact. We thought the end of the Cold War would usher in a great Pax Americana; we became the world's policeman and preacher without passing the offering plate. Yet all it seems to have done is leave America resented and perceived as a bully around the world, by former allies and enemies alike.
So many countries complain that we are not doing it right, they could do better. So I say we let them. When spoiled children are given everything, they demand more without appreciating the cost to their benevolent parents. It is time to cut the cord.
I know what I am saying is considered blasphemy in some quarters, but it is time to pack up our worldwide military and go home. It is time to quit wasting our treasure saving other countries from themselves or threats that fell with the Berlin Wall.
It is time to let Iraqis handle their own country all by themselves, for Afghanistan to make its own future, for India and China to deal with Pakistan, and for Israel to either sink or swim with its neighbors. Instead of wearing out our military by having it gallivant around the globe in a grand game of thrones, let's bring the boys back home and stop aiding those leaders who only seek to enrich themselves through corruption at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Watch Armstrong Williams on WBFF Sundays at midnight and Fridays at 6:30 am, on Fox Morning News. Also listen on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Entangling alliances with none
If you recall, our Founding Fathers gave us advice as our country looked to the future. George Washington's farewell address urged us to stay away from the affairs of Europe. He recommended our ties be commercial, not political. Thomas Jefferson remarked, Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Fast-forward over 200 years and we cannot say we have followed any of that guidance. This is no more evident example than the never-ending War on Terror.
America used to lead by example. World War II changed everything. We had to lead because it was the only great nation left intact. We thought the end of the Cold War would usher in a great Pax Americana; we became the world's policeman and preacher without passing the offering plate. Yet all it seems to have done is leave America resented and perceived as a bully around the world, by former allies and enemies alike.
So many countries complain that we are not doing it right, they could do better. So I say we let them. When spoiled children are given everything, they demand more without appreciating the cost to their benevolent parents. It is time to cut the cord.
I know what I am saying is considered blasphemy in some quarters, but it is time to pack up our worldwide military and go home. It is time to quit wasting our treasure saving other countries from themselves or threats that fell with the Berlin Wall.
It is time to let Iraqis handle their own country all by themselves, for Afghanistan to make its own future, for India and China to deal with Pakistan, and for Israel to either sink or swim with its neighbors. Instead of wearing out our military by having it gallivant around the globe in a grand game of thrones, let's bring the boys back home and stop aiding those leaders who only seek to enrich themselves through corruption at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Watch Armstrong Williams on WBFF Sundays at midnight and Fridays at 6:30 am, on Fox Morning News. Also listen on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/07/10
The right to get beat down
It is clear to me that the right to free speech trumps proper decorum, and in that vein, I defend Pastor Phelps's right to protest at military funerals. He is careful to follow all the laws and guidelines for protesting at a funeral.
However, the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. One day Pastor Phelps and his ilk are going to protest the wrong funeral. On that day, a grieving family member is going to snap and a brawl will ensue.
Our military give their lives so that people like those from the Westboro Baptist Church can have the freedom to publicly protest; but they take advantage of it in a way that is contemptuous and loathsome. They show no respect nor honor for either the servicemen who protect them or the God whom they proclaim to serve.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The right to get beat down
It is clear to me that the right to free speech trumps proper decorum, and in that vein, I defend Pastor Phelps's right to protest at military funerals. He is careful to follow all the laws and guidelines for protesting at a funeral.
However, the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. One day Pastor Phelps and his ilk are going to protest the wrong funeral. On that day, a grieving family member is going to snap and a brawl will ensue.
Our military give their lives so that people like those from the Westboro Baptist Church can have the freedom to publicly protest; but they take advantage of it in a way that is contemptuous and loathsome. They show no respect nor honor for either the servicemen who protect them or the God whom they proclaim to serve.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/07/10
Entangling alliances with none
If you recall, our Founding Fathers gave us advice as our country looked to the future. George Washington's farewell address urged us to stay away from the affairs of Europe. He recommended our ties be commercial, not political. Thomas Jefferson remarked, Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Fast-forward over 200 years and we cannot say we have followed any of that guidance. This is no more evident example than the never-ending War on Terror.
America used to lead by example. World War II changed everything. We had to lead because it was the only great nation left intact. We thought the end of the Cold War would usher in a great Pax Americana; we became the world's policeman and preacher without passing the offering plate. Yet all it seems to have done is leave America resented and perceived as a bully around the world, by former allies and enemies alike.
So many countries complain that we are not doing it right, they could do better. So I say we let them. When spoiled children are given everything, they demand more without appreciating the cost to their benevolent parents. It is time to cut the cord.
I know what I am saying is considered blasphemy in some quarters, but it is time to pack up our worldwide military and go home. It is time to quit wasting our treasure saving other countries from themselves or threats that fell with the Berlin Wall.
It is time to let Iraqis handle their own country all by themselves, for Afghanistan to make its own future, for India and China to deal with Pakistan, and for Israel to either sink or swim with its neighbors. Instead of wearing out our military by having it gallivant around the globe in a grand game of thrones, let's bring the boys back home and stop aiding those leaders who only seek to enrich themselves through corruption at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Entangling alliances with none
If you recall, our Founding Fathers gave us advice as our country looked to the future. George Washington's farewell address urged us to stay away from the affairs of Europe. He recommended our ties be commercial, not political. Thomas Jefferson remarked, Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Fast-forward over 200 years and we cannot say we have followed any of that guidance. This is no more evident example than the never-ending War on Terror.
America used to lead by example. World War II changed everything. We had to lead because it was the only great nation left intact. We thought the end of the Cold War would usher in a great Pax Americana; we became the world's policeman and preacher without passing the offering plate. Yet all it seems to have done is leave America resented and perceived as a bully around the world, by former allies and enemies alike.
So many countries complain that we are not doing it right, they could do better. So I say we let them. When spoiled children are given everything, they demand more without appreciating the cost to their benevolent parents. It is time to cut the cord.
I know what I am saying is considered blasphemy in some quarters, but it is time to pack up our worldwide military and go home. It is time to quit wasting our treasure saving other countries from themselves or threats that fell with the Berlin Wall.
It is time to let Iraqis handle their own country all by themselves, for Afghanistan to make its own future, for India and China to deal with Pakistan, and for Israel to either sink or swim with its neighbors. Instead of wearing out our military by having it gallivant around the globe in a grand game of thrones, let's bring the boys back home and stop aiding those leaders who only seek to enrich themselves through corruption at the expense of the American taxpayer.
10/07/10
The unrealistic cost of being the first black president'
An overwhelming number of American blacks have pinned the hopes of an entire race on President Obama, a set of expectations that no other American president has ever faced.
In the real world, however, such misplaced hopes actually work against Obama and the black community in general. If he were to give in to their suggestions to consult a special black Cabinet or implement explicitly race-based policies, he'd quickly lose the rest of America and the White House in short order.
Instead, disillusioned blacks have signaled that they would rather not vote than heed Obama's recent pleas for enthusiasm to prevent a GOP takeover and the end of his agenda. What do we care? Obama's agenda isn't helping us, was the refrain.
Perhaps more damaging than the average black citizen's disappointment is the fact that powerful factions within the black leadership are sitting on their hands out of jealousy because Obama skipped to the head of the leadership line. This is surely a defeatist position if there ever was one.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The unrealistic cost of being the first black president'
An overwhelming number of American blacks have pinned the hopes of an entire race on President Obama, a set of expectations that no other American president has ever faced.
In the real world, however, such misplaced hopes actually work against Obama and the black community in general. If he were to give in to their suggestions to consult a special black Cabinet or implement explicitly race-based policies, he'd quickly lose the rest of America and the White House in short order.
Instead, disillusioned blacks have signaled that they would rather not vote than heed Obama's recent pleas for enthusiasm to prevent a GOP takeover and the end of his agenda. What do we care? Obama's agenda isn't helping us, was the refrain.
Perhaps more damaging than the average black citizen's disappointment is the fact that powerful factions within the black leadership are sitting on their hands out of jealousy because Obama skipped to the head of the leadership line. This is surely a defeatist position if there ever was one.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/07/10
The unrealistic cost of being the first black president'
An overwhelming number of American blacks have pinned the hopes of an entire race on President Obama, a set of expectations that no other American president has ever faced.
In the real world, however, such misplaced hopes actually work against Obama and the black community in general. If he were to give in to their suggestions to consult a special black Cabinet or implement explicitly race-based policies, he'd quickly lose the rest of America and the White House in short order.
Instead, disillusioned blacks have signaled that they would rather not vote than heed Obama's recent pleas for enthusiasm to prevent a GOP takeover and the end of his agenda. What do we care? Obama's agenda isn't helping us, was the refrain.
Perhaps more damaging than the average black citizen's disappointment is the fact that powerful factions within the black leadership are sitting on their hands out of jealousy because Obama skipped to the head of the leadership line. This is surely a defeatist position if there ever was one.
Watch Armstrong Williams on WBFF Sundays at midnight and Fridays at 6:30 am, on Fox Morning News. Also listen on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The unrealistic cost of being the first black president'
An overwhelming number of American blacks have pinned the hopes of an entire race on President Obama, a set of expectations that no other American president has ever faced.
In the real world, however, such misplaced hopes actually work against Obama and the black community in general. If he were to give in to their suggestions to consult a special black Cabinet or implement explicitly race-based policies, he'd quickly lose the rest of America and the White House in short order.
Instead, disillusioned blacks have signaled that they would rather not vote than heed Obama's recent pleas for enthusiasm to prevent a GOP takeover and the end of his agenda. What do we care? Obama's agenda isn't helping us, was the refrain.
Perhaps more damaging than the average black citizen's disappointment is the fact that powerful factions within the black leadership are sitting on their hands out of jealousy because Obama skipped to the head of the leadership line. This is surely a defeatist position if there ever was one.
Watch Armstrong Williams on WBFF Sundays at midnight and Fridays at 6:30 am, on Fox Morning News. Also listen on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/05/10
Who Rules the Tea Party?
Who rules the tea party?
Is it Sarah Palin and her lunch pail brand of God, guns and the Constitution? Is it Dick Armey, the former House majority leader who danced to his own tune and was the mastermind behind the GOP's Contract with America? Or is the tea party led by a few private mega-funders a George Soros clan of the conservative movement?
One thing is certain, liberals have no idea who their opponent is, and they and the mainstream media are desperate to find out.
Several months ago, when the tea party crusade hit its stride with a Kentucky primary win by Rand Paul to succeed retiring Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican, the Left went out of its way to link Mr. Paul as the puppet behind a larger Republican machine. Democrat operatives quickly labeled Mr. Paul and his style of politics as wholly indicative of what the GOP had become.
As predicted, Republicans had reverted to their old-school style of hate politics, the storyline went, making this November a clear choice between policies of the past versus the future.
The political cheap shot was an easy one for the likes of Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine. The narrative they could build around Mr. Paul and other tea party activists fit nicely into the party's attacks, and gave them something to shoot at after being pummeled for months by a sluggish recovery and missteps of their own.
To Democrats and the media, the GOP had let the wing-nuts take over. And so long as they were winning, Republican leaders were all too eager to sit back and watch.
But then Christine O'Donnell happened. From out of nowhere, this recycled candidate snatched victory from the jaws of the Establishment Republican Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware. What a conundrum that created.
Now all of a sudden, Republicans had taken a big step away from winning control of the Senate. Clearly this wasn't in the party's plan, but up until now, everyone was saying the GOP was in control of the tea party.
Without missing a beat or even noting their own double-mindedness, pundits and columnists took to warning the country that Republicans had no control of the tea party, and such irresponsible behavior threatened to wreak havoc on our way of life (whatever that meant). As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on Sept. 14, The Republicans thought they had the rampaging Tea Party under control. Apparently the Tea Party begs to differ.
So which is it? Does the Republican Party control the tea party? Is the tea party stationed off First Street in the Republican National Committee headquarters?
The truth is, the tea party is led by no one. It stands singularly united against the forces of government knows best. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the poster child of such doctrine is President Obama himself. No manner of ducking or dodging will dissuade tea party crusaders. So what opponents do instead is demonize this group because of its views; this from a man who pledged to be President for all Americans.
For now, the simple fact the tea party is against something is enough to galvanize its followers and keep them focused on the prize the end of the ruling party. It forces each candidate to listen to the local concerns of their constituencies, not some head that arbitrarily decides an official platform. The platform is simple Stop wasting our tax dollars!
So-called experts claim the tea party only affects Republicans, but that's an incomplete assertion. Throughout the country we are seeing Democratic candidates run away from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their party to tout their independence and fiscal responsibility. When was the last time you saw so many politicians run away from their greatest achievements?
If the tea party and its message are so trite, why are officials on both sides privately telling me this is the best thing to happen to the parties in a long time? Simple because it's forcing candidates to finally start listening.
One thing that hasn't been discussed in Washington circles is what the tea party needs. Like it or not, once these candidates become sworn-in members of the House or Senate, they will need to form a coalition government of sorts. Left to itself, there will be little legislatively it can do. Yet plugged into the policy apparatus of the Republican Party, it can begin to shape and turn initiatives, something every tea party disciple longs to see.
Can this movement last? Will it be around and in similar form come 2012? I believe so. There's too much frustration and not enough relief in sight. But I don't see a tea party movement in 15 years not how it's formed today. Groups like these need a common enemy, a political target to direct their discontent.
Finally, this movement possesses one characteristic that Democrats are sorely lacking this election cycle enthusiasm. That's why candidates like Miss O'Donnell still have a better-than-average chance of winning. Do you think Delaware voters care what The Architect Karl Rove thinks? Hardly. Their own enthusiasm is almost enough to carry the day. Just look to 1994 to view that piece of history.
Who leads the tea party? It doesn't matter. The political tour de force is felt by everyone, yet controlled by no one. Let the Establishment beware.
Watch Armstrong Williams on WBFF Sundays at midnight and Fridays at 6:30 am, on Fox Morning News. Also listen on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Who Rules the Tea Party?
Who rules the tea party?
Is it Sarah Palin and her lunch pail brand of God, guns and the Constitution? Is it Dick Armey, the former House majority leader who danced to his own tune and was the mastermind behind the GOP's Contract with America? Or is the tea party led by a few private mega-funders a George Soros clan of the conservative movement?
One thing is certain, liberals have no idea who their opponent is, and they and the mainstream media are desperate to find out.
Several months ago, when the tea party crusade hit its stride with a Kentucky primary win by Rand Paul to succeed retiring Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican, the Left went out of its way to link Mr. Paul as the puppet behind a larger Republican machine. Democrat operatives quickly labeled Mr. Paul and his style of politics as wholly indicative of what the GOP had become.
As predicted, Republicans had reverted to their old-school style of hate politics, the storyline went, making this November a clear choice between policies of the past versus the future.
The political cheap shot was an easy one for the likes of Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine. The narrative they could build around Mr. Paul and other tea party activists fit nicely into the party's attacks, and gave them something to shoot at after being pummeled for months by a sluggish recovery and missteps of their own.
To Democrats and the media, the GOP had let the wing-nuts take over. And so long as they were winning, Republican leaders were all too eager to sit back and watch.
But then Christine O'Donnell happened. From out of nowhere, this recycled candidate snatched victory from the jaws of the Establishment Republican Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware. What a conundrum that created.
Now all of a sudden, Republicans had taken a big step away from winning control of the Senate. Clearly this wasn't in the party's plan, but up until now, everyone was saying the GOP was in control of the tea party.
Without missing a beat or even noting their own double-mindedness, pundits and columnists took to warning the country that Republicans had no control of the tea party, and such irresponsible behavior threatened to wreak havoc on our way of life (whatever that meant). As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on Sept. 14, The Republicans thought they had the rampaging Tea Party under control. Apparently the Tea Party begs to differ.
So which is it? Does the Republican Party control the tea party? Is the tea party stationed off First Street in the Republican National Committee headquarters?
The truth is, the tea party is led by no one. It stands singularly united against the forces of government knows best. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the poster child of such doctrine is President Obama himself. No manner of ducking or dodging will dissuade tea party crusaders. So what opponents do instead is demonize this group because of its views; this from a man who pledged to be President for all Americans.
For now, the simple fact the tea party is against something is enough to galvanize its followers and keep them focused on the prize the end of the ruling party. It forces each candidate to listen to the local concerns of their constituencies, not some head that arbitrarily decides an official platform. The platform is simple Stop wasting our tax dollars!
So-called experts claim the tea party only affects Republicans, but that's an incomplete assertion. Throughout the country we are seeing Democratic candidates run away from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their party to tout their independence and fiscal responsibility. When was the last time you saw so many politicians run away from their greatest achievements?
If the tea party and its message are so trite, why are officials on both sides privately telling me this is the best thing to happen to the parties in a long time? Simple because it's forcing candidates to finally start listening.
One thing that hasn't been discussed in Washington circles is what the tea party needs. Like it or not, once these candidates become sworn-in members of the House or Senate, they will need to form a coalition government of sorts. Left to itself, there will be little legislatively it can do. Yet plugged into the policy apparatus of the Republican Party, it can begin to shape and turn initiatives, something every tea party disciple longs to see.
Can this movement last? Will it be around and in similar form come 2012? I believe so. There's too much frustration and not enough relief in sight. But I don't see a tea party movement in 15 years not how it's formed today. Groups like these need a common enemy, a political target to direct their discontent.
Finally, this movement possesses one characteristic that Democrats are sorely lacking this election cycle enthusiasm. That's why candidates like Miss O'Donnell still have a better-than-average chance of winning. Do you think Delaware voters care what The Architect Karl Rove thinks? Hardly. Their own enthusiasm is almost enough to carry the day. Just look to 1994 to view that piece of history.
Who leads the tea party? It doesn't matter. The political tour de force is felt by everyone, yet controlled by no one. Let the Establishment beware.
Watch Armstrong Williams on WBFF Sundays at midnight and Fridays at 6:30 am, on Fox Morning News. Also listen on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/05/10
Justice Department racial double standard
Last week, lost in the Colbert hoopla, Christopher Coates, a former head of the Department of Justice's Voter Rights Division, testified, Opposition within the voting section was widespread to taking actions under the Voting Rights Act on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, Miss.
Coates confirmed last year's testimony by former DoJ official J. Christian Adams that the government was wrong to drop an open-and-shut case against the New Black Panther Party for claims of voter intimidation during the 2008 election.
Coates also recounted that Obama appointee Julie Fenandes made it clear in meetings that the administration only wanted to file traditional types of voting-rights cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters. Apparently, the message was loud and clear: No more cases like the Ike Brown or NBPP cases.
We are better than this. Two wrongs do not make a right. Whenever someone is in a position of power, he or she should use the power justly, not as a tool to avenge the past. It is because of our past; not just black or white, but the country as a whole; that We the People must be vigilant in upholding the law, no matter whom it protects or punishes. If we fail to do so, America will never become a post-racial society, rather a petty tyranny of resentment.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Justice Department racial double standard
Last week, lost in the Colbert hoopla, Christopher Coates, a former head of the Department of Justice's Voter Rights Division, testified, Opposition within the voting section was widespread to taking actions under the Voting Rights Act on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, Miss.
Coates confirmed last year's testimony by former DoJ official J. Christian Adams that the government was wrong to drop an open-and-shut case against the New Black Panther Party for claims of voter intimidation during the 2008 election.
Coates also recounted that Obama appointee Julie Fenandes made it clear in meetings that the administration only wanted to file traditional types of voting-rights cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters. Apparently, the message was loud and clear: No more cases like the Ike Brown or NBPP cases.
We are better than this. Two wrongs do not make a right. Whenever someone is in a position of power, he or she should use the power justly, not as a tool to avenge the past. It is because of our past; not just black or white, but the country as a whole; that We the People must be vigilant in upholding the law, no matter whom it protects or punishes. If we fail to do so, America will never become a post-racial society, rather a petty tyranny of resentment.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
10/04/10
Cuba leading the way?
Here's an interesting lesson in labor economics, and one doesn't even need to leave the Western Hemisphere to learn it.
There's nothing new to the economic problems Cuba faces, particularly in these hard times. Even Fidel is not immune to a world slump.
But apparently, Havana is addressing its fiscal challenges in very unorthodox ways. It was recently reported that the Communist government is slashing upwards of 20 percent of the country's entire federal workforce in an effort to control costs. Yes, you heard correctly, the party's official trade union federation announced it would cut 500,000 public jobs over the next six months, followed by another half-million in the coming years. That's about one in every five Cuban state jobs.
Even more ironic, the government will then help these displaced public workers find jobs ... in the private sector!? Unbelievable, no? As The Week publication recently described the turn of events, it's Cuba's "most significant move toward private enterprise since small businesses were nationalized in 1968."
Is Fidel and now his brother, Raul growing soft? Are the embargoes working, finally? Or at least forcing the Communist regime to consider some semblance of capitalism in an effort to ensure its countrymen don't go the way of the North Koreans back to the Stone Ages?
The lesson here is simple government cannot be the employer of last resort. What ends up occurring is more social welfare by another name. If it's not producing something, anything, then it serves no long-term purpose in our fast-moving, competitive global economy. It may have taken Cuba over four decades to realize such foolishness. Let's hope President Obama doesn't need to borrow a page from Castro to learn his own lesson about workforce economics.
Cuba leading the way?
Here's an interesting lesson in labor economics, and one doesn't even need to leave the Western Hemisphere to learn it.
There's nothing new to the economic problems Cuba faces, particularly in these hard times. Even Fidel is not immune to a world slump.
But apparently, Havana is addressing its fiscal challenges in very unorthodox ways. It was recently reported that the Communist government is slashing upwards of 20 percent of the country's entire federal workforce in an effort to control costs. Yes, you heard correctly, the party's official trade union federation announced it would cut 500,000 public jobs over the next six months, followed by another half-million in the coming years. That's about one in every five Cuban state jobs.
Even more ironic, the government will then help these displaced public workers find jobs ... in the private sector!? Unbelievable, no? As The Week publication recently described the turn of events, it's Cuba's "most significant move toward private enterprise since small businesses were nationalized in 1968."
Is Fidel and now his brother, Raul growing soft? Are the embargoes working, finally? Or at least forcing the Communist regime to consider some semblance of capitalism in an effort to ensure its countrymen don't go the way of the North Koreans back to the Stone Ages?
The lesson here is simple government cannot be the employer of last resort. What ends up occurring is more social welfare by another name. If it's not producing something, anything, then it serves no long-term purpose in our fast-moving, competitive global economy. It may have taken Cuba over four decades to realize such foolishness. Let's hope President Obama doesn't need to borrow a page from Castro to learn his own lesson about workforce economics.
10/01/10
A warning to the Tea Party
There are a lot of things I like about the Tea Party movement. Its commitment to the Constitution is chief among them. I especially like how seriously this movement views itself and the policy stances it stakes on behalf of average, everyday taxpayers.
Yet it is for this same reason that I believe Tea Party leaders should be wary of some of the party's stances when it comes to specifics.
For example, the Republican Party is taking a lot of cheap shots for its Pledge to America by activists who claim it's a hollow shell of recycled initiatives, weak on any policy with teeth. Conservative skeptics point to "serious" proposals that would gut entire federal agencies such as the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and even the National Endowment for the Arts.
But let's be honest, this last one is not really a serious example of federal largesse. By the agency's own fiscal 2010 budget submission, it only asked for $161 million. Now, that's hardly change one would find in between sofa cushions, but in real values, it's a drop in the ocean of red ink this government is swimming in.
My point is simple. If Tea Party activists want to send an unequivocal statement that the federal government has grown too large, and only by making bold and sometimes to the bone cuts will we return to fiscal balance, then leaders are better off leaving NEA funding off the policy table. It only complicates the larger picture of entitlement spending new lawmakers should focus on.
While I understand the rhetorical value of railing against such a mindless social program, it doesn't necessarily lend itself to serious, heady discussions concerning spending Washington must be forced to have in the 2011 Congress.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
A warning to the Tea Party
There are a lot of things I like about the Tea Party movement. Its commitment to the Constitution is chief among them. I especially like how seriously this movement views itself and the policy stances it stakes on behalf of average, everyday taxpayers.
Yet it is for this same reason that I believe Tea Party leaders should be wary of some of the party's stances when it comes to specifics.
For example, the Republican Party is taking a lot of cheap shots for its Pledge to America by activists who claim it's a hollow shell of recycled initiatives, weak on any policy with teeth. Conservative skeptics point to "serious" proposals that would gut entire federal agencies such as the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and even the National Endowment for the Arts.
But let's be honest, this last one is not really a serious example of federal largesse. By the agency's own fiscal 2010 budget submission, it only asked for $161 million. Now, that's hardly change one would find in between sofa cushions, but in real values, it's a drop in the ocean of red ink this government is swimming in.
My point is simple. If Tea Party activists want to send an unequivocal statement that the federal government has grown too large, and only by making bold and sometimes to the bone cuts will we return to fiscal balance, then leaders are better off leaving NEA funding off the policy table. It only complicates the larger picture of entitlement spending new lawmakers should focus on.
While I understand the rhetorical value of railing against such a mindless social program, it doesn't necessarily lend itself to serious, heady discussions concerning spending Washington must be forced to have in the 2011 Congress.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/30/10
Cognitive dissonance of blacks toward Obama
If President Obama were a white Democrat, would he still have the overwhelming support among American blacks?
Look at the issues. Black unemployment is roughly twice as high as average. Blacks are much more ambivalent and conservative on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and Don't ask, don't tell. The majority of blacks favor school vouchers and reject the teachers unions' condescending attitude that the education bureaucracy knows what's best for black children.
Cognitive dissonance of blacks toward Obama
If President Obama were a white Democrat, would he still have the overwhelming support among American blacks?
Look at the issues. Black unemployment is roughly twice as high as average. Blacks are much more ambivalent and conservative on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and Don't ask, don't tell. The majority of blacks favor school vouchers and reject the teachers unions' condescending attitude that the education bureaucracy knows what's best for black children.
09/30/10
Small businesses surviving ObamaCare
It's obvious that every employee and consultant wants to be paid, but how many do the necessary and consistent work to earn their wages?
These are extraordinary and challenging financial times for employer and employee. Last week ObamaCare went into effect and many went spiraling into a desperate mode in an attempt to save the future of their enterprises.
Small businesses today are adapting to the new legislation by finding creative ways to avoid the added cost and immense pressure to salvage what's left of their business. The baby boomers have begun to retire and yet they remain healthy and are eager to still work. Businesses have already begun to reach out to these boomers who have healthcare packages as part of their retirement.
Their eagerness for work and the employer desperation to cut cost is becoming a formula that will spell doom to the younger generation. Many of these boomers are willing and are experienced to work for small businesses and not have their healthcare paid for by these small and struggling companies. Their hiring amounts to a substantial savings and they bring with them decades of expertise.
Given this scenario, who will businesses hire, the young college graduates who require ObamaCare or the retiree who doesn't place their burden on the small-business owner?
Is this a scenario of how small-business owners will survive ObamaCare?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Small businesses surviving ObamaCare
It's obvious that every employee and consultant wants to be paid, but how many do the necessary and consistent work to earn their wages?
These are extraordinary and challenging financial times for employer and employee. Last week ObamaCare went into effect and many went spiraling into a desperate mode in an attempt to save the future of their enterprises.
Small businesses today are adapting to the new legislation by finding creative ways to avoid the added cost and immense pressure to salvage what's left of their business. The baby boomers have begun to retire and yet they remain healthy and are eager to still work. Businesses have already begun to reach out to these boomers who have healthcare packages as part of their retirement.
Their eagerness for work and the employer desperation to cut cost is becoming a formula that will spell doom to the younger generation. Many of these boomers are willing and are experienced to work for small businesses and not have their healthcare paid for by these small and struggling companies. Their hiring amounts to a substantial savings and they bring with them decades of expertise.
Given this scenario, who will businesses hire, the young college graduates who require ObamaCare or the retiree who doesn't place their burden on the small-business owner?
Is this a scenario of how small-business owners will survive ObamaCare?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/28/10
Reckless fiscal policy
President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are out to destroy the financial sector in their effort to deflect blame from government intervention.
In the wake of the financial crisis, politicians cast financial-industry giants as scapegoats, while their misguided cohorts who tanked our financial markets continued to promote reckless fiscal policy. One of the outcomes of the crisis was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Elizabeth Warren, another lawyer and Harvard Law professor, sidestepped the confirmation process by being appointed Assistant to the President and Special Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury on the CFPB," a title only a politician could love. Warren is another case of Obama using academia to teach the real word a lesson. She is an aggressive anti-business proponent of the CFPB, and has already met with influential industry leaders on the direction of financial reform. She wants to level the playing field." Considering that the MoveOn.org crowd loves her, we can all guess what that means punish achievement and reward those who can't make anything for themselves.
Financial firms are justifiably worried the CFPB will decrease efficiency and thwart growth. She believes the Bureau would have been valuable during the mortgage crisis. Well, would the Bureau have told Democrats not to offer mortgages to people who can't afford them as some form of government aid? Now she wants the CFPB to take control of the credit unions, even though they are not at risk of bankruptcy.
For decades, many have argued that incentives are misplaced in the financial industry. The industry attracts the best and brightest our Universities have to offer. Why would they want to go into finance if the government creates an anti-business committee to oversee them, one that takes away the freedom to make entrepreneurial decisions and the ability to make the money that such risk entails? Hey, don't worry, China is more than happy to aggressively push venture capitalism and reap the brains and profit it attracts. Chalk up another case of the politicians doing their best to make America No. 2.
Face it, America, the CFPB and Warren are just another link in the chain Obama is using to bind the American capitalist spirit.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Reckless fiscal policy
President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are out to destroy the financial sector in their effort to deflect blame from government intervention.
In the wake of the financial crisis, politicians cast financial-industry giants as scapegoats, while their misguided cohorts who tanked our financial markets continued to promote reckless fiscal policy. One of the outcomes of the crisis was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Elizabeth Warren, another lawyer and Harvard Law professor, sidestepped the confirmation process by being appointed Assistant to the President and Special Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury on the CFPB," a title only a politician could love. Warren is another case of Obama using academia to teach the real word a lesson. She is an aggressive anti-business proponent of the CFPB, and has already met with influential industry leaders on the direction of financial reform. She wants to level the playing field." Considering that the MoveOn.org crowd loves her, we can all guess what that means punish achievement and reward those who can't make anything for themselves.
Financial firms are justifiably worried the CFPB will decrease efficiency and thwart growth. She believes the Bureau would have been valuable during the mortgage crisis. Well, would the Bureau have told Democrats not to offer mortgages to people who can't afford them as some form of government aid? Now she wants the CFPB to take control of the credit unions, even though they are not at risk of bankruptcy.
For decades, many have argued that incentives are misplaced in the financial industry. The industry attracts the best and brightest our Universities have to offer. Why would they want to go into finance if the government creates an anti-business committee to oversee them, one that takes away the freedom to make entrepreneurial decisions and the ability to make the money that such risk entails? Hey, don't worry, China is more than happy to aggressively push venture capitalism and reap the brains and profit it attracts. Chalk up another case of the politicians doing their best to make America No. 2.
Face it, America, the CFPB and Warren are just another link in the chain Obama is using to bind the American capitalist spirit.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/27/10
Credit crisis
In the month of August, Americans lost access to nearly $400 billion in revolving credit, which does not include another $2 trillion in available credit that has disappeared since the beginning of this financial crisis.
To compound these problems, an estimated one-third of Americans have a credit score under 650, which includes 25 percent of Americans with a credit score under 600.
At these levels, these scores are in sub-prime territory, which gravely inhibits these individuals from accessing much-needed credit.
The impact is devastating to the financial health of a growing number of Americans, and it will continue to weigh on the U.S. economy for years to come.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Credit crisis
In the month of August, Americans lost access to nearly $400 billion in revolving credit, which does not include another $2 trillion in available credit that has disappeared since the beginning of this financial crisis.
To compound these problems, an estimated one-third of Americans have a credit score under 650, which includes 25 percent of Americans with a credit score under 600.
At these levels, these scores are in sub-prime territory, which gravely inhibits these individuals from accessing much-needed credit.
The impact is devastating to the financial health of a growing number of Americans, and it will continue to weigh on the U.S. economy for years to come.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/27/10
Please, no humor in the House
As if Democrats running the House of Representatives don't have enough on their legislative agenda, they now intend to hold a hearing today on immigration and undocumented farm workers and hear from expert witness Stephen Colbert? Yes, Mr. and Mrs. America, the Comedy Central host will appear in character, allegedly, and testify of his own experiences working in the hot sun on a farm. What a joke. What an insult to the congressional process of holding hearings to inform lawmakers on what laws are necessary.
What's worse is the seriousness in which the Democratic members of the committee are taking the hearing. Stephen Colbert certainly isn't. When asked why he was testifying, he replied, ""The main reason I'm testifying before Congress is to get that CSPAN-1 bump for my ratings. I hope it's CSPAN-1. If it's CSPAN-2, I've been lied to."
I like a good joke as much as the next person, but not during an official House hearing. Why not bring in Barnum and Bailey to talk about cruelty to animals? Heck, have clowns testify on the dangers of too much makeup. Is there no end? Does Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) have no shame? When Colbert asked the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration chairwoman her views, here's what happened: "Why do you think so few Americans have taken up this challenge?" Colbert asked Rep. Lofgren. "It's tough, dirty work," said Lofgren. "It's hot." "You're saying Americans aren't tough, madam?" he replied. "Are you saying Americans are pussies?"
Speaker Pelosi would serve her party well to cancel this hearing, or at least remove Colbert from the panel. Nothing he has to share will enhance this serious public policy debate.
Please, no humor in the House
As if Democrats running the House of Representatives don't have enough on their legislative agenda, they now intend to hold a hearing today on immigration and undocumented farm workers and hear from expert witness Stephen Colbert? Yes, Mr. and Mrs. America, the Comedy Central host will appear in character, allegedly, and testify of his own experiences working in the hot sun on a farm. What a joke. What an insult to the congressional process of holding hearings to inform lawmakers on what laws are necessary.
What's worse is the seriousness in which the Democratic members of the committee are taking the hearing. Stephen Colbert certainly isn't. When asked why he was testifying, he replied, ""The main reason I'm testifying before Congress is to get that CSPAN-1 bump for my ratings. I hope it's CSPAN-1. If it's CSPAN-2, I've been lied to."
I like a good joke as much as the next person, but not during an official House hearing. Why not bring in Barnum and Bailey to talk about cruelty to animals? Heck, have clowns testify on the dangers of too much makeup. Is there no end? Does Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) have no shame? When Colbert asked the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration chairwoman her views, here's what happened: "Why do you think so few Americans have taken up this challenge?" Colbert asked Rep. Lofgren. "It's tough, dirty work," said Lofgren. "It's hot." "You're saying Americans aren't tough, madam?" he replied. "Are you saying Americans are pussies?"
Speaker Pelosi would serve her party well to cancel this hearing, or at least remove Colbert from the panel. Nothing he has to share will enhance this serious public policy debate.
09/27/10
Tired of defending Obama
It's been an interesting week for politics. Former President Bill Clinton says he "gets" why Americans are frustrated and venting that angst through the Tea Party movement. After weeks of listening sessions of their own, House Republicans unveiled their "Pledge," which promises to alter the course of the Obama administration's policies. And President Obama has … well, he has problems answering a basic question from someone who wants so badly to believe in him.
I'm referring, of course, to Velma Hart, the American black who stood at a town hall forum in Washington earlier this week to tell the president she's tired of making excuses for him. "Quite frankly, I'm exhausted," she told Obama. "Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the man for change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now."
What's interesting in the exchange is less Hart's candor and succinct way of putting her frustrations and more the president's response. Bill Clinton this was not.
Just what environment did the president think he was entering? It's not as if he hasn't heard of these travails and tribulations of the average American worker. It certainly shows in his approval ratings. This was almost a Michael Dukakis moment not knowing what a loaf of bread or gallon of milk costs. Not understanding that folks are seriously considering eating beans and franks to make ends meet. Folks who voted for Obama.
The fact is the face of America's middle class has changed drastically. Gone is the blue-collar versus white-collar class warfare Obama would prefer to wage. He didn't have a good response for Hart because he can't relate to her situation. Private school? No credit cards? Female CFO? And a sister to boot? Velma Hart's situation didn't fit a tight liberal mold, and Obama showed it by stammering his way through a reply.
The president needs to get off this "us versus them" mentality in his policies. It's pervasive. He attacks businesses relentlessly and then tells that same CNBC crowd his top priority is revitalizing the private sector. Huh?
Tired of defending Obama
It's been an interesting week for politics. Former President Bill Clinton says he "gets" why Americans are frustrated and venting that angst through the Tea Party movement. After weeks of listening sessions of their own, House Republicans unveiled their "Pledge," which promises to alter the course of the Obama administration's policies. And President Obama has … well, he has problems answering a basic question from someone who wants so badly to believe in him.
I'm referring, of course, to Velma Hart, the American black who stood at a town hall forum in Washington earlier this week to tell the president she's tired of making excuses for him. "Quite frankly, I'm exhausted," she told Obama. "Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the man for change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now."
What's interesting in the exchange is less Hart's candor and succinct way of putting her frustrations and more the president's response. Bill Clinton this was not.
Just what environment did the president think he was entering? It's not as if he hasn't heard of these travails and tribulations of the average American worker. It certainly shows in his approval ratings. This was almost a Michael Dukakis moment not knowing what a loaf of bread or gallon of milk costs. Not understanding that folks are seriously considering eating beans and franks to make ends meet. Folks who voted for Obama.
The fact is the face of America's middle class has changed drastically. Gone is the blue-collar versus white-collar class warfare Obama would prefer to wage. He didn't have a good response for Hart because he can't relate to her situation. Private school? No credit cards? Female CFO? And a sister to boot? Velma Hart's situation didn't fit a tight liberal mold, and Obama showed it by stammering his way through a reply.
The president needs to get off this "us versus them" mentality in his policies. It's pervasive. He attacks businesses relentlessly and then tells that same CNBC crowd his top priority is revitalizing the private sector. Huh?
09/23/10
Obama's Middle-East blind side?
President Obama has been frightfully consistent embracing high-profile issues that make him look like the liberal king of the world. Often this forces pragmatism to take a back seat to glorious politics. The promotion of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations while arrogantly ignoring nuclear Iran is one such situation.
If President Obama were to achieve world peace, he would be permanently romanticized in history among the greats. What better start than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? After all, this war illustrates the greater conflict between the modern West and the Muslim world. If his administration could find a resolution to this historical conflict, it could nullify larger future battles.
Consequently, Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations are high-profile events. However, when put in proper perspective, it's a fairly low impact war; the conflict is just contained between the two.
These pointless negotiations are burning precious American resources and robbing us of the time our president should be spending vigilantly protecting America namely from Iran. President Obama's apathy out of arrogance, or perhaps empathy, toward a nuclear Iran has to be the most astounding thing I have witnessed in recent memory.
A nuclear Iran is far more threatening than Palestinians to both Israel and America. Yet, it's not high profile enough for our president to give this issue his necessary attention.
What must happen to jog this administration's common sense for them to have a revelation moment before this complex matter truly erupts? A suicide bomber strapped with nukes blowing away half of Tel Aviv or Baghdad? We need leadership that is willing to roll up their sleeves and get dirty to get the job done.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Obama's Middle-East blind side?
President Obama has been frightfully consistent embracing high-profile issues that make him look like the liberal king of the world. Often this forces pragmatism to take a back seat to glorious politics. The promotion of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations while arrogantly ignoring nuclear Iran is one such situation.
If President Obama were to achieve world peace, he would be permanently romanticized in history among the greats. What better start than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? After all, this war illustrates the greater conflict between the modern West and the Muslim world. If his administration could find a resolution to this historical conflict, it could nullify larger future battles.
Consequently, Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations are high-profile events. However, when put in proper perspective, it's a fairly low impact war; the conflict is just contained between the two.
These pointless negotiations are burning precious American resources and robbing us of the time our president should be spending vigilantly protecting America namely from Iran. President Obama's apathy out of arrogance, or perhaps empathy, toward a nuclear Iran has to be the most astounding thing I have witnessed in recent memory.
A nuclear Iran is far more threatening than Palestinians to both Israel and America. Yet, it's not high profile enough for our president to give this issue his necessary attention.
What must happen to jog this administration's common sense for them to have a revelation moment before this complex matter truly erupts? A suicide bomber strapped with nukes blowing away half of Tel Aviv or Baghdad? We need leadership that is willing to roll up their sleeves and get dirty to get the job done.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook- www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/23/10
The Recession is Over?
The recession ended in June '09. You must now make your desired purchases and quickly spread the word before the November elections: It's over. Wow, we are finally out of the recession.
What does it mean to say we are out of a recession? Well the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) claims that it ended in June of 2009. There is clearly something wrong in an economy that is more than a year out of the recession, but in which the quality of life for individuals continues to diminish.
One thing NBER has accurately noted is that although we are out of a recession, it may take years before the economy returns to normal. Present Obama defended himself in his town hall meeting earlier this week, pointing out the obvious: that the economy is still not healthy. Yet he believes he is guiding it in the right direction.
My question is on the empirical evidence used to measure a recession. At what point do official numbers begin to look at the lives of those living in this country?
If Wall Street is growing because of salary decreases, massive layoffs and corporate restructuring, then growth for the average American is anything but authentic. Of course investors are attracted to financial growth on the Street, but at what cost?
Although we are out of a recession, I'm also fearful of the future of legislation that was passed and is being proposed by this administration. Yes, our government may be spending a lot of American hard-earned cash to keep the economy from sinking, but isn't this all superficial because one day this is all going to catch up with us?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
The Recession is Over?
The recession ended in June '09. You must now make your desired purchases and quickly spread the word before the November elections: It's over. Wow, we are finally out of the recession.
What does it mean to say we are out of a recession? Well the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) claims that it ended in June of 2009. There is clearly something wrong in an economy that is more than a year out of the recession, but in which the quality of life for individuals continues to diminish.
One thing NBER has accurately noted is that although we are out of a recession, it may take years before the economy returns to normal. Present Obama defended himself in his town hall meeting earlier this week, pointing out the obvious: that the economy is still not healthy. Yet he believes he is guiding it in the right direction.
My question is on the empirical evidence used to measure a recession. At what point do official numbers begin to look at the lives of those living in this country?
If Wall Street is growing because of salary decreases, massive layoffs and corporate restructuring, then growth for the average American is anything but authentic. Of course investors are attracted to financial growth on the Street, but at what cost?
Although we are out of a recession, I'm also fearful of the future of legislation that was passed and is being proposed by this administration. Yes, our government may be spending a lot of American hard-earned cash to keep the economy from sinking, but isn't this all superficial because one day this is all going to catch up with us?
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/23/10
They can't be serious
Both sides of the aisle like to talk up how much they love the troops more than the other side, but yesterday was a perfect example of how politicians prefer political one-upmanship to learning about the needs and plans for the future of our armed forces.
Gen. James Amos, the new commandant of the Marine Corps, spent the day answering senators' questions about gays in the military rather than more pressing questions like: how he will lead the Marines? What will the Marines' role be post-Iraq and -Afghanistan? How will he handle the transition back to the service's traditional seaborne role?
It just tells you how screwed up both parties are that they would rather try to score political points than properly do their job. Regardless of the policy debate, we can count on the Marines to do their duty. You know, Congress could learn a lot from the Marines about following orders (the will of the people) and doing their job (quit posturing and start working to find real, practical solutions to real problems).
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
They can't be serious
Both sides of the aisle like to talk up how much they love the troops more than the other side, but yesterday was a perfect example of how politicians prefer political one-upmanship to learning about the needs and plans for the future of our armed forces.
Gen. James Amos, the new commandant of the Marine Corps, spent the day answering senators' questions about gays in the military rather than more pressing questions like: how he will lead the Marines? What will the Marines' role be post-Iraq and -Afghanistan? How will he handle the transition back to the service's traditional seaborne role?
It just tells you how screwed up both parties are that they would rather try to score political points than properly do their job. Regardless of the policy debate, we can count on the Marines to do their duty. You know, Congress could learn a lot from the Marines about following orders (the will of the people) and doing their job (quit posturing and start working to find real, practical solutions to real problems).
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/21/10
Revisiting the Tea Party
The current fad of the D.C. talking-head set is to mock, ridicule and marginalize the Tea Party. The more successful its candidates are, the greater the cries of Teatards.
How dare they upset the establishment and not rubber-stamp politicians who happily proclaim the ability to bring home the pork! The gall of wanting fiscal responsibility! Do they not know that real politics does not deal in principles?!
The GOP establishment embraced the Tea Party as long as they thought they could control it. Now folks like Karl Rove decry it.
The Democrats cynically call it AstroTurfing, decry it as racist and then lick their chops when Tea Party candidates win primaries, only to start looking desperate and fearful as those crazy tea baggers started polling ahead of or statistically even with liberal candidates.
The Tea Party should not be trivialized! This is the voice of the people. Dismissing them because they don't want to accept politics as usual means the establishments of BOTH parties do not respect the American people.
The Tea Party doesn't have a leader, only coattails, and that's a strength! It forces each candidate to listen to the local concerns of their constituencies, not some head who arbitrarily decides an official platform. The platform is simple STOP wasting our tax dollars!
Some experts claim the Tea Party only affects Republicans, but that's not true. Throughout the country we are seeing Democratic candidates run away from Pelosi and their party to tout their independence and fiscal responsibility. When was the last time you saw so many politicians run away from their greatest achievements?
If the Tea Party and its message are so trite, why are officials on both sides privately telling me this is the best thing to happen to the parties in a long time? Simple because it's forcing candidates to finally start listening.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Revisiting the Tea Party
The current fad of the D.C. talking-head set is to mock, ridicule and marginalize the Tea Party. The more successful its candidates are, the greater the cries of Teatards.
How dare they upset the establishment and not rubber-stamp politicians who happily proclaim the ability to bring home the pork! The gall of wanting fiscal responsibility! Do they not know that real politics does not deal in principles?!
The GOP establishment embraced the Tea Party as long as they thought they could control it. Now folks like Karl Rove decry it.
The Democrats cynically call it AstroTurfing, decry it as racist and then lick their chops when Tea Party candidates win primaries, only to start looking desperate and fearful as those crazy tea baggers started polling ahead of or statistically even with liberal candidates.
The Tea Party should not be trivialized! This is the voice of the people. Dismissing them because they don't want to accept politics as usual means the establishments of BOTH parties do not respect the American people.
The Tea Party doesn't have a leader, only coattails, and that's a strength! It forces each candidate to listen to the local concerns of their constituencies, not some head who arbitrarily decides an official platform. The platform is simple STOP wasting our tax dollars!
Some experts claim the Tea Party only affects Republicans, but that's not true. Throughout the country we are seeing Democratic candidates run away from Pelosi and their party to tout their independence and fiscal responsibility. When was the last time you saw so many politicians run away from their greatest achievements?
If the Tea Party and its message are so trite, why are officials on both sides privately telling me this is the best thing to happen to the parties in a long time? Simple because it's forcing candidates to finally start listening.
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook www.facebook.com/arightside and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/20/10
Clinton doesn't get it
Former President Bill Clinton went on the Sunday talk show circus, er, I mean, circuit yesterday to share his views about the Tea Party movement. According to Clinton on CBS's Face the Nation, he understands why the group's views have caught fire like kerosene near a match they're frustrated. They're "getting the shaft," as Clinton so bluntly put it. But he doesn't get it.
After less than two years in office and billions cut in blank checks, President Obama can't seem to turn the economy around. Instead of pointing the finger of blame at his own party, Clinton comes up with some twisted excuse that somehow makes Obama and Democrats the victims. "That the people who caused these problems," Clinton said, "the banks that were responsible for the financial meltdown, they've gotten well again. And everybody has got money again who is in that business, but ordinary people don't."
I'm sorry, Mr. President, but the real reason average Americans don't have that money is because they don't have jobs. And for those who do, Uncle Sam continues to pick their pockets to fund these bloated federal giveaways.
But c'mon, Bill Clinton knows what's really behind the Tea Party movement. He's not dumb. In fact, if ever there was a Democrat more in tune with the frustrations of average Americans, it would be Slick Willie and his "feel your pain" style of politics. There's too much government, and it's not improving the lives of anyone, the least of which are "average Americans." What's more is Bill Clinton knows why the economy turned around on his watch the dot-com boom. Federal coffers swelled in the trillions when those capital gains taxes started pouring in from the stock market. Why can't we return to those days, President Obama? I believe the average American would be willing to let Obama remain in office if he just let the private sector do its job and create some wealth.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Obama should take a lesson from Clinton in '94. Following this year's abysmal election outcome, Obama needs his own "era of big government is over" speech and then he needs to scrap it all and start over. It saved Clinton's presidency, and it could very well save Obama's. That's one lesson Clinton "got."
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
Clinton doesn't get it
Former President Bill Clinton went on the Sunday talk show circus, er, I mean, circuit yesterday to share his views about the Tea Party movement. According to Clinton on CBS's Face the Nation, he understands why the group's views have caught fire like kerosene near a match they're frustrated. They're "getting the shaft," as Clinton so bluntly put it. But he doesn't get it.
After less than two years in office and billions cut in blank checks, President Obama can't seem to turn the economy around. Instead of pointing the finger of blame at his own party, Clinton comes up with some twisted excuse that somehow makes Obama and Democrats the victims. "That the people who caused these problems," Clinton said, "the banks that were responsible for the financial meltdown, they've gotten well again. And everybody has got money again who is in that business, but ordinary people don't."
I'm sorry, Mr. President, but the real reason average Americans don't have that money is because they don't have jobs. And for those who do, Uncle Sam continues to pick their pockets to fund these bloated federal giveaways.
But c'mon, Bill Clinton knows what's really behind the Tea Party movement. He's not dumb. In fact, if ever there was a Democrat more in tune with the frustrations of average Americans, it would be Slick Willie and his "feel your pain" style of politics. There's too much government, and it's not improving the lives of anyone, the least of which are "average Americans." What's more is Bill Clinton knows why the economy turned around on his watch the dot-com boom. Federal coffers swelled in the trillions when those capital gains taxes started pouring in from the stock market. Why can't we return to those days, President Obama? I believe the average American would be willing to let Obama remain in office if he just let the private sector do its job and create some wealth.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Obama should take a lesson from Clinton in '94. Following this year's abysmal election outcome, Obama needs his own "era of big government is over" speech and then he needs to scrap it all and start over. It saved Clinton's presidency, and it could very well save Obama's. That's one lesson Clinton "got."
Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m., Monday through Friday. Become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/arightside.
09/17/10
Illegal immigration and drug cartels
Are the Mexican drug cartels more effective at stopping illegal immigration than our own Border Patrol? Immigrants seeking to illegally enter the U.S. from Central America are faced with a new and growing threat, cartels. The question is: What does this say about the cartels?
In August, an Ecuadorian immigrant venturing to the U.S. was detained by the Zetas a notorious Mexican drug cartel with a group of 72 other immigrants containing both men and women. Due to their unwillingness to work for the cartel, all were shot dead while the one escaped.
There are two ways this can be viewed: Either the cartels are growing bigger, so they need more people to smuggle drugs into the U.S. and there is no better way than to use those who are successful at getting in or the cartels are weakening and have no choice but to coerce illegal immigrants to do their bidding.
I might have to go with the latter. When cartels are not generating high drug revenues from their core business, they tend to resort to other illegal activities, such as prostitution and people-smuggling. Supposedly, people-smuggling is a $6.6 billion industry in Mexico. For obvious reasons, this has captured the attention of the cartels.
But the bigger issue is our illegal immigration problem. Is our government inadvertently relying on the forces of the cartels to curb illegal immigration? And if so, what happens if the cartels can more effectively compel desperate immigrants to do their bidding? Will immigration reform address this underlying issue and the potentially explosive repercussions?
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
Illegal immigration and drug cartels
Are the Mexican drug cartels more effective at stopping illegal immigration than our own Border Patrol? Immigrants seeking to illegally enter the U.S. from Central America are faced with a new and growing threat, cartels. The question is: What does this say about the cartels?
In August, an Ecuadorian immigrant venturing to the U.S. was detained by the Zetas a notorious Mexican drug cartel with a group of 72 other immigrants containing both men and women. Due to their unwillingness to work for the cartel, all were shot dead while the one escaped.
There are two ways this can be viewed: Either the cartels are growing bigger, so they need more people to smuggle drugs into the U.S. and there is no better way than to use those who are successful at getting in or the cartels are weakening and have no choice but to coerce illegal immigrants to do their bidding.
I might have to go with the latter. When cartels are not generating high drug revenues from their core business, they tend to resort to other illegal activities, such as prostitution and people-smuggling. Supposedly, people-smuggling is a $6.6 billion industry in Mexico. For obvious reasons, this has captured the attention of the cartels.
But the bigger issue is our illegal immigration problem. Is our government inadvertently relying on the forces of the cartels to curb illegal immigration? And if so, what happens if the cartels can more effectively compel desperate immigrants to do their bidding? Will immigration reform address this underlying issue and the potentially explosive repercussions?
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/17/10
A new edge on journalism?
If you didn't read the Washington Post story yesterday on D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and how his campaign unraveled in the months leading up to yesterday's primary loss that cost him his seat, you must. Post reporters Nikita Stewart and Paul Schwartzman do a superb job of placing the reader inside the rooms where key decisions (and non-decisions) were made by the mayor that ultimately cost him his seat.
Yet what most amazed me about the story was the day it ran less than 24 hours following Election Day. In a journalistic-dexterous way, these two reporters went around town interviewing the innermost circles of aides and confidants to the mayor to find out "what happened" before it happened. Reading the polls and political tea leaves, Post editors gambled that Chairman Vincent Gray would best his opponent. So beginning from that end, the reporters worked back to uncover how and what went wrong. That's impressive, folks.
As you know, I'm not high on the mainstream media, and certainly not The Washington Post. After all, the paper did endorse Fenty enthusiastically.
But this piece could mark a new edge on journalism a turning of the corner that helps reposition the print medium back on top, or at least affirm its rightful place in the press pantheon. I don't believe I exaggerate the point here. Think about it: We have another historic election rapidly approaching, with entire congressional chambers hinging on a few seats changing hands. If reporters in those districts could emulate similar actions and behaviors, what a fascinating insight it could reveal, not just to readers, but to how campaigns are run in the future.
The cynic would cry sour grapes, choosing to view this construct through one lens. That the Post only secured such interviews because of a few disgruntled Fenty staffers who were miffed because the mayor chose not to listen to them, so they took their story to the paper in a classic CYA exercise. I'm not that cynical. Besides, it's good journalism either way. And a far cry from the false pretenses of a Rolling Stone reporter riding shotgun in Humvees with Army generals who get a little loose with the lips, and this guy laps it up like milk from a saucer.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
A new edge on journalism?
If you didn't read the Washington Post story yesterday on D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and how his campaign unraveled in the months leading up to yesterday's primary loss that cost him his seat, you must. Post reporters Nikita Stewart and Paul Schwartzman do a superb job of placing the reader inside the rooms where key decisions (and non-decisions) were made by the mayor that ultimately cost him his seat.
Yet what most amazed me about the story was the day it ran less than 24 hours following Election Day. In a journalistic-dexterous way, these two reporters went around town interviewing the innermost circles of aides and confidants to the mayor to find out "what happened" before it happened. Reading the polls and political tea leaves, Post editors gambled that Chairman Vincent Gray would best his opponent. So beginning from that end, the reporters worked back to uncover how and what went wrong. That's impressive, folks.
As you know, I'm not high on the mainstream media, and certainly not The Washington Post. After all, the paper did endorse Fenty enthusiastically.
But this piece could mark a new edge on journalism a turning of the corner that helps reposition the print medium back on top, or at least affirm its rightful place in the press pantheon. I don't believe I exaggerate the point here. Think about it: We have another historic election rapidly approaching, with entire congressional chambers hinging on a few seats changing hands. If reporters in those districts could emulate similar actions and behaviors, what a fascinating insight it could reveal, not just to readers, but to how campaigns are run in the future.
The cynic would cry sour grapes, choosing to view this construct through one lens. That the Post only secured such interviews because of a few disgruntled Fenty staffers who were miffed because the mayor chose not to listen to them, so they took their story to the paper in a classic CYA exercise. I'm not that cynical. Besides, it's good journalism either way. And a far cry from the false pretenses of a Rolling Stone reporter riding shotgun in Humvees with Army generals who get a little loose with the lips, and this guy laps it up like milk from a saucer.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/15/10
Is ObamaCare unconstitutional?
Well, the 20 states that will stand against ObamaCare think so. In addition, the bill is facing legal resistance from other forces, including the National Federation of Independent Business an association specializing in lobbying for small businesses.
Do these entities have a right to fight against a ratified law? Clearly, there is a large disconnect between what Congress is willing to blindly push legislation pilfered by lobbying fleas and what the states and the people of America need. Healthcare is a necessity, but is hasty legislation our best option?
Currently, the national government is arrogantly dismissive of the states' arguments, claiming they don't have solid ground to stand on; but the 20, and growing, states are adamantly opposed. This is becoming a national rallying cry against ObamaCare's burden to the state governments and their people. Quietly, little notice has been given to the fact that Obama's healthcare legislation passage has become the clarion call and sustenance of the Tea Party and the growing resentment of government over-reach in our lives.
This elicits a harsh reminder of the many failed FDR New Deal programs implemented that were later ruled unconstitutional.
So far, states are asserting the argument that forcing everyone in the state to obtain health insurance or they will be fined is a blatant violation of our Constitution.
I believe they have a point. President Obama made the argument that this clause in the bill is similar to auto insurance in some states. However, to have a car is a privilege in America. If everyone were forced to have auto insurance because they might get behind a car at some point, then people would vehemently fight against it.
Should this clause be taken out of ObamaCare?
Is ObamaCare unconstitutional?
Well, the 20 states that will stand against ObamaCare think so. In addition, the bill is facing legal resistance from other forces, including the National Federation of Independent Business an association specializing in lobbying for small businesses.
Do these entities have a right to fight against a ratified law? Clearly, there is a large disconnect between what Congress is willing to blindly push legislation pilfered by lobbying fleas and what the states and the people of America need. Healthcare is a necessity, but is hasty legislation our best option?
Currently, the national government is arrogantly dismissive of the states' arguments, claiming they don't have solid ground to stand on; but the 20, and growing, states are adamantly opposed. This is becoming a national rallying cry against ObamaCare's burden to the state governments and their people. Quietly, little notice has been given to the fact that Obama's healthcare legislation passage has become the clarion call and sustenance of the Tea Party and the growing resentment of government over-reach in our lives.
This elicits a harsh reminder of the many failed FDR New Deal programs implemented that were later ruled unconstitutional.
So far, states are asserting the argument that forcing everyone in the state to obtain health insurance or they will be fined is a blatant violation of our Constitution.
I believe they have a point. President Obama made the argument that this clause in the bill is similar to auto insurance in some states. However, to have a car is a privilege in America. If everyone were forced to have auto insurance because they might get behind a car at some point, then people would vehemently fight against it.
Should this clause be taken out of ObamaCare?
09/14/10
Obama's problem that won't go away
As Congress slowly crawls back to work this week, with members dreading every day they have to spend in the swamp versus back home campaigning for their lives, the White House is renewing its assault on Republican obstinacy. More specifically, the administration has set its sights on a lone troublemaker House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Never mind that even Ohioans in neighboring cities struggle to pick Boehner out of a congressional lineup. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and his minions are taking to the airwaves to lift up Boehner then publicly vilify every public policy stance he takes.
The strategy is simple show the American people what their next Speaker of the House could bring to them in the form of backwards-looking economic policies of the Bush era, support for big businesses, yadda yadda yadda.
We've seen this storyline before. Heck, the Republicans rolled it out in 1996 just before the House shifted to Democratic control, scaring voters into what a Nancy Pelosi-led regime would look like. Do you really want Charlie Rangel as the next chairman of the Ways and Means Committee? the ads asked. Like anyone outside of Rangel's Harlem district had a clue he was even on the committee, let alone his tax-hiking record.
The point here is President Obama and his economic team have so much more important things to worry about, starting with the economy. Pitting a little-known bogeyman against the leader of the free world is not exactly a profile in courage for Obama. Sending out his henchmen to do the dirty work is even more classless.
Obama should heed one thing Boehner said a few weeks ago he needs to fire his economic team and start over. As politically charged as that move sounds, it's the right one, on both style and substance.
Think about it, what a great opportunity for a Rose Garden ceremony where, in true JFK fashion, Obama can say he's willing to admit it when he makes mistakes. His stimulus plan wasn't producing the results they had hoped for, and it is now time for a course correction. Geithner, Volcker and the rest have served their usefulness for this first term. Quick, can anyone even name the secretary of Commerce, let alone recall a time when they actually saw that individual (Gary Locke) on TV pushing economic policy? These folks are already thinking about their cushy private-sector jobs anyway. So Obama should cut his losses, start over and use the exodus to hit the Reset button.
Aside from the fresh air it could bring to the administration, it would send a clear message to Americans that their president is willing to do anything to help his fellow man.
And as if that weren't reason enough, nothing else is working. Obama has nothing to lose here. Except maybe admitting John Boehner was right after all …
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
Obama's problem that won't go away
As Congress slowly crawls back to work this week, with members dreading every day they have to spend in the swamp versus back home campaigning for their lives, the White House is renewing its assault on Republican obstinacy. More specifically, the administration has set its sights on a lone troublemaker House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Never mind that even Ohioans in neighboring cities struggle to pick Boehner out of a congressional lineup. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and his minions are taking to the airwaves to lift up Boehner then publicly vilify every public policy stance he takes.
The strategy is simple show the American people what their next Speaker of the House could bring to them in the form of backwards-looking economic policies of the Bush era, support for big businesses, yadda yadda yadda.
We've seen this storyline before. Heck, the Republicans rolled it out in 1996 just before the House shifted to Democratic control, scaring voters into what a Nancy Pelosi-led regime would look like. Do you really want Charlie Rangel as the next chairman of the Ways and Means Committee? the ads asked. Like anyone outside of Rangel's Harlem district had a clue he was even on the committee, let alone his tax-hiking record.
The point here is President Obama and his economic team have so much more important things to worry about, starting with the economy. Pitting a little-known bogeyman against the leader of the free world is not exactly a profile in courage for Obama. Sending out his henchmen to do the dirty work is even more classless.
Obama should heed one thing Boehner said a few weeks ago he needs to fire his economic team and start over. As politically charged as that move sounds, it's the right one, on both style and substance.
Think about it, what a great opportunity for a Rose Garden ceremony where, in true JFK fashion, Obama can say he's willing to admit it when he makes mistakes. His stimulus plan wasn't producing the results they had hoped for, and it is now time for a course correction. Geithner, Volcker and the rest have served their usefulness for this first term. Quick, can anyone even name the secretary of Commerce, let alone recall a time when they actually saw that individual (Gary Locke) on TV pushing economic policy? These folks are already thinking about their cushy private-sector jobs anyway. So Obama should cut his losses, start over and use the exodus to hit the Reset button.
Aside from the fresh air it could bring to the administration, it would send a clear message to Americans that their president is willing to do anything to help his fellow man.
And as if that weren't reason enough, nothing else is working. Obama has nothing to lose here. Except maybe admitting John Boehner was right after all …
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/13/10
Not in America
Not since Joe the Plumber has one American been seemingly picked from obscurity because of something he has said or done. Most recently that distinction has fallen to Terry Jones a Florida pastor who claimed he would host a Quran-burning this past weekend in defiance of a New York plan to construct a Muslim cultural center/mosque near the site of Ground Zero.
We all know the story, but what's disheartening about this is that, once again, the mainstream media has extrapolated the actions of one into "What's next?" hysteria.
God-inspired or not, what Terry Jones was promising to do is simply un-American. We don't burn our own flags. We don't like it when others do. And we sure don't burn the symbols of other cultures and religions simply because we have that right. I respect the constitutional rights of any American every American, for that matter. But there's something inherently wrong with what Pastor Jones threatened to do before coming to his senses.
Most Americans are frustrated with the proposed mosque in New York City, but this "eye for an eye" threat was just that, and poorly conceived to begin with. Once Defense Secretary Robert Gates phoned Jones, this half-baked idea started to unravel in the pastor's head. I don't know that to be the case, but I would lay good odds in Vegas that's what happened. Pastor Jones didn't want to harm anyone. He merely wanted to send a message. What he was told would happen instead would be the potential loss of American lives overseas.
After all, this is the same faith that went radioactive after a Danish newspaper printed some humorless cartoons a few years ago. I can only imagine what would unfold if Jones went ahead with his Quran burning.
I wish I could say there was some valuable lesson to be learned from all of this, but I doubt there is. This episode strikes me as a case of how the enormous power of the media can drive an international incident to near-dangerous proportions. Either way, this shouldn't be allowed to happen in America.
Not in America
Not since Joe the Plumber has one American been seemingly picked from obscurity because of something he has said or done. Most recently that distinction has fallen to Terry Jones a Florida pastor who claimed he would host a Quran-burning this past weekend in defiance of a New York plan to construct a Muslim cultural center/mosque near the site of Ground Zero.
We all know the story, but what's disheartening about this is that, once again, the mainstream media has extrapolated the actions of one into "What's next?" hysteria.
God-inspired or not, what Terry Jones was promising to do is simply un-American. We don't burn our own flags. We don't like it when others do. And we sure don't burn the symbols of other cultures and religions simply because we have that right. I respect the constitutional rights of any American every American, for that matter. But there's something inherently wrong with what Pastor Jones threatened to do before coming to his senses.
Most Americans are frustrated with the proposed mosque in New York City, but this "eye for an eye" threat was just that, and poorly conceived to begin with. Once Defense Secretary Robert Gates phoned Jones, this half-baked idea started to unravel in the pastor's head. I don't know that to be the case, but I would lay good odds in Vegas that's what happened. Pastor Jones didn't want to harm anyone. He merely wanted to send a message. What he was told would happen instead would be the potential loss of American lives overseas.
After all, this is the same faith that went radioactive after a Danish newspaper printed some humorless cartoons a few years ago. I can only imagine what would unfold if Jones went ahead with his Quran burning.
I wish I could say there was some valuable lesson to be learned from all of this, but I doubt there is. This episode strikes me as a case of how the enormous power of the media can drive an international incident to near-dangerous proportions. Either way, this shouldn't be allowed to happen in America.
09/10/10
College censorship
A conservative student organization attending Palm Beach State College in Florida was recently denied the right to form due to rhetoric criticizing President Obama's economic policy. The student police, who quickly kicked the group from a recruitment event, handled the situation eerily similar to Hitler's secret police.
Daniel Diaz and Eddie Shaffer, state members of Young Americans for Freedom the group victimized were kicked off campus after college administrator Ms. Ford-Morris was appalled by the material they presented; material published by the Heritage Foundation.
Apparently Christina Beattie, the Palm Beach State College student organizer, requested permission from Ms. Ford-Morris to attend the recruiting event after noticing there was a need for conservative groups on campus.
There were numerous other groups at the event that had not been invited but were allowed to stay and recruit. So far these groups, and others in attendance, have withdrawn themselves from commenting about the event due to fear of retaliation from the school administration.
Since when have college students been afraid of retaliation from school administration over political views? When has the Heritage Foundation literature gotten students kicked off campus? We shouldn't tolerate this blatant political correctness hypocrisy under any circumstances.
If this is how Palm Beach State College treats extracurricular campus events, then what must they shove down these students' throats in the classroom? Please, students, think for yourself, you're in college now. This is your time to grow a backbone and make these college officials pay a price for their violation of your right to organize and be heard.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
College censorship
A conservative student organization attending Palm Beach State College in Florida was recently denied the right to form due to rhetoric criticizing President Obama's economic policy. The student police, who quickly kicked the group from a recruitment event, handled the situation eerily similar to Hitler's secret police.
Daniel Diaz and Eddie Shaffer, state members of Young Americans for Freedom the group victimized were kicked off campus after college administrator Ms. Ford-Morris was appalled by the material they presented; material published by the Heritage Foundation.
Apparently Christina Beattie, the Palm Beach State College student organizer, requested permission from Ms. Ford-Morris to attend the recruiting event after noticing there was a need for conservative groups on campus.
There were numerous other groups at the event that had not been invited but were allowed to stay and recruit. So far these groups, and others in attendance, have withdrawn themselves from commenting about the event due to fear of retaliation from the school administration.
Since when have college students been afraid of retaliation from school administration over political views? When has the Heritage Foundation literature gotten students kicked off campus? We shouldn't tolerate this blatant political correctness hypocrisy under any circumstances.
If this is how Palm Beach State College treats extracurricular campus events, then what must they shove down these students' throats in the classroom? Please, students, think for yourself, you're in college now. This is your time to grow a backbone and make these college officials pay a price for their violation of your right to organize and be heard.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/09/10
Honor killings
The Independent has unearthed after a 10-month-long probe into chilling honor killings in the Middle Eastern area that they are rapidly increasing. Amnesty International suggests that only around 5,000 of these killings happen a year, while other figures suggest around 20,000 annually.
Sadly, honor killings the practice of killing someone for something he/she did wrong to restore honor back to the household, is not entirely a Muslim practice, like many thought. However, in areas where it's practiced, Christians and Hindus have, and are, for the most part abandoning the brutality.
Yet men and groups in charge of these killings are obviously clinging to their traditions and trying to spread the practice. Worse yet is the brutality through which their people are being killed for the most part they are women for reasons that have no solid grounding.
Women have had their limbs cut off, been buried alive, electrocuted, stoned to death, strangled and even beheaded, to name a few atrocities. The logic and justification for this is insane and baffling.
One young woman was buried alive by her father for adultery when she was carrying his baby after he raped her. Another woman, 13 years old, was stoned to death then buried alive after her parents turned her over for what men said was adultery she was raped by three men.
Should the U.S. maintain its troop presence in that region and end these atrocities?
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
Honor killings
The Independent has unearthed after a 10-month-long probe into chilling honor killings in the Middle Eastern area that they are rapidly increasing. Amnesty International suggests that only around 5,000 of these killings happen a year, while other figures suggest around 20,000 annually.
Sadly, honor killings the practice of killing someone for something he/she did wrong to restore honor back to the household, is not entirely a Muslim practice, like many thought. However, in areas where it's practiced, Christians and Hindus have, and are, for the most part abandoning the brutality.
Yet men and groups in charge of these killings are obviously clinging to their traditions and trying to spread the practice. Worse yet is the brutality through which their people are being killed for the most part they are women for reasons that have no solid grounding.
Women have had their limbs cut off, been buried alive, electrocuted, stoned to death, strangled and even beheaded, to name a few atrocities. The logic and justification for this is insane and baffling.
One young woman was buried alive by her father for adultery when she was carrying his baby after he raped her. Another woman, 13 years old, was stoned to death then buried alive after her parents turned her over for what men said was adultery she was raped by three men.
Should the U.S. maintain its troop presence in that region and end these atrocities?
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/08/10
Mr. President, please retreat
How Barack Obama Became Mr. Unpopular, a piece written for Time magazine by Michael Scherer at the beginning of the month, explained exactly what it sounds like. With boldly exquisite style, Scherer exposed chilling stories of the most fervent of President Obama's crusade for change that so many hypnotized Americans were willing to blindly believe.
It's not shocking that those affected the most by President Obama's slew of reckless policy decisions are the young, black and broke exactly the people who are hurt the most by a downtrodden economy, and who should be benefiting the most from stimulus funds.
It's easy for people like me to be critical of the president's policies, even though I voted for the man. Irrespective, it's absolutely heartbreaking to see those who believed in the president have their already humble existence exacerbated by the president's abandonment of his political responsibilities.
Our nation was wooed by a man who is sophisticated, cosmopolitan and charismatic; whom Americans thought would give our nation the attention that it lacked. Existence for many Americans is so bleak that you would think Michael Scherer is talking about Eastern Europe.
Enough is enough. Mr. President, please abandon the welfare state you are trying to create, and return to the sound principles that have given this country a booming economy.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius\XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
Mr. President, please retreat
How Barack Obama Became Mr. Unpopular, a piece written for Time magazine by Michael Scherer at the beginning of the month, explained exactly what it sounds like. With boldly exquisite style, Scherer exposed chilling stories of the most fervent of President Obama's crusade for change that so many hypnotized Americans were willing to blindly believe.
It's not shocking that those affected the most by President Obama's slew of reckless policy decisions are the young, black and broke exactly the people who are hurt the most by a downtrodden economy, and who should be benefiting the most from stimulus funds.
It's easy for people like me to be critical of the president's policies, even though I voted for the man. Irrespective, it's absolutely heartbreaking to see those who believed in the president have their already humble existence exacerbated by the president's abandonment of his political responsibilities.
Our nation was wooed by a man who is sophisticated, cosmopolitan and charismatic; whom Americans thought would give our nation the attention that it lacked. Existence for many Americans is so bleak that you would think Michael Scherer is talking about Eastern Europe.
Enough is enough. Mr. President, please abandon the welfare state you are trying to create, and return to the sound principles that have given this country a booming economy.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius\XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/07/10
A stimulus' that's not a stimulus
There he goes again. President Obama has taken to Middle America to peddle yet another stimulus package that will cost taxpayers billions. The price tag on the administration's latest flailing at recovery is a modest $50 billion, but to hear this president talk, it's the salve that will soothe all that ails us economically.
What an election-year farce. We're well into September, and the administration is still humming incantations hoping its Summer of Recovery is just over the next hill. And yet this man just doesn't get it. The answer to the economic doldrums we're facing is not more government infusions of cash. If Friday's unemployment numbers told us anything, it's that the private sector is not hiring. Period.
Businesses are reluctant to get back into the market. What's the administration doing to address those concerns? An extension of the R&D tax credit? Give me a break. That's like bringing a squirt gun to a five-alarm block fire. What's really causing angst among America's job creators is this massive tax hike that's set to go into effect at the end of this year. Major economists agree. Now is not the time to raise taxes on any sector of our economy. It's simply too fragile. Why take a chance and get it wrong, Mr. President?
And now this new stimulus-that's-not-a-stimulus plan would get us what more government? According to news accounts, Obama's plan would establish a national bank on infrastructure to determine how federal funds would be used toward construction projects. Another national bank? What year is it 1827? We need another federal institution to not only help Mr. and Mrs. America find their wallets, but they're now going to tell other bureaucracies how to spend that money? Holy mackerel. Where's Andrew Jackson when you need him?
I realize Republicans may not be ready to lead in the Congress due to their failure to learn from their own spending sins of the past, but at this point, anyone but Obama seems better equipped to man the ship of state before we run aground yet again.
A stimulus' that's not a stimulus
There he goes again. President Obama has taken to Middle America to peddle yet another stimulus package that will cost taxpayers billions. The price tag on the administration's latest flailing at recovery is a modest $50 billion, but to hear this president talk, it's the salve that will soothe all that ails us economically.
What an election-year farce. We're well into September, and the administration is still humming incantations hoping its Summer of Recovery is just over the next hill. And yet this man just doesn't get it. The answer to the economic doldrums we're facing is not more government infusions of cash. If Friday's unemployment numbers told us anything, it's that the private sector is not hiring. Period.
Businesses are reluctant to get back into the market. What's the administration doing to address those concerns? An extension of the R&D tax credit? Give me a break. That's like bringing a squirt gun to a five-alarm block fire. What's really causing angst among America's job creators is this massive tax hike that's set to go into effect at the end of this year. Major economists agree. Now is not the time to raise taxes on any sector of our economy. It's simply too fragile. Why take a chance and get it wrong, Mr. President?
And now this new stimulus-that's-not-a-stimulus plan would get us what more government? According to news accounts, Obama's plan would establish a national bank on infrastructure to determine how federal funds would be used toward construction projects. Another national bank? What year is it 1827? We need another federal institution to not only help Mr. and Mrs. America find their wallets, but they're now going to tell other bureaucracies how to spend that money? Holy mackerel. Where's Andrew Jackson when you need him?
I realize Republicans may not be ready to lead in the Congress due to their failure to learn from their own spending sins of the past, but at this point, anyone but Obama seems better equipped to man the ship of state before we run aground yet again.
09/03/10
Better off dead
I'm sorry, but the killing of James Lee, the Discovery Channel gunman who yesterday took several employees hostage, was the only option for that sick individual.
Special thanks go out to the Montgomery County officers and SWAT members who thought it better to shoot first and ask questions later about what kind of device Lee had strapped to his person during those intense hours.
The politico in me, however, can't help but think of this gunman's social views of the world. Apparently, Lee was no stranger to the Discovery Channel, and a vocal critic of its programming. He condemned human reproduction, and argued instead that we all should be sterilized to control the population.
According to several news accounts, Lee wanted to save the planet by decreasing the human population. He once wrote, Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive [sic] creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.
I haven't seen any media outlet try to draw parallels to Lee as an environmental extremist or someone from the far left. Someone who represents the views of those who feel humans are part of the ecological problem, even if they don't act on those views in such violent ways.
Out of bounds? It wasn't that long ago when incidents involving a shooting at an abortion clinic prompted a few from the left to link the zealot was with the far right conservative movement. Arguments from MSNBC and CNN talking heads that this extremist brand of justice threatened the safety and welfare of citizens thinly disguised their earnestness to mark anyone who feared God as one dip away from nihilistic violence.
A double standard? I think so.
Either way, Lee was clearly unfit for this planet. For the safety of us all, he's better off dead.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
Better off dead
I'm sorry, but the killing of James Lee, the Discovery Channel gunman who yesterday took several employees hostage, was the only option for that sick individual.
Special thanks go out to the Montgomery County officers and SWAT members who thought it better to shoot first and ask questions later about what kind of device Lee had strapped to his person during those intense hours.
The politico in me, however, can't help but think of this gunman's social views of the world. Apparently, Lee was no stranger to the Discovery Channel, and a vocal critic of its programming. He condemned human reproduction, and argued instead that we all should be sterilized to control the population.
According to several news accounts, Lee wanted to save the planet by decreasing the human population. He once wrote, Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive [sic] creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.
I haven't seen any media outlet try to draw parallels to Lee as an environmental extremist or someone from the far left. Someone who represents the views of those who feel humans are part of the ecological problem, even if they don't act on those views in such violent ways.
Out of bounds? It wasn't that long ago when incidents involving a shooting at an abortion clinic prompted a few from the left to link the zealot was with the far right conservative movement. Arguments from MSNBC and CNN talking heads that this extremist brand of justice threatened the safety and welfare of citizens thinly disguised their earnestness to mark anyone who feared God as one dip away from nihilistic violence.
A double standard? I think so.
Either way, Lee was clearly unfit for this planet. For the safety of us all, he's better off dead.
Williams can be heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/03/10
A democratic Iraq???
What will Iraq look like when a war is over? Obviously, although Iraq has been freed from a ruthless dictator willing to unleash atrocity on a whim against his people, Iraqis, with a new democratic system, are still on the fringe of survival. It's important to understand that there are major problems that still exist within the Iraqi infrastructure both physical and psychological.
On the physical level, there are tribal leaders dispersed throughout the country that the country reveres and holds in high regard. This deep connection and bond will not cease in the near future. It would take an oversize government providing the basic daily essentials to challenge the authoritarian-style tribal leaders that are in place.
On the psychological level, democracy is just plain new to Iraqis. On a personal level, we all know how difficult it is to change habits, especially since the mindset has been engrained in their culture and way of life for centuries. A constant challenge for American troops training Iraqi soldiers was their unwillingness to fight alongside our soldiers. The will to fight was rare and impossible to resurrect. Although an autonomous spirit may exist within a few Iraqis, it's far from existing across the nation.
This is precisely why some 50,000 of our troops will stay behind to halt the further imploding of Iraq from the enemy within their country. Americans must realize that although our president is claiming that the war is over, it will never be over in the foreseeable future. Our men and women will continue to die and eventually Iraq and its explosive landscape will disappear from the world headline news.
Williams can be heard daily, Mon-Fri, on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
A democratic Iraq???
What will Iraq look like when a war is over? Obviously, although Iraq has been freed from a ruthless dictator willing to unleash atrocity on a whim against his people, Iraqis, with a new democratic system, are still on the fringe of survival. It's important to understand that there are major problems that still exist within the Iraqi infrastructure both physical and psychological.
On the physical level, there are tribal leaders dispersed throughout the country that the country reveres and holds in high regard. This deep connection and bond will not cease in the near future. It would take an oversize government providing the basic daily essentials to challenge the authoritarian-style tribal leaders that are in place.
On the psychological level, democracy is just plain new to Iraqis. On a personal level, we all know how difficult it is to change habits, especially since the mindset has been engrained in their culture and way of life for centuries. A constant challenge for American troops training Iraqi soldiers was their unwillingness to fight alongside our soldiers. The will to fight was rare and impossible to resurrect. Although an autonomous spirit may exist within a few Iraqis, it's far from existing across the nation.
This is precisely why some 50,000 of our troops will stay behind to halt the further imploding of Iraq from the enemy within their country. Americans must realize that although our president is claiming that the war is over, it will never be over in the foreseeable future. Our men and women will continue to die and eventually Iraq and its explosive landscape will disappear from the world headline news.
Williams can be heard daily, Mon-Fri, on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m.
09/02/10
Obama's anti-business legislation
What will it take for the Obama administration to give small-business owners a break?
With the healthcare bill and small-business loan stimulus package, this administration is only looking to appease large corporations and the lobbyists who represent them. The president's proposed small-business package will further expand the already out-of-control deficit.
ObamaCare could have been a vehicle to reduce the pressure on small-business startups, which are inundated with the looming astronomical cost of healthcare. However, small-businesses startups those defined as having fewer than 25 employees, aren't even apart of ObamaCare for the first two years.
Large and not small corporations have more access. In effect, if an individual seeking employment is offered $12 an hour working at Starbucks or a startup coffee house, Starbucks has the proxy because it offers health insurance. ObamaCare can't fathom how this would severely affect small-business owners in the long run.
The small-business stimulus package, to provide finance for loans to small businesses, is just as egregious. Small businesses will be forced to get an I-9 for every purchase they make. In effect, an I-9 is needed to buy a computer from Office Depot. To simplify the process, small-business owners will be channeled to large firms, not other small startups.
If the Obama administration were really serious (which it's not) about helping small businesses, one could assume that this legislation would have been written to empower the business owners who are responsible for 90 percent of the jobs in our country.
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m. Monday through Friday.
Obama's anti-business legislation
What will it take for the Obama administration to give small-business owners a break?
With the healthcare bill and small-business loan stimulus package, this administration is only looking to appease large corporations and the lobbyists who represent them. The president's proposed small-business package will further expand the already out-of-control deficit.
ObamaCare could have been a vehicle to reduce the pressure on small-business startups, which are inundated with the looming astronomical cost of healthcare. However, small-businesses startups those defined as having fewer than 25 employees, aren't even apart of ObamaCare for the first two years.
Large and not small corporations have more access. In effect, if an individual seeking employment is offered $12 an hour working at Starbucks or a startup coffee house, Starbucks has the proxy because it offers health insurance. ObamaCare can't fathom how this would severely affect small-business owners in the long run.
The small-business stimulus package, to provide finance for loans to small businesses, is just as egregious. Small businesses will be forced to get an I-9 for every purchase they make. In effect, an I-9 is needed to buy a computer from Office Depot. To simplify the process, small-business owners will be channeled to large firms, not other small startups.
If the Obama administration were really serious (which it's not) about helping small businesses, one could assume that this legislation would have been written to empower the business owners who are responsible for 90 percent of the jobs in our country.
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7 to 8 p.m. and 4 to 5 a.m. Monday through Friday.
08/30/10
Are you now being drained by the swamp, Speaker Pelosi?
Democrats and their much-to-be-desired leadership are simply falling victim to their own ideology. We certainly should be in no rush to excuse or bail them out of their legal woes.
The complexity of the tax code, the insanity of political-contributions laws these are all brainchildren of the Democrats, not Republicans.
It's particularly offensive when Democrats like Waters and Rangel get caught up in these Byzantine laws, because they are the ones who came up with them! They're the ones who say, Follow the money when it comes to tying a vote or official favor to campaign contributions.
Conservatives say, Let anyone donate as much as he wants to any candidate he wants for whatever reason he wants, make that process open and public, and then let voters kick out the bums they feel are abusing the system.
Democrats say we must write laws to keep such contributions and favors from happening in the first place. Well, OK looks like Waters and Rangel and many more got just what they asked for!
Are you now being drained by the swamp, Speaker Pelosi?
Democrats and their much-to-be-desired leadership are simply falling victim to their own ideology. We certainly should be in no rush to excuse or bail them out of their legal woes.
The complexity of the tax code, the insanity of political-contributions laws these are all brainchildren of the Democrats, not Republicans.
It's particularly offensive when Democrats like Waters and Rangel get caught up in these Byzantine laws, because they are the ones who came up with them! They're the ones who say, Follow the money when it comes to tying a vote or official favor to campaign contributions.
Conservatives say, Let anyone donate as much as he wants to any candidate he wants for whatever reason he wants, make that process open and public, and then let voters kick out the bums they feel are abusing the system.
Democrats say we must write laws to keep such contributions and favors from happening in the first place. Well, OK looks like Waters and Rangel and many more got just what they asked for!
08/29/10
Mama Grizzly growing stronger
Sarah Palin continues to be a polarizing figure after her days as McCain's presidential running mate. Irrespective, a popularized Palin has resonated within the hearts of many Americans across the nation. Palin has rocked and shocked the national political climate for the upcoming November elections. She has resurrected GOP candidates to victory, raised a ton of money, and continues to be a potent political force that is both feared and admired.
Two years ago Sarah Palin was a divisive figure capable of scaring away even those on the fringe of voting for the McCain-Palin duet. She had botched big-stage interviews and fell victim to public scandals. McCain and his staff eventually turned on her. Irrespective, somehow a popularized Palin continues to connect with many Americans and has become their symbol of a possible new renaissance across the Heartland.
She is nothing short of a ball of fire that has creatively rallied groups, such as her Grizzly Moms, to stand up for conservative principles and be heard. More recently, she was able to turn election races around for conservative candidates in South Carolina and Alaska. The possibilities of what she can and has accomplished in American political theatre are endless and downright heart-warming to her devout supporters.
Does anyone now doubt Sarah Palin's increasing star power on the political stage? It's somewhat reminiscent of President Obama's. However, instead of reaching out to the esoteric intellectual left, she is reaching out to Independents / Conservative families with small-town values.
Love her or despise her folks, Mama Grizzly is a force that you must come to grips with.
Mama Grizzly growing stronger
Sarah Palin continues to be a polarizing figure after her days as McCain's presidential running mate. Irrespective, a popularized Palin has resonated within the hearts of many Americans across the nation. Palin has rocked and shocked the national political climate for the upcoming November elections. She has resurrected GOP candidates to victory, raised a ton of money, and continues to be a potent political force that is both feared and admired.
Two years ago Sarah Palin was a divisive figure capable of scaring away even those on the fringe of voting for the McCain-Palin duet. She had botched big-stage interviews and fell victim to public scandals. McCain and his staff eventually turned on her. Irrespective, somehow a popularized Palin continues to connect with many Americans and has become their symbol of a possible new renaissance across the Heartland.
She is nothing short of a ball of fire that has creatively rallied groups, such as her Grizzly Moms, to stand up for conservative principles and be heard. More recently, she was able to turn election races around for conservative candidates in South Carolina and Alaska. The possibilities of what she can and has accomplished in American political theatre are endless and downright heart-warming to her devout supporters.
Does anyone now doubt Sarah Palin's increasing star power on the political stage? It's somewhat reminiscent of President Obama's. However, instead of reaching out to the esoteric intellectual left, she is reaching out to Independents / Conservative families with small-town values.
Love her or despise her folks, Mama Grizzly is a force that you must come to grips with.
08/26/10
California's latest spending outrage
It's great to see that California, known for their uncontrollable government spending and large deficit, has the money to spend $578 million on a school just a year after they asked the government to bail them out. The school is the costliest in the nation and will be located in Los Angeles.
The school is located at the famous Ambassador Hotel, where presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Obviously, administrators were looking for a posh palace for students that the entire community can marvel at. The school is capable of holding roughly 4,200 students, grades K-12.
I'm not quite sure what administrators are trying to do here. It seems as though they believe that by having state-of-the-art buildings that students will want to come to school and get an education. However, it seems like they have fallen victim to a superficial culture that prizes appearance over substance.
Many schools in the area have up to, and over, a 50 percent dropout rate. Not to mention, the area is home to a large illegal immigrant community perhaps the largest in the nation. I'm not saying we shouldn't spend money on our children. Why so much on the aesthetics of a building? We should be retraining our teachers instead.
Where does good ol' commonsense come in? It's blatantly shameful that more effort isn't being put into the quality of education our children receive. Clearly the California teachers' union has the state in a vice grip.
Apparently it's not that No Child Should Be Left Behind it's that No Child Should Be Left Behind in a dilapidated school building.
California's latest spending outrage
It's great to see that California, known for their uncontrollable government spending and large deficit, has the money to spend $578 million on a school just a year after they asked the government to bail them out. The school is the costliest in the nation and will be located in Los Angeles.
The school is located at the famous Ambassador Hotel, where presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Obviously, administrators were looking for a posh palace for students that the entire community can marvel at. The school is capable of holding roughly 4,200 students, grades K-12.
I'm not quite sure what administrators are trying to do here. It seems as though they believe that by having state-of-the-art buildings that students will want to come to school and get an education. However, it seems like they have fallen victim to a superficial culture that prizes appearance over substance.
Many schools in the area have up to, and over, a 50 percent dropout rate. Not to mention, the area is home to a large illegal immigrant community perhaps the largest in the nation. I'm not saying we shouldn't spend money on our children. Why so much on the aesthetics of a building? We should be retraining our teachers instead.
Where does good ol' commonsense come in? It's blatantly shameful that more effort isn't being put into the quality of education our children receive. Clearly the California teachers' union has the state in a vice grip.
Apparently it's not that No Child Should Be Left Behind it's that No Child Should Be Left Behind in a dilapidated school building.
08/26/10
Misleading talking points
New evidence from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) proves that the Iraq War is not a demonic force that's thrusting this country into economic chaos, as many popular economists and President Obama suggested. The American people were led astray to believe the war cost this nation $3 trillion, when the CBO states it was $709 billion.
When President Obama took office, Americans knew he wasn't going to have it easy. Yet, he has used the false premises of frivolous spending on the Iraqi War to justify his spending efforts and our economic mess.
More specifically, Democrats have lead Americans to believe that Bush tax cuts, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the recession are the reasons for our current deficit. While in fact, the Democrats passed an $814 billion economic stimulus immediately while in office. This grossly trumps the $709 billion spent on Iraq.
So no, Iraq is not the fiscal giant that Americans were made to believe; and yes, Democrats need to start taking responsibility for their reckless spending.
As questions of Americans shameful of spending on our education system continue to be raised, it's important to realize President Bush, under his two terms, spent more on education than he did on the Iraq war. The war was less than a quarter of what was spent on Medicare. Please, Democrats, get your facts straight and begin to own the problems that this administration is creating. Thank you.
Misleading talking points
New evidence from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) proves that the Iraq War is not a demonic force that's thrusting this country into economic chaos, as many popular economists and President Obama suggested. The American people were led astray to believe the war cost this nation $3 trillion, when the CBO states it was $709 billion.
When President Obama took office, Americans knew he wasn't going to have it easy. Yet, he has used the false premises of frivolous spending on the Iraqi War to justify his spending efforts and our economic mess.
More specifically, Democrats have lead Americans to believe that Bush tax cuts, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the recession are the reasons for our current deficit. While in fact, the Democrats passed an $814 billion economic stimulus immediately while in office. This grossly trumps the $709 billion spent on Iraq.
So no, Iraq is not the fiscal giant that Americans were made to believe; and yes, Democrats need to start taking responsibility for their reckless spending.
As questions of Americans shameful of spending on our education system continue to be raised, it's important to realize President Bush, under his two terms, spent more on education than he did on the Iraq war. The war was less than a quarter of what was spent on Medicare. Please, Democrats, get your facts straight and begin to own the problems that this administration is creating. Thank you.
08/25/10
The right to live
The initial stages of ObamaCare death panels have begun by targeting the 40,000 American women killed by breast cancer annually. The FDA has recommended rescinding government approval of Avastin, a treatment for later-stage breast cancer, due to its high cost. Avastin can cost as much as $88,000 annually, but can have significant results in expanding the life of those suffering.
The federal government needs to stay away from the personal health decisions of Americans. Yes, there are some who wouldn't care to live longer after suffering from breast cancer. However, there are many women suffering from the illness who would like to spend every extra day possible with their families. Our government doesn't have the right to withhold that from them.
It's ironic that in the summer of 2010, in which our government has redefined profligate spending, President Obama's FDA would decide to pinch pennies and recommend withdrawing the approval of the life extending drug despite 40,000 annual breast cancer deaths. Even more shocking is the silence of the American Feminist, as they abandon the many women that find themselves in this crisis situation. A recent search on NOW.org, the National Organization for Women's website, appalled me there wasn't one hit on the issue of Avastin.
With a beginning like this, I'm not looking forward to seeing how the lives of Americans suffering from illnesses are at the mercy of government entities controlled by people who have never looked them in the eyes.
The right to live
The initial stages of ObamaCare death panels have begun by targeting the 40,000 American women killed by breast cancer annually. The FDA has recommended rescinding government approval of Avastin, a treatment for later-stage breast cancer, due to its high cost. Avastin can cost as much as $88,000 annually, but can have significant results in expanding the life of those suffering.
The federal government needs to stay away from the personal health decisions of Americans. Yes, there are some who wouldn't care to live longer after suffering from breast cancer. However, there are many women suffering from the illness who would like to spend every extra day possible with their families. Our government doesn't have the right to withhold that from them.
It's ironic that in the summer of 2010, in which our government has redefined profligate spending, President Obama's FDA would decide to pinch pennies and recommend withdrawing the approval of the life extending drug despite 40,000 annual breast cancer deaths. Even more shocking is the silence of the American Feminist, as they abandon the many women that find themselves in this crisis situation. A recent search on NOW.org, the National Organization for Women's website, appalled me there wasn't one hit on the issue of Avastin.
With a beginning like this, I'm not looking forward to seeing how the lives of Americans suffering from illnesses are at the mercy of government entities controlled by people who have never looked them in the eyes.
08/24/10
KISS
I am not yet ready to concede an optimistic economic future to the liberal Democrats without a fight. I am not an Ivy League economist, but we have been consistently successful in our 20 year old business. As a business owner, I always apply the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) solution to intractable problems. I recommend that the President apply the KISS solution to America's fiscal problems. The first KISS solution is do not spend money you do not have. That means no more spending programs, period. The second KISS solution is cut budgeted spending until it is less than government revenues. The third KISS solution is stop borrowing money that our children will have to repay. The fourth KISS solution is to stop enacting regulations and taxes that discourage growth in the private sector. The government generates much more revenue from a fast growing economy than it does from higher tax rates in a slow growth economy.
Of course the President is too sophisticated to apply the KISS solutions. The Ivy League trained leftist politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are much smarter than the rest of us. They apply discredited Keynesian theories and models that only PhD's understand. The best example is how Congress justified borrowing $860 billion for a stimulus bill that was designed to put Americans back to work. Instead of keeping unemployment from increasing beyond 8% as intended, unemployment increased to 10%. You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul will not solve your financial problems.
The KISS solution is a much more pragmatic approach to solving America's fiscal problems than increasing spending across the board. I don't know about you all, but I'm ready for some serious change comes November.
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am, M-F.
KISS
I am not yet ready to concede an optimistic economic future to the liberal Democrats without a fight. I am not an Ivy League economist, but we have been consistently successful in our 20 year old business. As a business owner, I always apply the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) solution to intractable problems. I recommend that the President apply the KISS solution to America's fiscal problems. The first KISS solution is do not spend money you do not have. That means no more spending programs, period. The second KISS solution is cut budgeted spending until it is less than government revenues. The third KISS solution is stop borrowing money that our children will have to repay. The fourth KISS solution is to stop enacting regulations and taxes that discourage growth in the private sector. The government generates much more revenue from a fast growing economy than it does from higher tax rates in a slow growth economy.
Of course the President is too sophisticated to apply the KISS solutions. The Ivy League trained leftist politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are much smarter than the rest of us. They apply discredited Keynesian theories and models that only PhD's understand. The best example is how Congress justified borrowing $860 billion for a stimulus bill that was designed to put Americans back to work. Instead of keeping unemployment from increasing beyond 8% as intended, unemployment increased to 10%. You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul will not solve your financial problems.
The KISS solution is a much more pragmatic approach to solving America's fiscal problems than increasing spending across the board. I don't know about you all, but I'm ready for some serious change comes November.
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am, M-F.
08/23/10
Change Club Med Environment at Club Fed!
Unleashing criminals from American jails onto American streets is determinately criminal. But still, the debate on American incarceration continues to flare up due to tough economic times and because our country spends roughly $50 billion annually to incarcerate public nuisances and dangerous thugs.
Shockingly, the annual cost per prisoner in California is $50,000. No wonder there has been a violent push for the privatization of prisons and the revamping of the American legal system.
The proposition that relaxing or changing laws will create fewer criminals, precisely because there're fewer laws to offend, is shamelessly preposterous. Just punishment is the only deterrent which pragmatically prevents criminals from making a career of victimizing American citizens.
Turning prisons into productive businesses is a much better solution for the high cost of annual imprisonment, than loosening laws. Yes, that's right! Don't house criminals in facilities where, for many, amenities are better than what they had on the streets. Rather, they should be put to work doing hard manual labor in order to pay for their stay. This will change the financial and social landscape of the prison system in a hurry. We will notice a sharp decrease in recidivism and fewer taxpayer dollars would be necessary to subsidize the industry.
Something is terribly wrong in our nation when frightfully 1 in every 100 adults is locked behind bars. We are leading the modern world in imprisonments. Yet, most of America is relatively safe. If we truly desire to make America safer, we must change the Club Med environment at Club Fed.
Change Club Med Environment at Club Fed!
Unleashing criminals from American jails onto American streets is determinately criminal. But still, the debate on American incarceration continues to flare up due to tough economic times and because our country spends roughly $50 billion annually to incarcerate public nuisances and dangerous thugs.
Shockingly, the annual cost per prisoner in California is $50,000. No wonder there has been a violent push for the privatization of prisons and the revamping of the American legal system.
The proposition that relaxing or changing laws will create fewer criminals, precisely because there're fewer laws to offend, is shamelessly preposterous. Just punishment is the only deterrent which pragmatically prevents criminals from making a career of victimizing American citizens.
Turning prisons into productive businesses is a much better solution for the high cost of annual imprisonment, than loosening laws. Yes, that's right! Don't house criminals in facilities where, for many, amenities are better than what they had on the streets. Rather, they should be put to work doing hard manual labor in order to pay for their stay. This will change the financial and social landscape of the prison system in a hurry. We will notice a sharp decrease in recidivism and fewer taxpayer dollars would be necessary to subsidize the industry.
Something is terribly wrong in our nation when frightfully 1 in every 100 adults is locked behind bars. We are leading the modern world in imprisonments. Yet, most of America is relatively safe. If we truly desire to make America safer, we must change the Club Med environment at Club Fed.
08/19/10
Paying our bills
Surprise! America is being berated as a ticking time bomb. Economist Larry Kotlikoff recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times declaring America to be in worse fiscal shape than Greece, which had its financial system taken over. According to Kotlikoff, The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.
According to an article by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times, America's new normal is slow growth whereby our children cannot expect to have it better than their parents. Where does that leave America? Surprise! America is being berated as a ticking time bomb. Economist Larry Kotlikoff recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times declaring America to be in worse fiscal shape than Greece, which had its financial system taken over. According to Kotlikoff, The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.
According to an article by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times, America's new normal is slow growth whereby our children cannot expect to have it better than their parents. Where does that leave America?
Does anyone care that America will have to run a nearly impossible long-term budget surplus in order to pay its bills? Where are the alarmists to scream out that no matter how much our government lowers taxes or creates jobs, we still won't make our bills? Are Americans willing to concede optimism about our economic future to the ruling liberal Democratic Congress and administration so they can impose a slow-growth Western European social welfare state on the U.S. economy?
Sadly, with so many Americans going through foreclosure and bankruptcy, I wonder if we are beginning to accept that maybe we are just in a time where paying bills is simply too difficult. If we can't pay our bills, why pressure our government to do so?
Paying our bills
Surprise! America is being berated as a ticking time bomb. Economist Larry Kotlikoff recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times declaring America to be in worse fiscal shape than Greece, which had its financial system taken over. According to Kotlikoff, The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.
According to an article by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times, America's new normal is slow growth whereby our children cannot expect to have it better than their parents. Where does that leave America? Surprise! America is being berated as a ticking time bomb. Economist Larry Kotlikoff recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times declaring America to be in worse fiscal shape than Greece, which had its financial system taken over. According to Kotlikoff, The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.
According to an article by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times, America's new normal is slow growth whereby our children cannot expect to have it better than their parents. Where does that leave America?
Does anyone care that America will have to run a nearly impossible long-term budget surplus in order to pay its bills? Where are the alarmists to scream out that no matter how much our government lowers taxes or creates jobs, we still won't make our bills? Are Americans willing to concede optimism about our economic future to the ruling liberal Democratic Congress and administration so they can impose a slow-growth Western European social welfare state on the U.S. economy?
Sadly, with so many Americans going through foreclosure and bankruptcy, I wonder if we are beginning to accept that maybe we are just in a time where paying bills is simply too difficult. If we can't pay our bills, why pressure our government to do so?
08/17/10
Don't give Islamic extremists another victory at Ground Zero!
It's a holistic pride within human nature that desires to shamelessly document all of our greatest victories with a sign of success for the world to see. The American flag on the moon is one of these glorious achievements that will be enshrined in history forever. This sentiment, which has been used to cultivate pride among nations, is being used against America with the building of the Ground Zero mosque.
Americans, and especially the families of innocent victims of the terrorist attack, have been tortured enough. No proud American should stand by to allow salt to be thrown into the wounds of our great nation and people again.
President Obama, in his speech Friday night after a White House dinner, is siding with Muslims in his usual fashion of favoring sophisticated philosophy over humanity. Our president is clearly more impressed with hearing himself speak rather than sympathizing with the people of America he just doesn't get it.
I am not trying to advocate for the practice of one religion in our free nation. Rather, I would like our country to recognize the sensitivity of the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Let Muslims build another mosque anywhere else they want to in America. Let them practice there and be free within the confines of American law. But don't let them throw dirt into the face of Americans and deepen the main of their tragic loss on 9/11 by building a mosque facing Ground Zero.
Don't give Islamic extremists another victory at Ground Zero!
It's a holistic pride within human nature that desires to shamelessly document all of our greatest victories with a sign of success for the world to see. The American flag on the moon is one of these glorious achievements that will be enshrined in history forever. This sentiment, which has been used to cultivate pride among nations, is being used against America with the building of the Ground Zero mosque.
Americans, and especially the families of innocent victims of the terrorist attack, have been tortured enough. No proud American should stand by to allow salt to be thrown into the wounds of our great nation and people again.
President Obama, in his speech Friday night after a White House dinner, is siding with Muslims in his usual fashion of favoring sophisticated philosophy over humanity. Our president is clearly more impressed with hearing himself speak rather than sympathizing with the people of America he just doesn't get it.
I am not trying to advocate for the practice of one religion in our free nation. Rather, I would like our country to recognize the sensitivity of the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Let Muslims build another mosque anywhere else they want to in America. Let them practice there and be free within the confines of American law. But don't let them throw dirt into the face of Americans and deepen the main of their tragic loss on 9/11 by building a mosque facing Ground Zero.
08/04/10
Need for Self Examination
The nastiness of Washington is an excellent example of how civility and respect have lost their way in our nation. With that truism in mind, I believe it's time for a little self-examination.
For this author to continue to single out the Democratic Party over issues such as the health debate is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? They did not start the Death Panel nonsense, for example. I think we all do our credibility and arguments a disservice when we continue to be partisan at a time when both sides of the aisle are mired in name-calling, prevaricating and pursuits that do not have the interests of the people they represent at heart.
Many of the Tea party folks are fed up with all aspects of Washington, as we all can understand and embrace in many respects. Historically, it started during the Clinton administration, continued full force under Bush, and not surprisingly, is part and parcel of Obama now. This is the reason for my daily blog. It is written in a dedicated way, so that we can elevate and make our elected officials accountable to we the people and not just to themselves. I strive to do this without the name calling, self righteousness, and a belief as if we have some monopoly on the only truth that will save us. Yet even the Right Side misses the mark from time to time.
The many virtues we hold dear have been ignored for years. That's why we're in serious trouble. We are all responsible in making these politicians understand daily that we're the true owners of government; they are merely caretakers, entrusted by us to serve the public's interest. When this writer and others castigate the Democrats only, we make it seem like it's a party problem rather than an endemic aspect of Washington culture. Republicans would do well to keep such things in mind should they secure the House come November.
If we are to save our America, we must put aside partisanship and first save ourselves from these bankrupt politicians. As political pundits generally and blog writers specifically, I and my colleagues should feel an even greater sense of responsibility to elevate our rhetoric and assess political situations in Washington more judiciously. We won't always get it right, but if the tone in this town is to change, it must begin somewhere. And it might as well begin with me.
Need for Self Examination
The nastiness of Washington is an excellent example of how civility and respect have lost their way in our nation. With that truism in mind, I believe it's time for a little self-examination.
For this author to continue to single out the Democratic Party over issues such as the health debate is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? They did not start the Death Panel nonsense, for example. I think we all do our credibility and arguments a disservice when we continue to be partisan at a time when both sides of the aisle are mired in name-calling, prevaricating and pursuits that do not have the interests of the people they represent at heart.
Many of the Tea party folks are fed up with all aspects of Washington, as we all can understand and embrace in many respects. Historically, it started during the Clinton administration, continued full force under Bush, and not surprisingly, is part and parcel of Obama now. This is the reason for my daily blog. It is written in a dedicated way, so that we can elevate and make our elected officials accountable to we the people and not just to themselves. I strive to do this without the name calling, self righteousness, and a belief as if we have some monopoly on the only truth that will save us. Yet even the Right Side misses the mark from time to time.
The many virtues we hold dear have been ignored for years. That's why we're in serious trouble. We are all responsible in making these politicians understand daily that we're the true owners of government; they are merely caretakers, entrusted by us to serve the public's interest. When this writer and others castigate the Democrats only, we make it seem like it's a party problem rather than an endemic aspect of Washington culture. Republicans would do well to keep such things in mind should they secure the House come November.
If we are to save our America, we must put aside partisanship and first save ourselves from these bankrupt politicians. As political pundits generally and blog writers specifically, I and my colleagues should feel an even greater sense of responsibility to elevate our rhetoric and assess political situations in Washington more judiciously. We won't always get it right, but if the tone in this town is to change, it must begin somewhere. And it might as well begin with me.
08/03/10
What happen to Manifest Destiny?
If we fast-forward a couple of millennia or so to the birth of the American nation, we once again see the influence of Christ as a central tenet in the political equation. Many of the early European settlers in this land were willing to uproot themselves from their homes in hope of finding a place in which they could practice their religion without interference from the government . In sixteenth-century Europe the Church had become wealthy and corrupt, and was in bed with the monarchies in wielding political power. Established religion had ceased to be a source of liberty and was used to enslave the masses. Thus, in seeking to remove religion from politics, the early colonists were not forsaking their faith, but in fact reaffirming it. And, in fact, Freedom of religion is the well from which all of the other freedoms we enjoy in this country spring.
Furthermore, it was Christ's example which inspired the great acts of courage in the American Revolution. The writings of Thomas Paine and others look to god-given virtue as the qualification for selecting a leader, and rejected of the idea of divine right of Kings as a self-serving fallacy. Hereditary succession was viewed by colonists as a sure sign of corruption. The Boston tea party, in which colonists dumped the usuriously taxed products of Britain into the Boston Harbor, was an act of defiance inspired by Christ's repudiation of the money-changers.
Many of America's founders derived their national zeal from a sense of manifest destiny: a belief that God had given them a mission to govern this land in order to spreading democracy.
What happen to Manifest Destiny?
If we fast-forward a couple of millennia or so to the birth of the American nation, we once again see the influence of Christ as a central tenet in the political equation. Many of the early European settlers in this land were willing to uproot themselves from their homes in hope of finding a place in which they could practice their religion without interference from the government . In sixteenth-century Europe the Church had become wealthy and corrupt, and was in bed with the monarchies in wielding political power. Established religion had ceased to be a source of liberty and was used to enslave the masses. Thus, in seeking to remove religion from politics, the early colonists were not forsaking their faith, but in fact reaffirming it. And, in fact, Freedom of religion is the well from which all of the other freedoms we enjoy in this country spring.
Furthermore, it was Christ's example which inspired the great acts of courage in the American Revolution. The writings of Thomas Paine and others look to god-given virtue as the qualification for selecting a leader, and rejected of the idea of divine right of Kings as a self-serving fallacy. Hereditary succession was viewed by colonists as a sure sign of corruption. The Boston tea party, in which colonists dumped the usuriously taxed products of Britain into the Boston Harbor, was an act of defiance inspired by Christ's repudiation of the money-changers.
Many of America's founders derived their national zeal from a sense of manifest destiny: a belief that God had given them a mission to govern this land in order to spreading democracy.
08/02/10
An Argument for a new tax system
The ascendancy of lawyers, bankers and political professions is as sure a sign of any that our society is becoming less free and more tyrannical.
In many ways, these professions have replaced scribes and Pharisees as the money changers in our temples. Just as the scribes and Pharisees interposed themselves between the average believer and God, so lawyers, bankers and politicians have interposed themselves between the citizen and society.
However, when we as individuals begin to open our hearts to one another and rekindle moral excellence as the primary social currency, the need for oppressive laws and taxation lessens. Not to mention the deadening impact lawyers and so many laws have on the cultivation of virtues in the first place.
It's to the point where we've stopped talking about what's right and wrong and more about what's legal or illegal what one can successfully get away with, instead of what one should do. What's right or wrong hinges more on recent case law whether Napster or the recording industry won, for example. When trying to determine whether a course of action is good for the soul or the community of which we're a part, it's more "What did the Supreme Court recently say?" than "What would Jesus do?"
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am, M-F
An Argument for a new tax system
The ascendancy of lawyers, bankers and political professions is as sure a sign of any that our society is becoming less free and more tyrannical.
In many ways, these professions have replaced scribes and Pharisees as the money changers in our temples. Just as the scribes and Pharisees interposed themselves between the average believer and God, so lawyers, bankers and politicians have interposed themselves between the citizen and society.
However, when we as individuals begin to open our hearts to one another and rekindle moral excellence as the primary social currency, the need for oppressive laws and taxation lessens. Not to mention the deadening impact lawyers and so many laws have on the cultivation of virtues in the first place.
It's to the point where we've stopped talking about what's right and wrong and more about what's legal or illegal what one can successfully get away with, instead of what one should do. What's right or wrong hinges more on recent case law whether Napster or the recording industry won, for example. When trying to determine whether a course of action is good for the soul or the community of which we're a part, it's more "What did the Supreme Court recently say?" than "What would Jesus do?"
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am, M-F
07/29/10
The Cost of Cheap Labor
In a very interesting way, the immigration quandary poses a deep question about the nature and viability of American democracy as we know it. On the one hand, Americans continue to view citizenship within the nation-state as a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and responsibilities that have come to characterize the American way of life. On the other hand, the basis of our economic system seems to require labor input at conditions of less than perfect liberty. Whether in the form of outsourcing jobs abroad, or the tacit agreement between government and corporate America to turn a blind eye to undocumented workers, we find ourselves deriving a large part of our livelihoods and consumer goods from cheap labor.
As it plays abroad, we attempt to break down the door to markets such as China, and open our markets to goods from these countries, yet find ourselves compromised when it comes to demanding that these countries respect the labor rights of its citizens. We are loathe to insist as a precondition of trade that China adopt minimum wage, maximum work week, and worker safety, because we are attracted to the price at which we can purchase labor and the goods that only semi-slave labor can afford. We have made the pragmatic decision in the past to form relationships with repressive regimes and therefore secure oil and other resources, only to have it bite us in the rear later on down the road.
At home, we have a tough time speaking with one voice about illegal immigration and its potential pitfalls because we are in love with the strong work ethic and skills we can employ at cheap wages --- wages which are depressed by the fact that undocumented workers have few options and cannot complain about low pay and poor working conditions without fear of deportation.
The Cost of Cheap Labor
In a very interesting way, the immigration quandary poses a deep question about the nature and viability of American democracy as we know it. On the one hand, Americans continue to view citizenship within the nation-state as a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and responsibilities that have come to characterize the American way of life. On the other hand, the basis of our economic system seems to require labor input at conditions of less than perfect liberty. Whether in the form of outsourcing jobs abroad, or the tacit agreement between government and corporate America to turn a blind eye to undocumented workers, we find ourselves deriving a large part of our livelihoods and consumer goods from cheap labor.
As it plays abroad, we attempt to break down the door to markets such as China, and open our markets to goods from these countries, yet find ourselves compromised when it comes to demanding that these countries respect the labor rights of its citizens. We are loathe to insist as a precondition of trade that China adopt minimum wage, maximum work week, and worker safety, because we are attracted to the price at which we can purchase labor and the goods that only semi-slave labor can afford. We have made the pragmatic decision in the past to form relationships with repressive regimes and therefore secure oil and other resources, only to have it bite us in the rear later on down the road.
At home, we have a tough time speaking with one voice about illegal immigration and its potential pitfalls because we are in love with the strong work ethic and skills we can employ at cheap wages --- wages which are depressed by the fact that undocumented workers have few options and cannot complain about low pay and poor working conditions without fear of deportation.
07/28/10
Create Jobs with Business Confidence
Supporters of extending the unemployment benefit unconvincingly argue that the extended benefit will stimulate the economy and thereby create jobs. This macroeconomic benefit would be more convincing if unemployment benefits were not a zero-sum transfer of money from the productive sectors of the economy. Realistically, these payments come from taxes on the employed who must reduce their consumption to pay the taxes; or from investors who finance the increasing federal deficit rather than financing productive companies that create jobs.
The best way to create jobs and reduce employment is to create an environment where business has confidence in the future economic outlook.
Unfortunately, most of the programs the federal government has tried over the past 18 months have not created business confidence. Job credits which subsidize the hiring of the unemployed who would have been hired anyway do not create confidence. Cash for operable clunkers that are replaced by subsidized cars do not create confidence. Additional unspecified federal regulation of Wall Street may sound good on Main Street, but it does not stimulate bankers to lend to or invest in American businesses. The $867 billion stimulus package allocated more to plugging state government deficits than proving opportunities to private business. Shutting down Gulf coast offshore drilling for six months may play well with the environments, but it does not help the hundreds of thousands of employees who lose their jobs as a result.
Create Jobs with Business Confidence
Supporters of extending the unemployment benefit unconvincingly argue that the extended benefit will stimulate the economy and thereby create jobs. This macroeconomic benefit would be more convincing if unemployment benefits were not a zero-sum transfer of money from the productive sectors of the economy. Realistically, these payments come from taxes on the employed who must reduce their consumption to pay the taxes; or from investors who finance the increasing federal deficit rather than financing productive companies that create jobs.
The best way to create jobs and reduce employment is to create an environment where business has confidence in the future economic outlook.
Unfortunately, most of the programs the federal government has tried over the past 18 months have not created business confidence. Job credits which subsidize the hiring of the unemployed who would have been hired anyway do not create confidence. Cash for operable clunkers that are replaced by subsidized cars do not create confidence. Additional unspecified federal regulation of Wall Street may sound good on Main Street, but it does not stimulate bankers to lend to or invest in American businesses. The $867 billion stimulus package allocated more to plugging state government deficits than proving opportunities to private business. Shutting down Gulf coast offshore drilling for six months may play well with the environments, but it does not help the hundreds of thousands of employees who lose their jobs as a result.
07/27/10
Virtues of the Individual
There are certain economic systems that promote the virtues of the individual more so than others. Although, at a certain level there will always be people at the top who succeed, there will always be another set of people on the economic fringe who are more vulnerable to the economic systems in which they live and work in. And, just as well, there will always be individuals who occupy the lower strata of the economic stratosphere that have little or no hope of obtaining a higher standard of living; either out of circumstances that are outside of their control or out of their upholding of a value system which keeps them there. So, in order to accurately access the value system of competing economic frameworks it is best to look at those on the fringe of either becoming something great or continuing in mediocrity.
Two hundred years from now capitalism and free markets will still be the best economic system to promote economic virtues of the individual. But can the same be said for any country fortunate enough to be founded on free market principals and foolish enough to follow a path of abandonment?
Virtues of the Individual
There are certain economic systems that promote the virtues of the individual more so than others. Although, at a certain level there will always be people at the top who succeed, there will always be another set of people on the economic fringe who are more vulnerable to the economic systems in which they live and work in. And, just as well, there will always be individuals who occupy the lower strata of the economic stratosphere that have little or no hope of obtaining a higher standard of living; either out of circumstances that are outside of their control or out of their upholding of a value system which keeps them there. So, in order to accurately access the value system of competing economic frameworks it is best to look at those on the fringe of either becoming something great or continuing in mediocrity.
Two hundred years from now capitalism and free markets will still be the best economic system to promote economic virtues of the individual. But can the same be said for any country fortunate enough to be founded on free market principals and foolish enough to follow a path of abandonment?
07/26/10
Who are They?
It's hot outside. Too hot for a summer stroll or any sort of outdoor activity. So yesterday morning, I settled in for some riveting Sunday talk show action.
Aside from the usual histrionics surrounding the Sherrod racial episode and the necessary dialogues on race the mainstream media feels compelled to hold every other month just so it can sleep well at nights, the latest argument to follow in Washington is what to do over the expiring Bush tax cuts.
Specifically, in a matter of months, the tax rate cuts President Bush and the Republican-led Congress pushed through in 2001 are set to expire, returning the top bracket to its 39.6% rate up from today's 35%.
I laughed out loud when talking heads such as Sam Donaldson of ABC News dismissively said of those who would be affected, They don't need the money. They won't miss it. Then others cackled in unison on the various shows. Talks of them and they and occasionally, the disdain in the pundits' voices of the mega wealthy.
So just who are these folks that Donaldson and others refer to as they? I presume these journalists-turned-social judges are referring to top 1% earners in America, particularly those making over $250,000 as a family.
Folks, in Washington, DC and other major urban areas, that's a lot of money, but it's not mega wealthy. It might surprise our president that $250k jumps up real quickly, even for two GS-14 federal employees here in town. Would the labor unions really like to see federal workers be referred to as the uber wealthy?
I'd wager that Sam Donaldson and many of his colleagues fall into the richest Americans category themselves. Yet how come we never hear of Sam saying, I'd be willing to pay more for…? He won't, because it undermines the value of his point and those like him if prime time journalists start referring to themselves as part of this elite income class. There's something surly about that, and prevents them from attacking said profiteers.
If they remain silent, they can parrot the Marxist rhetoric of Speaker Pelosi and others when referring to Wall Street bankers who cashed in million-plus bonuses. Yes, those payouts do occur. But it's more the exception than the rule.
Think about it. Most of us know of at least 2-3 families who may make close to $250,000 in income. But many can't name a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet just down the street in their neighborhood.
The point here is the mainstream politicians and media elites love to live in glass houses and throw stones at the folks in bigger glass houses, disregarding the glass while fixating on their relative size.
What apologists such as Donaldson fail to realize is that many small business owners, for example, don't pay corporate income taxes. Their businesses aren't big enough or structured that way. Instead, they earn millions on the books and are pushed into the highest individual tax brackets.
How will that spur investment and job creation? Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said yesterday that tax hikes on the richest Americans will have a negligible negative impact on this economic recovery. If I were advising President Obama, I'd fire him before some USDA employee. This is the same cabinet member who told a congressional panel he was an expert on the Great Depression, yet still managed to keep us in the ditch of America's Great Recession.
It's time to stop the politics of pronouns and start putting a face on they. It might surprise all of us that those individuals are the same ones we sat next to in church yesterday, and they don't deserve what Obama wants to give them.
Who are They?
It's hot outside. Too hot for a summer stroll or any sort of outdoor activity. So yesterday morning, I settled in for some riveting Sunday talk show action.
Aside from the usual histrionics surrounding the Sherrod racial episode and the necessary dialogues on race the mainstream media feels compelled to hold every other month just so it can sleep well at nights, the latest argument to follow in Washington is what to do over the expiring Bush tax cuts.
Specifically, in a matter of months, the tax rate cuts President Bush and the Republican-led Congress pushed through in 2001 are set to expire, returning the top bracket to its 39.6% rate up from today's 35%.
I laughed out loud when talking heads such as Sam Donaldson of ABC News dismissively said of those who would be affected, They don't need the money. They won't miss it. Then others cackled in unison on the various shows. Talks of them and they and occasionally, the disdain in the pundits' voices of the mega wealthy.
So just who are these folks that Donaldson and others refer to as they? I presume these journalists-turned-social judges are referring to top 1% earners in America, particularly those making over $250,000 as a family.
Folks, in Washington, DC and other major urban areas, that's a lot of money, but it's not mega wealthy. It might surprise our president that $250k jumps up real quickly, even for two GS-14 federal employees here in town. Would the labor unions really like to see federal workers be referred to as the uber wealthy?
I'd wager that Sam Donaldson and many of his colleagues fall into the richest Americans category themselves. Yet how come we never hear of Sam saying, I'd be willing to pay more for…? He won't, because it undermines the value of his point and those like him if prime time journalists start referring to themselves as part of this elite income class. There's something surly about that, and prevents them from attacking said profiteers.
If they remain silent, they can parrot the Marxist rhetoric of Speaker Pelosi and others when referring to Wall Street bankers who cashed in million-plus bonuses. Yes, those payouts do occur. But it's more the exception than the rule.
Think about it. Most of us know of at least 2-3 families who may make close to $250,000 in income. But many can't name a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet just down the street in their neighborhood.
The point here is the mainstream politicians and media elites love to live in glass houses and throw stones at the folks in bigger glass houses, disregarding the glass while fixating on their relative size.
What apologists such as Donaldson fail to realize is that many small business owners, for example, don't pay corporate income taxes. Their businesses aren't big enough or structured that way. Instead, they earn millions on the books and are pushed into the highest individual tax brackets.
How will that spur investment and job creation? Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said yesterday that tax hikes on the richest Americans will have a negligible negative impact on this economic recovery. If I were advising President Obama, I'd fire him before some USDA employee. This is the same cabinet member who told a congressional panel he was an expert on the Great Depression, yet still managed to keep us in the ditch of America's Great Recession.
It's time to stop the politics of pronouns and start putting a face on they. It might surprise all of us that those individuals are the same ones we sat next to in church yesterday, and they don't deserve what Obama wants to give them.
07/23/10
Final Thoughts on the New Racist in America
The ease with which the NAACP and other organizations dismiss the Tea Party debate by crying racismand the vitriol reserved for those Black Americans who deigned to disagreetells us that the same old racial fault lines remain in this country. While racial discrimination is nowhere near the insurmountable barrier it once was, we still can't seem to get beyond the same old paradigms: Blacks must support the Democrats and anyone who thinks otherwise is labeled a racist--something we've seen reprised in recent months regarding Obama.
Why is it that White Americas are allowed to embrace political diversity and to come to their own conclusions about issues, but black Americans MUST move in lock-step with the Democrats? This refusal to allow the black populace to embrace diversity of political thought can only be described as racist.
In many ways, this form of racism is more insidious than the racism of the pastbecause it is more subtle. Whereas once racists marched down our streets in hoods, now they simply make us feel a terrible sense of guilt for even considering our political options. Even worse, many of our so-called civil rights leaders are willing participants in this subtle form of mind control.
Sadly, many of our so-called civil rights leaders have built their careers around convincing large segments of the black voting populace that they are forever victims of slavery. This is how they came to power in the 50's and 60's, and they continue to cling to this outdated message in order to secure their power. These old-school black politicians fatten themselves by feeding the black voting populace a steady diet of fear and victimization. To these leaders, nothing could be scarier than a black Republican because it threatens all of the assumptions that they rely upon in order to stay in office.
Final Thoughts on the New Racist in America
The ease with which the NAACP and other organizations dismiss the Tea Party debate by crying racismand the vitriol reserved for those Black Americans who deigned to disagreetells us that the same old racial fault lines remain in this country. While racial discrimination is nowhere near the insurmountable barrier it once was, we still can't seem to get beyond the same old paradigms: Blacks must support the Democrats and anyone who thinks otherwise is labeled a racist--something we've seen reprised in recent months regarding Obama.
Why is it that White Americas are allowed to embrace political diversity and to come to their own conclusions about issues, but black Americans MUST move in lock-step with the Democrats? This refusal to allow the black populace to embrace diversity of political thought can only be described as racist.
In many ways, this form of racism is more insidious than the racism of the pastbecause it is more subtle. Whereas once racists marched down our streets in hoods, now they simply make us feel a terrible sense of guilt for even considering our political options. Even worse, many of our so-called civil rights leaders are willing participants in this subtle form of mind control.
Sadly, many of our so-called civil rights leaders have built their careers around convincing large segments of the black voting populace that they are forever victims of slavery. This is how they came to power in the 50's and 60's, and they continue to cling to this outdated message in order to secure their power. These old-school black politicians fatten themselves by feeding the black voting populace a steady diet of fear and victimization. To these leaders, nothing could be scarier than a black Republican because it threatens all of the assumptions that they rely upon in order to stay in office.
07/22/10
A White House consumed with race
For the life of me, I can't understand this White House when it comes to racial politics. They just can't seem to leave well enough alone. As if the incident between Harvard professor Henry Gates, Jr. and a Boston police officer didn't teach this administration enough about trying to show the country just how wise this president is when it comes to singling out black/white episodes and imposing his own brand of justice, we now have yet another one. This time, the zeal to uncover an injustice when nothing existed has trickled down to the Department of Agriculture.
By now, Hill blog readers are familiar with the story involving ousted USDA official Shirley Sherrod for comments she allegedly made regarding not doing enough to help white farmers seeking federal assistance. "What [the farmer] didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was," Sherrod was recorded as saying in a recent speech to the NAACP,(which is an arm of the DNC) "I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him."
It was later learned her comments were taken out of context, but not before conservatives and liberals alike used the vignette to score points on both sides of the racial divide. Many groups didn't bother to learn all the facts before hurling accusations. The Democratic Party's NAACP was against Sherrod before they were for her. They should know better; after all, she did speak at one of their functions. Even White House press secretary Gibbs admonished the media for not asking the right questions, paternally claiming this to be a "teachable moment" for all involved. Please. It was this same administration that, just hours before, had to eat crow and apologize to Sherrod for running her out of her job on a rail so quickly her head was spinning.
If the White House was so measured in its approach, then why the need for the Agriculture Secretary himself to call Sherrod personally to apologize? Didn't the White House learn its own lesson months before with Boston? Just who was teaching who, Mr. Gibbs??
The point here is: this episode was more about questionable fact-gathering and amateur journalism more than the ugly face of racism. Yet it's symptomatic of a White House that is utterly consumed with race and all things racial. They see virtually everything through that prism, even when criticizing the other party through the likes of RNC Chair Michael Steele. It's to the point where it's clearly distracting and often embarrassing. I'd like to think the president and his team will learn from this mistake, but maybe the third time's the charm when it comes to race-baiting.
A White House consumed with race
For the life of me, I can't understand this White House when it comes to racial politics. They just can't seem to leave well enough alone. As if the incident between Harvard professor Henry Gates, Jr. and a Boston police officer didn't teach this administration enough about trying to show the country just how wise this president is when it comes to singling out black/white episodes and imposing his own brand of justice, we now have yet another one. This time, the zeal to uncover an injustice when nothing existed has trickled down to the Department of Agriculture.
By now, Hill blog readers are familiar with the story involving ousted USDA official Shirley Sherrod for comments she allegedly made regarding not doing enough to help white farmers seeking federal assistance. "What [the farmer] didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was," Sherrod was recorded as saying in a recent speech to the NAACP,(which is an arm of the DNC) "I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him."
It was later learned her comments were taken out of context, but not before conservatives and liberals alike used the vignette to score points on both sides of the racial divide. Many groups didn't bother to learn all the facts before hurling accusations. The Democratic Party's NAACP was against Sherrod before they were for her. They should know better; after all, she did speak at one of their functions. Even White House press secretary Gibbs admonished the media for not asking the right questions, paternally claiming this to be a "teachable moment" for all involved. Please. It was this same administration that, just hours before, had to eat crow and apologize to Sherrod for running her out of her job on a rail so quickly her head was spinning.
If the White House was so measured in its approach, then why the need for the Agriculture Secretary himself to call Sherrod personally to apologize? Didn't the White House learn its own lesson months before with Boston? Just who was teaching who, Mr. Gibbs??
The point here is: this episode was more about questionable fact-gathering and amateur journalism more than the ugly face of racism. Yet it's symptomatic of a White House that is utterly consumed with race and all things racial. They see virtually everything through that prism, even when criticizing the other party through the likes of RNC Chair Michael Steele. It's to the point where it's clearly distracting and often embarrassing. I'd like to think the president and his team will learn from this mistake, but maybe the third time's the charm when it comes to race-baiting.
07/21/10
Russia, An Embarrassing Democracy?
An inside look at Russia might cause quite a scare. Set aside the fact that the Kremlin has adopted its own form of heavy-handed government in the past 15 years. Jailing the country's top entrepreneurs and private owners on trumped-up charges, followed by shuttering the major news outlets throughout the land. These aren't exactly laudable examples of a flourishing democracy in the East, let alone one of representative government.
Just recently, Russian prosecutors attacked the organizers of an art exhibition in Moscow for blasphemy. The prosecutors, who are part of a group of religious militant fundamentalists, are challenging the dynamic in Russia; from between a more militant church ruled state to a more secular one. The accused are looking at possibly facing three years of jail time for their exploits in creative freedom due to the offense of debasing the religious beliefs of citizens and inciting religious hatred. Although one would expect this activity to go on in developing countries, and the West hundreds of years ago, it does strike fear that a supposed world power would still be engaging in this type of activity in modern times.
Russia, An Embarrassing Democracy?
An inside look at Russia might cause quite a scare. Set aside the fact that the Kremlin has adopted its own form of heavy-handed government in the past 15 years. Jailing the country's top entrepreneurs and private owners on trumped-up charges, followed by shuttering the major news outlets throughout the land. These aren't exactly laudable examples of a flourishing democracy in the East, let alone one of representative government.
Just recently, Russian prosecutors attacked the organizers of an art exhibition in Moscow for blasphemy. The prosecutors, who are part of a group of religious militant fundamentalists, are challenging the dynamic in Russia; from between a more militant church ruled state to a more secular one. The accused are looking at possibly facing three years of jail time for their exploits in creative freedom due to the offense of debasing the religious beliefs of citizens and inciting religious hatred. Although one would expect this activity to go on in developing countries, and the West hundreds of years ago, it does strike fear that a supposed world power would still be engaging in this type of activity in modern times.
07/20/10
Good Laws and Regulations
Thomas Paine, the great American freedom fighter, echoed the common sentiment among Americans that government is a necessary evil in a society of free men.
Because the laws governing society have become so complex, ordinary people often feel helplessly lost and feel they have to rely on experts just to perform basic, ordinary functions as citizens. Laws governing the voting process require proof of identification that can be difficult to obtain. The system of taxation has become opaque, fuzzy and susceptible to all forms of trickery and abuse. Small business owners find themselves bound by a mind-numbing set of regulations that impede the basic economic engine of our country from growing, stifle innovation, and discourage the entrepreneurial spirit.
And our members of Congress have succumbed to the self-serving and amoral dictum, when fighting to fund this or that worthless project, that it's going to be spent somewhere, so why not in my district? We certainly have lowered the standard for what's right and wrong, haven't we? In no small part because the laws are so complex and self-contradictory that we've almost been left with no other way to look at moral matters.
Good Laws and Regulations
Thomas Paine, the great American freedom fighter, echoed the common sentiment among Americans that government is a necessary evil in a society of free men.
Because the laws governing society have become so complex, ordinary people often feel helplessly lost and feel they have to rely on experts just to perform basic, ordinary functions as citizens. Laws governing the voting process require proof of identification that can be difficult to obtain. The system of taxation has become opaque, fuzzy and susceptible to all forms of trickery and abuse. Small business owners find themselves bound by a mind-numbing set of regulations that impede the basic economic engine of our country from growing, stifle innovation, and discourage the entrepreneurial spirit.
And our members of Congress have succumbed to the self-serving and amoral dictum, when fighting to fund this or that worthless project, that it's going to be spent somewhere, so why not in my district? We certainly have lowered the standard for what's right and wrong, haven't we? In no small part because the laws are so complex and self-contradictory that we've almost been left with no other way to look at moral matters.
07/18/10
Pelosi's delusional moment
Speaker Pelosi has never been one to shy away from outrageous and illogical comments; some to the point where it seems like she just rolled out of bed and decided she was going to say the first thing on her mind.
However, when Pelosi recently suggested that she wanted to extend unemployment benefits in attempts to stimulate job growth, she had me doubtfully re-reading her comments to see if I had them right.
Is the Speaker really in hopes that people will take their unemployment checks and spend money with it? There's no doubt that people getting an unemployment check is more beneficial to the economy than not having a check at all. But does our nation really want an economy that is artificially propped up by a government program that essentially siphoned tax dollars from hardworking Americans?
I have to imagine no one on the Speaker's staff bothered to contact any experts on this statement. Ask any behavioral economist about this policy idea and they'll tell you it can't be sustained, and it's terrible policy. Smaller checks with inherent disincentives to work and somehow that will stimulate job growth? For whom?
The only job growth Pelosi's idea seems to help stimulate is her own. I reckon Pelosi and the Democrats feel they can't possibly turn this economy around in time for November's elections, so they'll just throw more money at them in hopes the masses will continue to be confused and numb to their poor-minded ways.
Does anyone not see this charade for what it is? Why would anyone go out and pursue a job, when they can just sit at home and collect benefits. If America is to maintain its economic dominance in the world we must recapture the can-do spirit instead of the, what can you do for me spirit.
Pelosi's delusional moment
Speaker Pelosi has never been one to shy away from outrageous and illogical comments; some to the point where it seems like she just rolled out of bed and decided she was going to say the first thing on her mind.
However, when Pelosi recently suggested that she wanted to extend unemployment benefits in attempts to stimulate job growth, she had me doubtfully re-reading her comments to see if I had them right.
Is the Speaker really in hopes that people will take their unemployment checks and spend money with it? There's no doubt that people getting an unemployment check is more beneficial to the economy than not having a check at all. But does our nation really want an economy that is artificially propped up by a government program that essentially siphoned tax dollars from hardworking Americans?
I have to imagine no one on the Speaker's staff bothered to contact any experts on this statement. Ask any behavioral economist about this policy idea and they'll tell you it can't be sustained, and it's terrible policy. Smaller checks with inherent disincentives to work and somehow that will stimulate job growth? For whom?
The only job growth Pelosi's idea seems to help stimulate is her own. I reckon Pelosi and the Democrats feel they can't possibly turn this economy around in time for November's elections, so they'll just throw more money at them in hopes the masses will continue to be confused and numb to their poor-minded ways.
Does anyone not see this charade for what it is? Why would anyone go out and pursue a job, when they can just sit at home and collect benefits. If America is to maintain its economic dominance in the world we must recapture the can-do spirit instead of the, what can you do for me spirit.
07/15/10
Republican party must rescue blacks from the Democratic plantation.
The modern Republican Party has utterly failed to effectively reach out to the Black community. This failure is most clear at the grass roots level where Republicans have not done enough to make clear to American Blacks that they understand their problems, care about their problems, and have solutions to their problems.
By contrast, about one-quarter of the membership of the Democratic National Committee is black. This strong representation within the party facilitates more hiring and elected representation of American blacks in government at every level and creates a positive ripple effect throughout the community. A black politician, for example, may maintain close associations with other black community figures such as ministers, teachers, entrepreneurs, and union officials. These interlocking relationships proclaim to American blacks that they are part of the Democratic Party.
Over the past three decades, the Republican Party has abysmally failed to offer any kind of grass roots counterbalance. Consequently, the Republican Party has failed to reestablish itself as a credible option among minority voters. Without this basic, grass roots credibility, the Republican Party will never recapture the black vote and save them from the Democratic plantation mentality.
You see, in a democracy, establishing credibility with the voting populace is even more critical than the issues themselves.
Republican party must rescue blacks from the Democratic plantation.
The modern Republican Party has utterly failed to effectively reach out to the Black community. This failure is most clear at the grass roots level where Republicans have not done enough to make clear to American Blacks that they understand their problems, care about their problems, and have solutions to their problems.
By contrast, about one-quarter of the membership of the Democratic National Committee is black. This strong representation within the party facilitates more hiring and elected representation of American blacks in government at every level and creates a positive ripple effect throughout the community. A black politician, for example, may maintain close associations with other black community figures such as ministers, teachers, entrepreneurs, and union officials. These interlocking relationships proclaim to American blacks that they are part of the Democratic Party.
Over the past three decades, the Republican Party has abysmally failed to offer any kind of grass roots counterbalance. Consequently, the Republican Party has failed to reestablish itself as a credible option among minority voters. Without this basic, grass roots credibility, the Republican Party will never recapture the black vote and save them from the Democratic plantation mentality.
You see, in a democracy, establishing credibility with the voting populace is even more critical than the issues themselves.
07/14/10
Kagan vote delayed
Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, questioned Supreme Court nominee Kagan on a series of notes that she had written while serving as a political advisor in the Clinton administration. On one page, Kagan scribbled that a proposed ban on soft money donations would affects Repubs, not Dems! McConnell rightly seized on these documents to question whether Ms. Kagan's work in the Clinton White House reveals a woman who was committed to advancing a political agenda a woman who was less concerned about objectively analyzing the law than the ways in which the law could be used to advance a political goal. For this, McConnell was savaged in most liberal news outlets.
This marks quite a shocking turn of events. Just remember the chilling fire Janice Rodgers Brown was consumed by when she was nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Senate Judiciary Committee was poignantly ruthless in their attack against her; which seemed much more personal than anything else.
Janice Rodgers Brown is a woman who is willing to uphold the principles of this country that she so stringently embraces. She was uninhibitedly attacked for her suggestion that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal infected the public with an underground collectivist mentality. Pundits accuse her of being a backward thinking woman who was turning her back on her own race –and Democratic Pundits didn't stop there.
I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with this. As I remember it, Janice Rodgers Brown was on the fringe of removing herself from the highly coveted position. Yet, she found miraculous strength to face an award winning vicious attack by the opposition. This is the type of leaders that America is known for and deserves.
The bottom line is that Americans eagerly desire to understand what politicians are craftily trying to slip past them. We have had enough of the deceit. And believe that everyone, whether ally or opposition, if put into a position of power residing over the American people, should be forced to answer the tough questions. If you can't answer them, then gracefully bow out!
Kagan vote delayed
Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, questioned Supreme Court nominee Kagan on a series of notes that she had written while serving as a political advisor in the Clinton administration. On one page, Kagan scribbled that a proposed ban on soft money donations would affects Repubs, not Dems! McConnell rightly seized on these documents to question whether Ms. Kagan's work in the Clinton White House reveals a woman who was committed to advancing a political agenda a woman who was less concerned about objectively analyzing the law than the ways in which the law could be used to advance a political goal. For this, McConnell was savaged in most liberal news outlets.
This marks quite a shocking turn of events. Just remember the chilling fire Janice Rodgers Brown was consumed by when she was nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Senate Judiciary Committee was poignantly ruthless in their attack against her; which seemed much more personal than anything else.
Janice Rodgers Brown is a woman who is willing to uphold the principles of this country that she so stringently embraces. She was uninhibitedly attacked for her suggestion that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal infected the public with an underground collectivist mentality. Pundits accuse her of being a backward thinking woman who was turning her back on her own race –and Democratic Pundits didn't stop there.
I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with this. As I remember it, Janice Rodgers Brown was on the fringe of removing herself from the highly coveted position. Yet, she found miraculous strength to face an award winning vicious attack by the opposition. This is the type of leaders that America is known for and deserves.
The bottom line is that Americans eagerly desire to understand what politicians are craftily trying to slip past them. We have had enough of the deceit. And believe that everyone, whether ally or opposition, if put into a position of power residing over the American people, should be forced to answer the tough questions. If you can't answer them, then gracefully bow out!
07/13/10
Sad Day for America
The NAACP is expected to approve a resolution on today condemning the Tea Party movement for "explicitly racist behavior." I would require a flow chart to explain all of the ways that this is wrong. For starters, the mere act of criticizing a black president is not racist. Nor is it racist to raise to public consciousness to the very important issues of spiraling debt, misguided bailouts, and a series of social policies that may bankrupt the country. The country benefits from uninhibited discussion about these serious issues. Very simply, when movements--Tea Party or otherwise--openly debate these issues, the truth rises up. When the NAACP labels and dismisses the Tea Party as racists, it has a chilling effect on this important debate. As a result, the national dialogue is stifled.
It is sad that the nation's oldest and most revered civil rights organization has been so co-opted by the Democrats that use the racism epithet to chill political discussion, rather than engage opposing viewpoints on the merits. Please understand, I have the utmost respect for the NAACP. But I cannot ignore the simple fact that the issues supported by the Tea Party relate principally to smaller government, lower taxes, less government debt, enforcing the immigration laws and more individual freedom. These issues have nothing to do with abridging the rights and dignity of African Americans. By pretending otherwise, the NAACP has willingly allowed itself to be co-opted by the Democratic party. Even more alarming, they risk turning the word racist into a proxy for someone whose politics you disagree with.
Sad Day for America
The NAACP is expected to approve a resolution on today condemning the Tea Party movement for "explicitly racist behavior." I would require a flow chart to explain all of the ways that this is wrong. For starters, the mere act of criticizing a black president is not racist. Nor is it racist to raise to public consciousness to the very important issues of spiraling debt, misguided bailouts, and a series of social policies that may bankrupt the country. The country benefits from uninhibited discussion about these serious issues. Very simply, when movements--Tea Party or otherwise--openly debate these issues, the truth rises up. When the NAACP labels and dismisses the Tea Party as racists, it has a chilling effect on this important debate. As a result, the national dialogue is stifled.
It is sad that the nation's oldest and most revered civil rights organization has been so co-opted by the Democrats that use the racism epithet to chill political discussion, rather than engage opposing viewpoints on the merits. Please understand, I have the utmost respect for the NAACP. But I cannot ignore the simple fact that the issues supported by the Tea Party relate principally to smaller government, lower taxes, less government debt, enforcing the immigration laws and more individual freedom. These issues have nothing to do with abridging the rights and dignity of African Americans. By pretending otherwise, the NAACP has willingly allowed itself to be co-opted by the Democratic party. Even more alarming, they risk turning the word racist into a proxy for someone whose politics you disagree with.
07/12/10
A World Cup win for South Africa
Sports has a unique way of bringing out the best in humans. Beyond the sheer sense of competition, merit and sportsmanship, major events on the world stage seem to bring nations together in some ritualistic bond of community. A common language is shared, no matter the winner. The 2010 FIFA World Cup tournament was no different.
Only 6 other teams have tasted World Cup victory. Yesterday marked the seventh, as Spain secured a hard-fought victory over the Netherlands to win its first title. And while only 86,000 fans watched the tournament in person in South Africa, over 700 million individuals across the globe tuned in for this final game. All told, tournament hosts predict that some 38 billion will have watched some or all of the games from the first to final rounds. Those numbers alone should give you a sense of that community I mentioned above, and to have it all play out on the stage of a country, a continent, that is mired in poverty and economic blight is all the better.
While many football (soccer for you non-fans out there) connoisseurs were disappointed in the sloppy play during yesterday's finale of Spain versus the Netherlands, kudos should be given to the host country for its flawless execution of the World Cup games.
Not only does the tourney put South Africa on the map, the economic impact will be felt for years. During the 1994 World Cup in the U.S. that finished in Los Angeles, for example, the city collected $624 million in total revenues. To put that into perspective, the Super Bowl that year netted only $183 million. Consider that 80% of all sponsorships in Africa are sports related, and one begins to understand that South Africa, and the larger continent, will see a nice economic shot in the arm.
You can bet that Spain won't be the only nation celebrating tonight. South Africa and its people should be proud of the tournament they hosted. In one of sport's grandest events, the nation clearly stepped up and delivered.
A World Cup win for South Africa
Sports has a unique way of bringing out the best in humans. Beyond the sheer sense of competition, merit and sportsmanship, major events on the world stage seem to bring nations together in some ritualistic bond of community. A common language is shared, no matter the winner. The 2010 FIFA World Cup tournament was no different.
Only 6 other teams have tasted World Cup victory. Yesterday marked the seventh, as Spain secured a hard-fought victory over the Netherlands to win its first title. And while only 86,000 fans watched the tournament in person in South Africa, over 700 million individuals across the globe tuned in for this final game. All told, tournament hosts predict that some 38 billion will have watched some or all of the games from the first to final rounds. Those numbers alone should give you a sense of that community I mentioned above, and to have it all play out on the stage of a country, a continent, that is mired in poverty and economic blight is all the better.
While many football (soccer for you non-fans out there) connoisseurs were disappointed in the sloppy play during yesterday's finale of Spain versus the Netherlands, kudos should be given to the host country for its flawless execution of the World Cup games.
Not only does the tourney put South Africa on the map, the economic impact will be felt for years. During the 1994 World Cup in the U.S. that finished in Los Angeles, for example, the city collected $624 million in total revenues. To put that into perspective, the Super Bowl that year netted only $183 million. Consider that 80% of all sponsorships in Africa are sports related, and one begins to understand that South Africa, and the larger continent, will see a nice economic shot in the arm.
You can bet that Spain won't be the only nation celebrating tonight. South Africa and its people should be proud of the tournament they hosted. In one of sport's grandest events, the nation clearly stepped up and delivered.
07/09/10
To Russia with (no) love
Yesterday's sentencing and immediate deportation of 10 suburban Russian spies has me hot under the collar. At first, I actually started to believe what Moscow was saying when the spies were initially caught - that this was all a major misunderstanding blown out of proportion. Why else would it take the FBI a full 10 years to dig up anything on these mild-mannered strangers, and even then, no formal charges of direct espionage and spying in the Cold War sense were ever leveled.
Even the Russians made us all look and feel a little foolish with our decoder-like accusations, immediately and incredulously criticizing our "police" as trigger happy keystone cops.
I guess I wanted to believe the Russians weren't so bold as to actively spy on our shores regarding items that many felt could have been collected via the Internet. That they had learned their lesson from the Cold War -- America had kicked some serious Russkie butt, and they never wanted to repeat the mistakes of their failed, centralized form of government. But boy, was I wrong.
These folks mean business. And they still see the United States as Enemy #1. And here we are as Americans, quietly going about our business, but not before we make sure we get our fair share in some sort of back-room swap. Just who are the four we're trading the Russian 10 for? I think we have a right to know.
There are far larger implications here. Set aside the fact that the Kremlin has adopted its own form of heavy-handed government in the past 15 years. Jailing the country's top entrepreneurs and private owners on trumped-up charges, followed by shuttering the major news outlets throughout the land. These aren't exactly laudable examples of a flourishing democracy in the East, let alone one of representative government.
What worries me most are Russia's "friends." Who's to say that the Iranians aren't behind this in some twisted way? Or perhaps even Venezuela's Chavez? He's so moronic, there's no way his country could implant foreign agents on U.S. soil. But old habits die hard with Soviets. This is less about trying to warm otherwise frosty relations with Russia's leadership, and more about concerns our intelligence agencies should have with these latest discoveries.
Our country's leaders would serve themselves and its citizens well if they chose not to see this spy case as an isolated occurrence.
To Russia with (no) love
Yesterday's sentencing and immediate deportation of 10 suburban Russian spies has me hot under the collar. At first, I actually started to believe what Moscow was saying when the spies were initially caught - that this was all a major misunderstanding blown out of proportion. Why else would it take the FBI a full 10 years to dig up anything on these mild-mannered strangers, and even then, no formal charges of direct espionage and spying in the Cold War sense were ever leveled.
Even the Russians made us all look and feel a little foolish with our decoder-like accusations, immediately and incredulously criticizing our "police" as trigger happy keystone cops.
I guess I wanted to believe the Russians weren't so bold as to actively spy on our shores regarding items that many felt could have been collected via the Internet. That they had learned their lesson from the Cold War -- America had kicked some serious Russkie butt, and they never wanted to repeat the mistakes of their failed, centralized form of government. But boy, was I wrong.
These folks mean business. And they still see the United States as Enemy #1. And here we are as Americans, quietly going about our business, but not before we make sure we get our fair share in some sort of back-room swap. Just who are the four we're trading the Russian 10 for? I think we have a right to know.
There are far larger implications here. Set aside the fact that the Kremlin has adopted its own form of heavy-handed government in the past 15 years. Jailing the country's top entrepreneurs and private owners on trumped-up charges, followed by shuttering the major news outlets throughout the land. These aren't exactly laudable examples of a flourishing democracy in the East, let alone one of representative government.
What worries me most are Russia's "friends." Who's to say that the Iranians aren't behind this in some twisted way? Or perhaps even Venezuela's Chavez? He's so moronic, there's no way his country could implant foreign agents on U.S. soil. But old habits die hard with Soviets. This is less about trying to warm otherwise frosty relations with Russia's leadership, and more about concerns our intelligence agencies should have with these latest discoveries.
Our country's leaders would serve themselves and its citizens well if they chose not to see this spy case as an isolated occurrence.
07/08/10
Empty Promises
President Obama, the American people are still waiting for meaningful results from the grandiose plans you so eloquently and deceptively articulated to the public. However, there is no rhetoric that you can smoothly deliver, nor enough tele-prompters that can fabricate the results you have promised. "All bark and no bite," has ever sounded truer over the past months. Where is the changed you have promised? I'm sharing the sentiments of many Americans when I say "the numbers don't lie.
Why has no one seen you or Vice President Joe Biden at a health care clinic lately touting the new benefits that began to go into effect this month? July marked the beginning of several goodies of the new reform law before all the tax hike pain comes later, and yet, very little, if any, national attention was created by your bully pulpit.
The Obama administration is basing the future of its now-tenuous grip on power on pure chance. The White House's forecasters can't tell you when the economy will rebound, but when it does, they're ready to take the credit. On health care, it's difficult to say if a major new entitlement will slow the rate of inflation and actually cover millions of uninsured, but don't fret. They have a good feeling about this one. Why? Well, it's the only option lawmakers haven't tried. On financial regulatory reform, it's unclear if the new law will work because Tim Geithner still isn't sure if Treasury properly diagnosed the 2008 crash.
Empty Promises
President Obama, the American people are still waiting for meaningful results from the grandiose plans you so eloquently and deceptively articulated to the public. However, there is no rhetoric that you can smoothly deliver, nor enough tele-prompters that can fabricate the results you have promised. "All bark and no bite," has ever sounded truer over the past months. Where is the changed you have promised? I'm sharing the sentiments of many Americans when I say "the numbers don't lie.
Why has no one seen you or Vice President Joe Biden at a health care clinic lately touting the new benefits that began to go into effect this month? July marked the beginning of several goodies of the new reform law before all the tax hike pain comes later, and yet, very little, if any, national attention was created by your bully pulpit.
The Obama administration is basing the future of its now-tenuous grip on power on pure chance. The White House's forecasters can't tell you when the economy will rebound, but when it does, they're ready to take the credit. On health care, it's difficult to say if a major new entitlement will slow the rate of inflation and actually cover millions of uninsured, but don't fret. They have a good feeling about this one. Why? Well, it's the only option lawmakers haven't tried. On financial regulatory reform, it's unclear if the new law will work because Tim Geithner still isn't sure if Treasury properly diagnosed the 2008 crash.
07/07/10
Being Responsible
If Americans do not like the way business leaders allocate national resources by following the impartial rules of the market economy, they should consider the alternative -power hungry government bureaucrats and politicians. The politicians and bureaucrats allocate resources arbitrarily rather than by the impartial invisible hand of the free market and do not create additional income or wealth in the process. On the other hand, business leaders make decisions based on the free market which reflects the decisions of millions of individual participants making economic decisions in their own best interest. The system works because individuals assume responsibility for themselves. If there is no incentive to benefit from the fruits of your labor or disincentive to suffer from indolence or risky behavior, why bother working at all? So that others may benefit? Most people are not built that way.
Being Responsible
If Americans do not like the way business leaders allocate national resources by following the impartial rules of the market economy, they should consider the alternative -power hungry government bureaucrats and politicians. The politicians and bureaucrats allocate resources arbitrarily rather than by the impartial invisible hand of the free market and do not create additional income or wealth in the process. On the other hand, business leaders make decisions based on the free market which reflects the decisions of millions of individual participants making economic decisions in their own best interest. The system works because individuals assume responsibility for themselves. If there is no incentive to benefit from the fruits of your labor or disincentive to suffer from indolence or risky behavior, why bother working at all? So that others may benefit? Most people are not built that way.
07/06/10
The running foe the bears
Has anyone checked the Dow lately? I realize that's the worst piece of advice a broker or financial planner would give to clients these days. When times are tough and the economy is on the mend, most analysts will tell you to take a vacation away from your stock portfolio until you have a good reason to look at it again.
But the NYSE closed Monday once again under 10,000. In fact, it's hovering around 9,700 and trending in the wrong direction. I had to chuckle last week when the Dow tipped up a few percentage points on news Congress had passed a sweeping financial services overhaul. Many in the media said that was because financial institutions such as banks would now have some sense of direction as to how their industry would be regulated. Yet like many policies of this administration, the security and sense of direction lasted about as long as a teen-induced sugar high.
The market is trying to tell us something folks! This economy is headed in the wrong direction. And no matter how hard he tries, Obama can no longer lay this at the doorstep of his predecessor. I know every morning, the Administration has some intern who scours the papers just for the current mess du jour. More governing by victimization…
To be more specific, our private sector (the true job creators) is still reeling. It's struggling under the crushing weight of impending fixed costs such as health care, higher wage pressures, more reporting requirements and fewer incentives for innovation. Even with the dollar rising against foreign currencies such as the euro and China's modest actions last month, the bears still run Wall Street.
If such moves were part of a larger correction that many analysts say was needed, then I would be less apt to point a finger at the White House. But such market fixes should have taken place months ago. What we have here today is more tinkering by federal fiat. If anyone outside Washington actually believed Congress's steps through overhaul last week would yield any positive benefits, then forecasts for Q3 and Q4 of this year would be far better. And still, they are not.
As I've said before in this column, an economist I am not. But I do know that one of the single largest indicators of the economic health of this nation is hemorrhaging. The Dow, and our nation's critical private sector, needs help. The longer the White House views the private sector as some harem of fat cat capitalists, the more our workers will be out of long-term jobs.
The running foe the bears
Has anyone checked the Dow lately? I realize that's the worst piece of advice a broker or financial planner would give to clients these days. When times are tough and the economy is on the mend, most analysts will tell you to take a vacation away from your stock portfolio until you have a good reason to look at it again.
But the NYSE closed Monday once again under 10,000. In fact, it's hovering around 9,700 and trending in the wrong direction. I had to chuckle last week when the Dow tipped up a few percentage points on news Congress had passed a sweeping financial services overhaul. Many in the media said that was because financial institutions such as banks would now have some sense of direction as to how their industry would be regulated. Yet like many policies of this administration, the security and sense of direction lasted about as long as a teen-induced sugar high.
The market is trying to tell us something folks! This economy is headed in the wrong direction. And no matter how hard he tries, Obama can no longer lay this at the doorstep of his predecessor. I know every morning, the Administration has some intern who scours the papers just for the current mess du jour. More governing by victimization…
To be more specific, our private sector (the true job creators) is still reeling. It's struggling under the crushing weight of impending fixed costs such as health care, higher wage pressures, more reporting requirements and fewer incentives for innovation. Even with the dollar rising against foreign currencies such as the euro and China's modest actions last month, the bears still run Wall Street.
If such moves were part of a larger correction that many analysts say was needed, then I would be less apt to point a finger at the White House. But such market fixes should have taken place months ago. What we have here today is more tinkering by federal fiat. If anyone outside Washington actually believed Congress's steps through overhaul last week would yield any positive benefits, then forecasts for Q3 and Q4 of this year would be far better. And still, they are not.
As I've said before in this column, an economist I am not. But I do know that one of the single largest indicators of the economic health of this nation is hemorrhaging. The Dow, and our nation's critical private sector, needs help. The longer the White House views the private sector as some harem of fat cat capitalists, the more our workers will be out of long-term jobs.
07/02/10
"Who We Are"
Changes to the Constitution have increased enfranchisement of the electorate (every citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, is granted the right to vote, regardless of color, class, education, ethnicity or other superficiality in the eyes of the law) and have granted us greater authority in choosing our leaders (for instance, the 17th Amendment allows senators to be chosen directly by the people of their respective states).
It is this history and coveted freedom that Americans should commemorate as they exalt their country this July 4, 2010 --a day to celebrate the generations of men and women who have sacrificed their time, energy and often their lives in order to build a better country. This is an opportunity to reflect upon the deeds of our founding fathers and to consider the means by which we might continue to guard those essential freedoms that we associate with happiness. So, where do we find the greatness today? We see it in the brave soldiers who risk everything to secure freedom abroad. But we also see it in those everyday Americans who revel in the everyday joys and responsibilities of raising a family.
"Who We Are"
Changes to the Constitution have increased enfranchisement of the electorate (every citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, is granted the right to vote, regardless of color, class, education, ethnicity or other superficiality in the eyes of the law) and have granted us greater authority in choosing our leaders (for instance, the 17th Amendment allows senators to be chosen directly by the people of their respective states).
It is this history and coveted freedom that Americans should commemorate as they exalt their country this July 4, 2010 --a day to celebrate the generations of men and women who have sacrificed their time, energy and often their lives in order to build a better country. This is an opportunity to reflect upon the deeds of our founding fathers and to consider the means by which we might continue to guard those essential freedoms that we associate with happiness. So, where do we find the greatness today? We see it in the brave soldiers who risk everything to secure freedom abroad. But we also see it in those everyday Americans who revel in the everyday joys and responsibilities of raising a family.
07/01/10
Government is not the Solution
Most successful businessmen know what it is like to have the financial wolf at the door. Many started at the bottom as working people, come from working class backgrounds and have known failure in life. They are much more sympathetic to the working man than the left give them credit for. However, they have learned that brooding over poor decisions and blaming others for your situation does not do anybody any good. You have to solve your own problems. If you want Big Brother government to solve your problems, you then become a slave to Big Brother. Big Brother will support you only if you do what it wants. Paraphrasing the lyrics of Michael Jackson look at the man in the mirror to solve your problems and change your ways. That is the American way.
President Obama's rhetoric may sound good to those who do not think through the unintended consequences of a Western European style welfare state imposed on the United States. However, it will lead to economic serfdom, a loss of individual freedom and a less prosperous America. Remember, our President has never met a payroll, provided goods or services that consumers were willing to pay for, or provided jobs with his own money or that of investors willing to trust him. Why should Americans think his nanny state rhetoric will solve America's problems?
Government is not the Solution
Most successful businessmen know what it is like to have the financial wolf at the door. Many started at the bottom as working people, come from working class backgrounds and have known failure in life. They are much more sympathetic to the working man than the left give them credit for. However, they have learned that brooding over poor decisions and blaming others for your situation does not do anybody any good. You have to solve your own problems. If you want Big Brother government to solve your problems, you then become a slave to Big Brother. Big Brother will support you only if you do what it wants. Paraphrasing the lyrics of Michael Jackson look at the man in the mirror to solve your problems and change your ways. That is the American way.
President Obama's rhetoric may sound good to those who do not think through the unintended consequences of a Western European style welfare state imposed on the United States. However, it will lead to economic serfdom, a loss of individual freedom and a less prosperous America. Remember, our President has never met a payroll, provided goods or services that consumers were willing to pay for, or provided jobs with his own money or that of investors willing to trust him. Why should Americans think his nanny state rhetoric will solve America's problems?
06/30/10
SCOTUS nominations shouldn't be pro forma exercise
U.S. Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee yesterday Elena Kagan entered her second and perhaps final day of intense scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After over nine hours of questioning, we still lack critical insights into how Justice Kagan would approach some of society's most pressing questions before the Court.
We do know, however, that Kagan is a Democrat, and proud of it. Under an earlier set of questions, she seemed to respond to one Senator with the proper White House talking point, saying, One thing I know is that my politics would be, must be, have to be separate from my judging. Yet barely a few hours later, Kagan described herself as generally progressive and going further to say, I've been a Democrat all my life. I've worked for two Democratic presidents, and that's what my political views are.
I don't know how anyone can listen to those near-defiant statements and see Kagan as approaching issues of such value to the Democratic platform including abortion rights thinking she'll judge each case on its merit.
But hey, we knew from the beginning that Kagan was a liberal cut from the same mold as the one she hopes to replace. As has been said before, elections have consequences. And the election of President Barack Obama means he gets to seat the justice of his choice.
What bothers me about these proceedings is how the press and Washington's pundit class are seemingly annoyed that Republicans are asking tough and sometimes pressing questions. As one Washington Post columnist described the scenario yesterday on a radio show, this is a fait accompli. The Republicans don't have the votes to block Kagan's nomination, his argument went, and they never will. The inference there is clear: why don't Republicans stop their belly-aching and just toss in the towel? Look the other way while the Left exerts its will. This will all be over in a few days, and we can get back to other things.
What flawed logic. Would Chuck Schumer lay down and play dead if President McCain were choosing his nominee to the Court? Did he roll over when Justices Alito and Roberts were nominated? Hardly. No one expected him and his colleagues to merely see the political writing on the wall and let this pass without asking tough questions. So why should anyone expect anything differently now?
There are serious, precedent-changing decisions that could come before the Court in the next 5-10 years. For Republicans to weigh in with their concerns about Kagan's record and her sense of jurisprudence is only right and proper. To expect and do anything less is to diminish the awesome responsibility of the Senate's constitutional prerogatives to advise and consent no matter which party holds the chairman's gavel.
SCOTUS nominations shouldn't be pro forma exercise
U.S. Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee yesterday Elena Kagan entered her second and perhaps final day of intense scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After over nine hours of questioning, we still lack critical insights into how Justice Kagan would approach some of society's most pressing questions before the Court.
We do know, however, that Kagan is a Democrat, and proud of it. Under an earlier set of questions, she seemed to respond to one Senator with the proper White House talking point, saying, One thing I know is that my politics would be, must be, have to be separate from my judging. Yet barely a few hours later, Kagan described herself as generally progressive and going further to say, I've been a Democrat all my life. I've worked for two Democratic presidents, and that's what my political views are.
I don't know how anyone can listen to those near-defiant statements and see Kagan as approaching issues of such value to the Democratic platform including abortion rights thinking she'll judge each case on its merit.
But hey, we knew from the beginning that Kagan was a liberal cut from the same mold as the one she hopes to replace. As has been said before, elections have consequences. And the election of President Barack Obama means he gets to seat the justice of his choice.
What bothers me about these proceedings is how the press and Washington's pundit class are seemingly annoyed that Republicans are asking tough and sometimes pressing questions. As one Washington Post columnist described the scenario yesterday on a radio show, this is a fait accompli. The Republicans don't have the votes to block Kagan's nomination, his argument went, and they never will. The inference there is clear: why don't Republicans stop their belly-aching and just toss in the towel? Look the other way while the Left exerts its will. This will all be over in a few days, and we can get back to other things.
What flawed logic. Would Chuck Schumer lay down and play dead if President McCain were choosing his nominee to the Court? Did he roll over when Justices Alito and Roberts were nominated? Hardly. No one expected him and his colleagues to merely see the political writing on the wall and let this pass without asking tough questions. So why should anyone expect anything differently now?
There are serious, precedent-changing decisions that could come before the Court in the next 5-10 years. For Republicans to weigh in with their concerns about Kagan's record and her sense of jurisprudence is only right and proper. To expect and do anything less is to diminish the awesome responsibility of the Senate's constitutional prerogatives to advise and consent no matter which party holds the chairman's gavel.
06/29/10
An Aging Congress
As our nation has aged, so, too, has our Congress, perhaps even more acutely. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report found that the 110th Congress that year was the oldest of any Congress in U.S. history. The Congress currently in session today broke even that record. The average age of senators at the beginning of this 111th Congress was 62.7 years. By comparison, the average age in the first Congress more than 200 years ago was a mere 47.
Clearly, longevity and the miracles of modern medicine explain away these differentials. Yet a closer look at the age breakdowns reveal a heavy tilt in the upper chamber towards those entering or currently in the eighth decade of their lives.
As of last week, four sitting U.S. senators were currently in their 80s, and 22 are in their 70s. One senator the once indefatigable Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia passed away yesterday at the ripe old age of 92. Even at that tender age, Mr. Byrd did not reach the pinnacle of my old boss and mentor. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was 100 years old when he left the Senate.
But is that a good thing? Is our nation better off because individual lawmakers tried to outlast one another and die in their jobs?
We are the recipients of the policies these elders enact are entitled to their personal and vested involvement.
Mr. Reagan quipped, "Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying."
Unfortunately, I'm still worrying. Worrying that our oldest lawmakers are more consumed with the trappings of the office they hold than the work they provide, leaving the dirty work to faceless staff members who are neither elected nor directly accountable for their actions.
An Aging Congress
As our nation has aged, so, too, has our Congress, perhaps even more acutely. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report found that the 110th Congress that year was the oldest of any Congress in U.S. history. The Congress currently in session today broke even that record. The average age of senators at the beginning of this 111th Congress was 62.7 years. By comparison, the average age in the first Congress more than 200 years ago was a mere 47.
Clearly, longevity and the miracles of modern medicine explain away these differentials. Yet a closer look at the age breakdowns reveal a heavy tilt in the upper chamber towards those entering or currently in the eighth decade of their lives.
As of last week, four sitting U.S. senators were currently in their 80s, and 22 are in their 70s. One senator the once indefatigable Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia passed away yesterday at the ripe old age of 92. Even at that tender age, Mr. Byrd did not reach the pinnacle of my old boss and mentor. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was 100 years old when he left the Senate.
But is that a good thing? Is our nation better off because individual lawmakers tried to outlast one another and die in their jobs?
We are the recipients of the policies these elders enact are entitled to their personal and vested involvement.
Mr. Reagan quipped, "Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying."
Unfortunately, I'm still worrying. Worrying that our oldest lawmakers are more consumed with the trappings of the office they hold than the work they provide, leaving the dirty work to faceless staff members who are neither elected nor directly accountable for their actions.
06/28/10
Obama's failed leadership at the G-20
The world's most powerful economic nations met this past weekend in Toronto, Canada for another routine summit. There were the routine meetings, speeches and grandstanding among luminaries. There were even routine protesters to riot, yet not have a bloody clue what the G-20 meant, let alone what it was considering.
The most important outcome of the session, however, occurred early Sunday when Canadian Prime Minister Harper managed to corral enough of his colleagues to issue a joint pledge calling for a return to fiscal sanity in the coming years and cut their respective national deficits in half by 2013. We all know such goals are unenforceable, but they set an important precedent for future behaviors, while also revealing how the world's economic engines view the fiscal nosedives of countries such as Greece and now Spain.
While he won't admit it, Harper's move seemed calculated, designed to smoke out his prodigal neighbor to the south, and our president took the bait.
Apparently, President Obama likes the current, accountability-free spending spree the U.S. is currently enjoying. While he explains such massive gluttony is necessary to get the economy moving again, other nations are anxiously hoping the world's last superpower gets off its duff and starts acting responsibly again.
The White House announced proudly yesterday the President had pushed his colleagues for a hall pass for more stimulus spending. "We can't all rush to the exits at the same time," Obama was quoted as saying following the final session.
What exits, Mr. President? The exits from this clown funhouse we've been inside the past 24 months? If we stay, God only knows how much more money the Administration will manage to print and burn through.
G-20 leaders see the folly and short-sightedness of massive government infusions of cash. German Chancellor Merkel has instituted massive spending cuts and tax hikes. (If we act soon enough, we won't need the tax increases.) Britain is returning to spending levels not seen since World War II. And yet our president thinks 2013 is too much, too soon?
Even though Obama was out of the country this weekend, his actions do not go unnoticed. If he were truly serious about addressing this fiscal calamity our country faces – the same crisis he eschews while in Washington – then the G-20 summit would have been the perfect venue to stake such ground. And yet the president was, once again, AWOL on any steps toward meaningful spending restraint.
Obama's failed leadership at the G-20
The world's most powerful economic nations met this past weekend in Toronto, Canada for another routine summit. There were the routine meetings, speeches and grandstanding among luminaries. There were even routine protesters to riot, yet not have a bloody clue what the G-20 meant, let alone what it was considering.
The most important outcome of the session, however, occurred early Sunday when Canadian Prime Minister Harper managed to corral enough of his colleagues to issue a joint pledge calling for a return to fiscal sanity in the coming years and cut their respective national deficits in half by 2013. We all know such goals are unenforceable, but they set an important precedent for future behaviors, while also revealing how the world's economic engines view the fiscal nosedives of countries such as Greece and now Spain.
While he won't admit it, Harper's move seemed calculated, designed to smoke out his prodigal neighbor to the south, and our president took the bait.
Apparently, President Obama likes the current, accountability-free spending spree the U.S. is currently enjoying. While he explains such massive gluttony is necessary to get the economy moving again, other nations are anxiously hoping the world's last superpower gets off its duff and starts acting responsibly again.
The White House announced proudly yesterday the President had pushed his colleagues for a hall pass for more stimulus spending. "We can't all rush to the exits at the same time," Obama was quoted as saying following the final session.
What exits, Mr. President? The exits from this clown funhouse we've been inside the past 24 months? If we stay, God only knows how much more money the Administration will manage to print and burn through.
G-20 leaders see the folly and short-sightedness of massive government infusions of cash. German Chancellor Merkel has instituted massive spending cuts and tax hikes. (If we act soon enough, we won't need the tax increases.) Britain is returning to spending levels not seen since World War II. And yet our president thinks 2013 is too much, too soon?
Even though Obama was out of the country this weekend, his actions do not go unnoticed. If he were truly serious about addressing this fiscal calamity our country faces – the same crisis he eschews while in Washington – then the G-20 summit would have been the perfect venue to stake such ground. And yet the president was, once again, AWOL on any steps toward meaningful spending restraint.
06/17/10
Accountability in the military
Many in the world of armchair quarterbacks are giving President Obama high marks for his handling of the Gen. Stanley McChrystal implosion and subsequent resignation. After all, Obama faced a difficult decision; some in the media world were even dubbing it a game changer for his presidency. No matter how difficult one scores the test Obama faced, the bottom line is he passed.
For my part, I felt Obama only had one option. Insubordination cannot be tolerated, especially within the military and with that senior of command. I would wager that, for many Americans, too, the president really had one option.
What's missing in political Washington is any ability, or desire, to police your own. Look at how the Democrats have turned a blind eye to transgressions from folks like former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. Look at how Republicans will do nothing to Joe Barton over his humiliating apologies to BP. It's increasingly all about power, not accountability. The reason why the US military is the only American institution that still enjoys huge respect among the public is because they still have a sense of accountability. Criticizing the Commander in Chief in the press demands accountability.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised the Defense Secretary didn't deliver such accountability immediately. I could easily see Gates sending a cable to Afghanistan informing McChrystal of his new civilian status, and telling him not to take military transportation back to the States. But if Gates wanted Obama to have that glory, then it was a wise choice.
I only wish now the Administration would apply similar standards of accountability for its domestic programs that it does for its military commanders. These agencies have their fair share of insubordinates engaging in daily activities of government malpractice. Loyalty to the president should be expected and demanded. I wish the president offered the taxpayers a similar allegiance.
Accountability in the military
Many in the world of armchair quarterbacks are giving President Obama high marks for his handling of the Gen. Stanley McChrystal implosion and subsequent resignation. After all, Obama faced a difficult decision; some in the media world were even dubbing it a game changer for his presidency. No matter how difficult one scores the test Obama faced, the bottom line is he passed.
For my part, I felt Obama only had one option. Insubordination cannot be tolerated, especially within the military and with that senior of command. I would wager that, for many Americans, too, the president really had one option.
What's missing in political Washington is any ability, or desire, to police your own. Look at how the Democrats have turned a blind eye to transgressions from folks like former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. Look at how Republicans will do nothing to Joe Barton over his humiliating apologies to BP. It's increasingly all about power, not accountability. The reason why the US military is the only American institution that still enjoys huge respect among the public is because they still have a sense of accountability. Criticizing the Commander in Chief in the press demands accountability.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised the Defense Secretary didn't deliver such accountability immediately. I could easily see Gates sending a cable to Afghanistan informing McChrystal of his new civilian status, and telling him not to take military transportation back to the States. But if Gates wanted Obama to have that glory, then it was a wise choice.
I only wish now the Administration would apply similar standards of accountability for its domestic programs that it does for its military commanders. These agencies have their fair share of insubordinates engaging in daily activities of government malpractice. Loyalty to the president should be expected and demanded. I wish the president offered the taxpayers a similar allegiance.
06/17/10
American socialism revisited
Socialism was adopted by Europe, which made sense given its century's old concepts of surfs being taken care of by their nobles.
The governments of Europe replaced the royalty which was duty bound to take care of its loyal subjects. As a result, the government is seen as the answer to almost all of their issues from health care to employment.
But taking care of those who cannot or will not take care of themselves has overwhelmed their systems with cost, and while "everyone" is cared for, the level of services are on a downward slide. These costs can only be offset by taxes which eventually suffocate productive companies, individuals, and eventually the country itself. Socialism has undoubtedly played a hand in destroying the great economic empires of England, France, Holland, and others.
The current Administration admiringly embraces the European model instead of out right rejecting it. Our nation was built on rugged individualism and any attempt to model our nation after Europe is a disaster of the greatest proportion!
American socialism revisited
Socialism was adopted by Europe, which made sense given its century's old concepts of surfs being taken care of by their nobles.
The governments of Europe replaced the royalty which was duty bound to take care of its loyal subjects. As a result, the government is seen as the answer to almost all of their issues from health care to employment.
But taking care of those who cannot or will not take care of themselves has overwhelmed their systems with cost, and while "everyone" is cared for, the level of services are on a downward slide. These costs can only be offset by taxes which eventually suffocate productive companies, individuals, and eventually the country itself. Socialism has undoubtedly played a hand in destroying the great economic empires of England, France, Holland, and others.
The current Administration admiringly embraces the European model instead of out right rejecting it. Our nation was built on rugged individualism and any attempt to model our nation after Europe is a disaster of the greatest proportion!
06/17/10
Public Education Crisis
Anyone who tells you that public schools are public because anyone can go to any school is lying. You can only go to the schools where you can afford to live in the neighborhood and the school quality is part of the expense of that house. In effect, our public school system remains separate and unequal, still. Bottom line: the public school system is failing its studentsparticularly those of color. By contrast, private schools are thriving. (Just ask the members of Congress who fight against school vouchers but wouldn't deign to send one of their own children to D.C.'s public schools.) At least part of the success of private school students can be attributed to the fact that private school educators are held highly accountable for their job performance. They do not have long-term job security,work on year-to-year contracts, and are held accountable by annual job evaluations. Private school teachers work harder because they have to. In public schools, by contrast, powerful teachers' unions have secured long-term tenure for the teachers, thus removing a powerful mechanism for professional accountability.
In effect, America's public school system functions as a monopoly. As with all monopolies, there is no incentive to change. Even as the economy continues to tank, public school teachers know that they are virtually immune from termination. Their annual evaluations are meaningless because they have tenure. Predictably, many public school teachers do just enoughsometimes barelyto not get kicked out. But could you imagine how much more engaged public school teachers would be if their jobs were actually on the lineespecially with this economy! Holding public school teachers accountable for their performance could kick-start a revolution in America's public.
Public Education Crisis
Anyone who tells you that public schools are public because anyone can go to any school is lying. You can only go to the schools where you can afford to live in the neighborhood and the school quality is part of the expense of that house. In effect, our public school system remains separate and unequal, still. Bottom line: the public school system is failing its studentsparticularly those of color. By contrast, private schools are thriving. (Just ask the members of Congress who fight against school vouchers but wouldn't deign to send one of their own children to D.C.'s public schools.) At least part of the success of private school students can be attributed to the fact that private school educators are held highly accountable for their job performance. They do not have long-term job security,work on year-to-year contracts, and are held accountable by annual job evaluations. Private school teachers work harder because they have to. In public schools, by contrast, powerful teachers' unions have secured long-term tenure for the teachers, thus removing a powerful mechanism for professional accountability.
In effect, America's public school system functions as a monopoly. As with all monopolies, there is no incentive to change. Even as the economy continues to tank, public school teachers know that they are virtually immune from termination. Their annual evaluations are meaningless because they have tenure. Predictably, many public school teachers do just enoughsometimes barelyto not get kicked out. But could you imagine how much more engaged public school teachers would be if their jobs were actually on the lineespecially with this economy! Holding public school teachers accountable for their performance could kick-start a revolution in America's public.
06/11/10
Paradigm Shift for Women
Since the 1960's civil right movements, women tended to sympathize with the liberal policies of the Democratic Party and identify themselves as Democrats. 41% of American woman identify themselves as Democrats compared to 25% who identify themselves as Republicans. The Democratic Party platform promotes equal social and economic outcomes with an emphasis on woman's rights and liberal social policies. These policies are designed to appeal to the disenfranchised members of society, which formerly included most women. Furthermore, women played a prominent role in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from Bela Abzug to Nancy Pelsoi.
Is it possible that the real story of 2010 is a seismic shift in women's political orientation from liberal to conservative? Perhaps women no longer see themselves as disenfranchised members of society. It is no surprise that women who are often responsible for household budgets understand basic checkbook finance better than their elected spendthrift representatives and want a financially responsible government.
Paradigm Shift for Women
Since the 1960's civil right movements, women tended to sympathize with the liberal policies of the Democratic Party and identify themselves as Democrats. 41% of American woman identify themselves as Democrats compared to 25% who identify themselves as Republicans. The Democratic Party platform promotes equal social and economic outcomes with an emphasis on woman's rights and liberal social policies. These policies are designed to appeal to the disenfranchised members of society, which formerly included most women. Furthermore, women played a prominent role in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from Bela Abzug to Nancy Pelsoi.
Is it possible that the real story of 2010 is a seismic shift in women's political orientation from liberal to conservative? Perhaps women no longer see themselves as disenfranchised members of society. It is no surprise that women who are often responsible for household budgets understand basic checkbook finance better than their elected spendthrift representatives and want a financially responsible government.
06/11/10
Those pesky special interests
I've had the good fortune of knowing, interviewing and interacting with scores of politicians through the years. No matter where one fell along the ideological spectrum, I was most impressed with those whose views could be summed up in one word – consistent. Like what you will about someone such as former Senator George Allen, for example. He was a firebrand; a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. But he knew exactly what he believed in – a Jeffersonian Conservative as he liked to call himself. And no matter the position he took, even if you disliked it, you couldn't help but like the man because he was consistent in his views. There was no waffling there, and his colleagues appreciated that character trait.
Contrast that with our dear president today. Here's an individual who spent nearly his entire campaign and certainly the first months of his presidency railing against the special interests that have corrupted this town. Whenever his agenda was heading south, Obama would take to the airwaves, and in typical Leftist fashion, would play the victim card, usually aiming his sights on special interest groups hell-bent on preserving the status quo in Washington.
That's some good rhetoric, no? Consistent? Hardly. Later today. The President travels to Wheaton, Maryland to hold a satellite town hall on his unpopular health reform law. Apparently, internal White House polls show that while most Americans hate this piece of legislation, they're willing to keep an open mind and see how the new measure will impact their daily lives.
The Administration will spend countless hours and millions of taxpayer dollars marketing this stinker to average Americans, hoping to change their minds.
Yet one dirty little secret the Administration won't hype is that it's now asking dozens of health groups and associations to roll up their sleeves and pitch in. That's right, those same special interests Obama excoriated along the health reform trail he's now cozying up to and hoping they'll pull their weight.
I ask you, Mr. President, what do you think of them now? Are they only the Devil when you say they are? Where's the consistency in that?
The problem with this little charade is it continues to undermine Obama's credibility as a leader on domestic policy issues. What are everyday Americans to think of these health care providers when one day, they are akin to the Taliban, and the next day, they're champions for the little guy for no other reason than our president chooses to say so. Playing politics with these job creators and service providers is hardly a profile in executive leadership.
Those pesky special interests
I've had the good fortune of knowing, interviewing and interacting with scores of politicians through the years. No matter where one fell along the ideological spectrum, I was most impressed with those whose views could be summed up in one word – consistent. Like what you will about someone such as former Senator George Allen, for example. He was a firebrand; a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. But he knew exactly what he believed in – a Jeffersonian Conservative as he liked to call himself. And no matter the position he took, even if you disliked it, you couldn't help but like the man because he was consistent in his views. There was no waffling there, and his colleagues appreciated that character trait.
Contrast that with our dear president today. Here's an individual who spent nearly his entire campaign and certainly the first months of his presidency railing against the special interests that have corrupted this town. Whenever his agenda was heading south, Obama would take to the airwaves, and in typical Leftist fashion, would play the victim card, usually aiming his sights on special interest groups hell-bent on preserving the status quo in Washington.
That's some good rhetoric, no? Consistent? Hardly. Later today. The President travels to Wheaton, Maryland to hold a satellite town hall on his unpopular health reform law. Apparently, internal White House polls show that while most Americans hate this piece of legislation, they're willing to keep an open mind and see how the new measure will impact their daily lives.
The Administration will spend countless hours and millions of taxpayer dollars marketing this stinker to average Americans, hoping to change their minds.
Yet one dirty little secret the Administration won't hype is that it's now asking dozens of health groups and associations to roll up their sleeves and pitch in. That's right, those same special interests Obama excoriated along the health reform trail he's now cozying up to and hoping they'll pull their weight.
I ask you, Mr. President, what do you think of them now? Are they only the Devil when you say they are? Where's the consistency in that?
The problem with this little charade is it continues to undermine Obama's credibility as a leader on domestic policy issues. What are everyday Americans to think of these health care providers when one day, they are akin to the Taliban, and the next day, they're champions for the little guy for no other reason than our president chooses to say so. Playing politics with these job creators and service providers is hardly a profile in executive leadership.
06/11/10
Endangered Jews
Helen Thomas is either willfully ignorant or just an out-and-out bigot. Facts are facts. The Jewish people have inhabited the land of Israel since before the birth of Jesus. There are six billion people in the world and fewer than 13 million Jews left. If there had been no holocaust there would be a 100 million Jews in the world. Now, there are fewer than six million left in their historic homeland-- the Land of Israel. Will we do more to save the spotted owl than we will the last remaining Jews in their natural habitat?! The Jews are an endangered species who deserve the world's protection and not their persecution. To hear Iran, Hamas, or many other groups tell their side of the story, the Jews would have been wiped from this earth a long time ago.
There have been Jews living in the land of Israel in an unbroken chain of history for millennia, despite cruel twists of history of expulsions and diaspora. Helen Thomas, as she approaches the ripe old age of 90, might do well to study the facts, for the truth shall be your salvation.
Endangered Jews
Helen Thomas is either willfully ignorant or just an out-and-out bigot. Facts are facts. The Jewish people have inhabited the land of Israel since before the birth of Jesus. There are six billion people in the world and fewer than 13 million Jews left. If there had been no holocaust there would be a 100 million Jews in the world. Now, there are fewer than six million left in their historic homeland-- the Land of Israel. Will we do more to save the spotted owl than we will the last remaining Jews in their natural habitat?! The Jews are an endangered species who deserve the world's protection and not their persecution. To hear Iran, Hamas, or many other groups tell their side of the story, the Jews would have been wiped from this earth a long time ago.
There have been Jews living in the land of Israel in an unbroken chain of history for millennia, despite cruel twists of history of expulsions and diaspora. Helen Thomas, as she approaches the ripe old age of 90, might do well to study the facts, for the truth shall be your salvation.
06/11/10
Cycle of Nature
The sun rises and sets every day. Spring and fall come every year. Old plant life dies back in the fall and returns in the spring with renewed vigor. This is part of the cycle of nature. Man's intervention has no meaningful impact on the cycle of nature. Sensible men accept the cycle of nature and work with it. The individual farmer takes the cycle of nature as given when he plans his planting season. Nobody thinks it is appropriate for the government to tell farmers when to plant, weed and water.
Similarly, the economy has its own cycles of prosperity and recession which come and go. In a recession, ineffective and obsolete businesses fail, speculative bubbles burst and overextended consumers cutback spending. The result is a renewal of vigorous economic activity by more efficient businesses and un leveraged consumers. Individuals and businesses make rational economic decisions based on where they are in the economic cycle. As a result, economic excesses created during prosperity are corrected during periods of recession.
Capitalist economies are very robust and recover from recessions regardless of government intervention. This has been true since the spectacular boom and bust of the Dutch Tulip Mania in the 17th century. It has been true in America since the industrial revolution. Government intervention may accelerate or retard a recovery, but it does not stop it. Historically, most government intervention has retarded recoveries. The most egregious example of retarding recovery was the government intervention of the New Deal in the Great Depression. During this period, economic recovery programs, new regulations and higher taxes prolonged the recovery for a decade. Government policy delayed the economic recovery, but did not stop it.
Those who think that our current economy is improving are correct. Unfortunately the current economic policies of ineffective stimulus, pending mandates on health insurance, pending tax increases, excessive deficits and over- regulation, are impeding the recovery and not helping it. It is like the farmer who is over watering his crops after it rains or putting on too much fertilizer because he is impatient for his crops to grow. If the government wishes to help the economy, it should implement policies which follow the Medical professions first principal - Do No Harm. These policies include reduced taxes, balanced budgets, and less regulation.
Cycle of Nature
The sun rises and sets every day. Spring and fall come every year. Old plant life dies back in the fall and returns in the spring with renewed vigor. This is part of the cycle of nature. Man's intervention has no meaningful impact on the cycle of nature. Sensible men accept the cycle of nature and work with it. The individual farmer takes the cycle of nature as given when he plans his planting season. Nobody thinks it is appropriate for the government to tell farmers when to plant, weed and water.
Similarly, the economy has its own cycles of prosperity and recession which come and go. In a recession, ineffective and obsolete businesses fail, speculative bubbles burst and overextended consumers cutback spending. The result is a renewal of vigorous economic activity by more efficient businesses and un leveraged consumers. Individuals and businesses make rational economic decisions based on where they are in the economic cycle. As a result, economic excesses created during prosperity are corrected during periods of recession.
Capitalist economies are very robust and recover from recessions regardless of government intervention. This has been true since the spectacular boom and bust of the Dutch Tulip Mania in the 17th century. It has been true in America since the industrial revolution. Government intervention may accelerate or retard a recovery, but it does not stop it. Historically, most government intervention has retarded recoveries. The most egregious example of retarding recovery was the government intervention of the New Deal in the Great Depression. During this period, economic recovery programs, new regulations and higher taxes prolonged the recovery for a decade. Government policy delayed the economic recovery, but did not stop it.
Those who think that our current economy is improving are correct. Unfortunately the current economic policies of ineffective stimulus, pending mandates on health insurance, pending tax increases, excessive deficits and over- regulation, are impeding the recovery and not helping it. It is like the farmer who is over watering his crops after it rains or putting on too much fertilizer because he is impatient for his crops to grow. If the government wishes to help the economy, it should implement policies which follow the Medical professions first principal - Do No Harm. These policies include reduced taxes, balanced budgets, and less regulation.
06/04/10
Obama's own brand of voodoo economics
Later this morning expect some "good news" from the Labor Department on May unemployment figures. Many analysts expect the jobless rate to fall to around 9.7%, where the economy actually created over half a million new jobs last month. That may sound like good news, but the Street knows better. Many, if not all, of those jobs were created by good ole Uncle Sam.
You guessed it, the Census Bureau put several hundred thousand to work last month - a figure that will certainly skew the final calculus and present a picture that would make Joe Biden proud. Never mind those jobs are temporary; and already, Census workers are wondering aloud on blog and social media sites if they're eligible for unemployment benefits. You must be kidding me. Could we end up spending more taxpayer dollars to give these workers benefits they're not entitled to? Did the bean counters at OMB forecast for these conditions if some court gets happy and decides the workers should receive yet another handout?
The point here is you can't fool the American business cycle. The real job creations (the ones that last at least) occur in the private sector. No amount of class warfare changes that dynamic. Using federal dollars to pay union construction workers to retrofit a Social Security building in Kentucky so more federal workers can feel good about their "green" work stations does little to grow our tax base in any long term capacity. And here's the worst part: the money used is borrowed from China. So we're now borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar spent and we turn around and toss it in another federal rat hole. I ask you - how does this vicious cycle of theft help the average American?
President Obama's economic policies make "voodoo economics" look like a Nobel prize contender. The question now becomes when, not if, these misguided and mega expensive gambits will end. For the sake of the world's last great economic superpower, I hope it's soon.
Obama's own brand of voodoo economics
Later this morning expect some "good news" from the Labor Department on May unemployment figures. Many analysts expect the jobless rate to fall to around 9.7%, where the economy actually created over half a million new jobs last month. That may sound like good news, but the Street knows better. Many, if not all, of those jobs were created by good ole Uncle Sam.
You guessed it, the Census Bureau put several hundred thousand to work last month - a figure that will certainly skew the final calculus and present a picture that would make Joe Biden proud. Never mind those jobs are temporary; and already, Census workers are wondering aloud on blog and social media sites if they're eligible for unemployment benefits. You must be kidding me. Could we end up spending more taxpayer dollars to give these workers benefits they're not entitled to? Did the bean counters at OMB forecast for these conditions if some court gets happy and decides the workers should receive yet another handout?
The point here is you can't fool the American business cycle. The real job creations (the ones that last at least) occur in the private sector. No amount of class warfare changes that dynamic. Using federal dollars to pay union construction workers to retrofit a Social Security building in Kentucky so more federal workers can feel good about their "green" work stations does little to grow our tax base in any long term capacity. And here's the worst part: the money used is borrowed from China. So we're now borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar spent and we turn around and toss it in another federal rat hole. I ask you - how does this vicious cycle of theft help the average American?
President Obama's economic policies make "voodoo economics" look like a Nobel prize contender. The question now becomes when, not if, these misguided and mega expensive gambits will end. For the sake of the world's last great economic superpower, I hope it's soon.
06/02/10
The Negotiator, Bill Clinton
President Clinton's involvement alone tells anyone with a pulse the White House was trying to move Mr. Sestak off a very nice perch. We all know presidents aren't asked to lend their "personal touch" unless someone is at the end of his options and needs the high-brow nudge of a former commander-in-chief. And Mr. Clinton? This is the same guy who managed to get those in his party to vote for the largest tax increase in history in 1993. And the same president who passed sweeping trade and welfare reforms in the face of withering fire from the Left.
Mr. Sestak was a thumb-sucker for Mr. Clinton. He is used to moving folks, especially members of Congress. The White House knew that. Why else would it send in such a heavy closer?
Frankly, I'm sort of shocked Mr. Clinton stooped to such a level. After all, earlier this month he single-handedly helped his party maintain control of a House seat in Pennsylvania's special election to replace the deceased Rep. John Murtha. Mr. Clinton was riding high as the party's secret weapon given his popularity and political legend status. Now, he looks like nothing more than a hooligan, hired to come in and bust the knee-caps of recalcitrant members like Mr. Sestak.
Even Keystone State Gov. Ed Rendell – a hard knocker by any standard – was scratching his head on this one. He said earlier last week that the drip-drip nature of this information is only undermining the White House and raising more questions than anyone cares to answer. And we know the administration's politicos have answers. That's probably why they're hiding and only surrendering bits at a time.
The Negotiator, Bill Clinton
President Clinton's involvement alone tells anyone with a pulse the White House was trying to move Mr. Sestak off a very nice perch. We all know presidents aren't asked to lend their "personal touch" unless someone is at the end of his options and needs the high-brow nudge of a former commander-in-chief. And Mr. Clinton? This is the same guy who managed to get those in his party to vote for the largest tax increase in history in 1993. And the same president who passed sweeping trade and welfare reforms in the face of withering fire from the Left.
Mr. Sestak was a thumb-sucker for Mr. Clinton. He is used to moving folks, especially members of Congress. The White House knew that. Why else would it send in such a heavy closer?
Frankly, I'm sort of shocked Mr. Clinton stooped to such a level. After all, earlier this month he single-handedly helped his party maintain control of a House seat in Pennsylvania's special election to replace the deceased Rep. John Murtha. Mr. Clinton was riding high as the party's secret weapon given his popularity and political legend status. Now, he looks like nothing more than a hooligan, hired to come in and bust the knee-caps of recalcitrant members like Mr. Sestak.
Even Keystone State Gov. Ed Rendell – a hard knocker by any standard – was scratching his head on this one. He said earlier last week that the drip-drip nature of this information is only undermining the White House and raising more questions than anyone cares to answer. And we know the administration's politicos have answers. That's probably why they're hiding and only surrendering bits at a time.
06/02/10
Israel's Brass Knuckles Policy
Much is being made today and throughout this past weekend over Israeli commandos' handling of an armed assault aboard a flotilla of ships bearing humanitarian aid for Gaza settlers. I put that phrase in quotations, because that was allegedly the cargo, this time…
What about all the other times when Gaza sympathizers snuck through under the cover of night, smuggling arms and other weapons materiel for one purpose – to kill Israelis? Just look at the underground network of tunnels through Egypt as one example.
That larger point is missing from this rapidly-developing storyline: Hamas is hell-bent to destroy the nation of Israel and all who live there. Imagine if this blockade run had succeeded – it would have opened a new distribution channel for Hamas arms smugglers to penetrate the blockade, and God knows what else.
Yes, the assault probably wasn't necessary, or at least could have been handled through alternative means. But a quick word about that: I bet that had those Turkish passengers possessed weapons, they would have used them, and then offered the same rationale that Israeli solders used – self-defense. So spare me the outcries from the passengers used in calling the attack unprovoked or whatever they offered as excuses to assault the commandos. If they had nothing to hide, and were law-abiding citizens, why attack an Israeli soldier?
I have to commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for his actions so far on this matter. His country is wedged between nations of hatred. Imagine if you lived in a community and your neighbors just next door to you were your sworn mortal enemy? And if given the chance, they would cut the wires to your home, bust out your windows, and even worse, kill you the first chance they get?
That's how it is every day in Israel. No one should live in that fear. Netanyahu's brass knuckles military policy when it comes to Hamas and Gaza is unfortunate but necessary, and the right strategy in that part of the world. I truly hope they find a path to peace in the coming years. But unless and until that changes, and both sides agree to live in harmony, then Israel must do what it needs to defend itself and its people.
Israel's Brass Knuckles Policy
Much is being made today and throughout this past weekend over Israeli commandos' handling of an armed assault aboard a flotilla of ships bearing humanitarian aid for Gaza settlers. I put that phrase in quotations, because that was allegedly the cargo, this time…
What about all the other times when Gaza sympathizers snuck through under the cover of night, smuggling arms and other weapons materiel for one purpose – to kill Israelis? Just look at the underground network of tunnels through Egypt as one example.
That larger point is missing from this rapidly-developing storyline: Hamas is hell-bent to destroy the nation of Israel and all who live there. Imagine if this blockade run had succeeded – it would have opened a new distribution channel for Hamas arms smugglers to penetrate the blockade, and God knows what else.
Yes, the assault probably wasn't necessary, or at least could have been handled through alternative means. But a quick word about that: I bet that had those Turkish passengers possessed weapons, they would have used them, and then offered the same rationale that Israeli solders used – self-defense. So spare me the outcries from the passengers used in calling the attack unprovoked or whatever they offered as excuses to assault the commandos. If they had nothing to hide, and were law-abiding citizens, why attack an Israeli soldier?
I have to commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for his actions so far on this matter. His country is wedged between nations of hatred. Imagine if you lived in a community and your neighbors just next door to you were your sworn mortal enemy? And if given the chance, they would cut the wires to your home, bust out your windows, and even worse, kill you the first chance they get?
That's how it is every day in Israel. No one should live in that fear. Netanyahu's brass knuckles military policy when it comes to Hamas and Gaza is unfortunate but necessary, and the right strategy in that part of the world. I truly hope they find a path to peace in the coming years. But unless and until that changes, and both sides agree to live in harmony, then Israel must do what it needs to defend itself and its people.
05/28/10
Kim Jon-II, Insanity Plea!
Are you perplex by what's happening on the Korean Peninsula? Does anyone truly understand the end game to this madness? What does Kim Jonj-II expect to gain from this dangerous gamesmanship? Does he want to gain control of South Korea? Does he expect some kind of nuclear ransom for his insane behavior? Does he truly think that he can destroy the United States military by engaging it's proxy, South Korea? Is he trying to provoke a Nuclear Holocaust? Deep down maybe he's feeling that he truly doesn't have anything to lose by putting this end game in motion.
When examining all the rationale reasons and outcomes of his behavior, one must come to the inescapable conclusion, that without a doubt he is a mad man. Perhaps we should be sending a core of world renowned psychiatrists to North Korea, rather than diplomats to resolve this brewing crisis.. Upon their arrival they should be well supplied with the lithium drugs or the surgical instruments to perform a lobotomy.
Kim Jon-II, Insanity Plea!
Are you perplex by what's happening on the Korean Peninsula? Does anyone truly understand the end game to this madness? What does Kim Jonj-II expect to gain from this dangerous gamesmanship? Does he want to gain control of South Korea? Does he expect some kind of nuclear ransom for his insane behavior? Does he truly think that he can destroy the United States military by engaging it's proxy, South Korea? Is he trying to provoke a Nuclear Holocaust? Deep down maybe he's feeling that he truly doesn't have anything to lose by putting this end game in motion.
When examining all the rationale reasons and outcomes of his behavior, one must come to the inescapable conclusion, that without a doubt he is a mad man. Perhaps we should be sending a core of world renowned psychiatrists to North Korea, rather than diplomats to resolve this brewing crisis.. Upon their arrival they should be well supplied with the lithium drugs or the surgical instruments to perform a lobotomy.
05/28/10
Obama & Bill Clinton's playbook
To put it bluntly, the president has lost all remnants of coattails from his historic victory in 2008. In fact, I'm not sure he still has his jacket left. Many pundits feel it will only get worse for Democrats as the weeks drag on.
What the media is only starting to realize is last Tuesday's elections (and the ones forthcoming) are reflecting several sentiments, but chief among them is a palpable anger towards this president's policies. And the only way to stop that hemorrhaging is for Obama to take a page from Bill Clinton's playbook. Remember in the days following his party's ignominious defeat in 1994, Clinton uttered his famous Era of Big Government is over line? Obama needs to give that same speech, TODAY. Waiting until after the election will surely solidify his place in history as a one term president. That's the source of all this angst, and Obama ignores it at his own peril.
Obama & Bill Clinton's playbook
To put it bluntly, the president has lost all remnants of coattails from his historic victory in 2008. In fact, I'm not sure he still has his jacket left. Many pundits feel it will only get worse for Democrats as the weeks drag on.
What the media is only starting to realize is last Tuesday's elections (and the ones forthcoming) are reflecting several sentiments, but chief among them is a palpable anger towards this president's policies. And the only way to stop that hemorrhaging is for Obama to take a page from Bill Clinton's playbook. Remember in the days following his party's ignominious defeat in 1994, Clinton uttered his famous Era of Big Government is over line? Obama needs to give that same speech, TODAY. Waiting until after the election will surely solidify his place in history as a one term president. That's the source of all this angst, and Obama ignores it at his own peril.
05/20/10
Obama Apologizes Again
Why is the President of the United States apologizing to President Calderon of Mexico about an Arizona law that enforces federal laws curbing illegal Mexican Immigrants? President Obama should be castigating President Calderon over the conditions in Mexico that encourage these illegals to cross the border. The Mexican government should be working with the American government to prevent illegal immigration and enforce immigration laws.This might have the spin-off benefit of contributing to the defeat of the drug lords that informally rule much of Mexico and sell illegal drugs in the US.
Illegal Americans in Mexico are subjected to harsh Mexican immigration laws. Likewise, illegal Mexicans in our country are only subjected to a slight slap on the wrist. Why do Border States feel they are not getting the support from the President on enforcing existing federal law and have to enforce federal immigration law themselves?
If there were fewer illegal immigrants in the US, there would be more jobs available for unemployed citizens and legal residents. It would also result in higher wages for low skilled American workers who would not be competing for jobs against illegal Mexicans willing to work at lower wages. The lack of commitment to enforcing immigration laws is one of the disconnects between the President and unemployed Regan Democrats and legal minorities in the Democratic coalition that got him elected.
Mr.President where is your back bone. Tell the President Calderon that illegal immigrants are criminals and should be punished to the full extent of all laws.
Obama Apologizes Again
Why is the President of the United States apologizing to President Calderon of Mexico about an Arizona law that enforces federal laws curbing illegal Mexican Immigrants? President Obama should be castigating President Calderon over the conditions in Mexico that encourage these illegals to cross the border. The Mexican government should be working with the American government to prevent illegal immigration and enforce immigration laws.This might have the spin-off benefit of contributing to the defeat of the drug lords that informally rule much of Mexico and sell illegal drugs in the US.
Illegal Americans in Mexico are subjected to harsh Mexican immigration laws. Likewise, illegal Mexicans in our country are only subjected to a slight slap on the wrist. Why do Border States feel they are not getting the support from the President on enforcing existing federal law and have to enforce federal immigration law themselves?
If there were fewer illegal immigrants in the US, there would be more jobs available for unemployed citizens and legal residents. It would also result in higher wages for low skilled American workers who would not be competing for jobs against illegal Mexicans willing to work at lower wages. The lack of commitment to enforcing immigration laws is one of the disconnects between the President and unemployed Regan Democrats and legal minorities in the Democratic coalition that got him elected.
Mr.President where is your back bone. Tell the President Calderon that illegal immigrants are criminals and should be punished to the full extent of all laws.
05/20/10
Reagan Democrats and Obama
Now that Obama has shown his ideological cards over the last 18 months, he is quickly losing the white working and middle class that was part of his2008 election coalition. The issues that are of foremost importance to them are not the unusual suspects: They include jobs, immigration,strong defense, war against terror, and conservative social values. Obama is clearly on the wrong side of these very critical issues to these growing disenchanted Reagan Democrat voters.
Attorney General Eric Holder epitomizes the disconnect between the President and the once loyal Reagan Democrats. He's against the Arizona immigration law, even though he hasn't read it. He continuously refuses to admit that Islamic terrorism was the central motive for the recent attempted Time Square bombing. He continues to equivocate on where the location for the 9-11terror trials should be held.
Our president's big government and stimulus spending is defying the logic of check book accounting that most Americans ascribe to: You can't spend more money than that which you have in your checking account. The State Department is now apologizing to the Chinese about the Arizona Immigration Law because it violates human rights. What is wrong with this picture, given the Chinese past and current history with Human Right's abuses in their country. The President's Supreme Court choices are clearly out of sync with Regan Democrats who don't believe a Latino jurist is inherently any wiser than a WASP.
Reagan Democrats and Obama
Now that Obama has shown his ideological cards over the last 18 months, he is quickly losing the white working and middle class that was part of his2008 election coalition. The issues that are of foremost importance to them are not the unusual suspects: They include jobs, immigration,strong defense, war against terror, and conservative social values. Obama is clearly on the wrong side of these very critical issues to these growing disenchanted Reagan Democrat voters.
Attorney General Eric Holder epitomizes the disconnect between the President and the once loyal Reagan Democrats. He's against the Arizona immigration law, even though he hasn't read it. He continuously refuses to admit that Islamic terrorism was the central motive for the recent attempted Time Square bombing. He continues to equivocate on where the location for the 9-11terror trials should be held.
Our president's big government and stimulus spending is defying the logic of check book accounting that most Americans ascribe to: You can't spend more money than that which you have in your checking account. The State Department is now apologizing to the Chinese about the Arizona Immigration Law because it violates human rights. What is wrong with this picture, given the Chinese past and current history with Human Right's abuses in their country. The President's Supreme Court choices are clearly out of sync with Regan Democrats who don't believe a Latino jurist is inherently any wiser than a WASP.
05/19/10
The Gulf and gas prices
There's no question the ongoing spill in the Gulf of Mexico and BP's inability to contain it will have long-term repercussions on the industry and how government responds to future incidents. There's also little doubt this spill sets environmentalists clearly in the driver's seat for future policies as they relate to offshore drilling. I don't fault them. After all, industry made the mistakes, and boy, were they monumental. Perhaps it's time for the green faction to exert some muscle and exact a price for all those years industry thumbed its nose at their agenda.
But there's one issue that hasn't been discussed too much " the price of gas. At first, prices at the pump spiked, a typical reflexive action, but not necessary given that most of the crude in today's stations was bought weeks, even months, ago at pre-spill prices. But what happens next? If you've filled your tank lately, you've noticed that prices are actually on the DECLINE " down nearly 3-4 cents per gallon in the past 10 days, and expected to fall another 3-4 cents either this week or next.
Is that tube BP recently installed having its intended effect? Are we saving millions of gallons and hence, stations have excess supply? Not hardly. Economists chalk these latest price drops to a sharp rise in the dollar when compared to European currencies. If there's one sliver of benefit from the fiscal calamity facing Greece and her sister nations, it's that the U.S. dollar has backed its way into a position of prominence once again. I could spend two full columns arguing how that situation spells peril for us in the long term, but I won't go there.
Even then, this indirect benefit at the pump will be short-lived. Economists are already running forecasting models determining the long-term impact not of the loss of a major well in the Gulf presently, but of losses of potential new rigs many were relying on to meet the insatiable demand for crude domestically. Current rigs are already running at or beyond capacity. They can do no more. Further, if current moves by the Congress are any indication, you can bet regulators will be watching those existing wells like vultures.
The bottom line? Economists expect prices to rise significantly in about five years. Yes, folks, $5 per gallon of regular is not farfetched. So it appears the environmentalists will seal another win for their agenda " the goal of pricing fossil fuel at such a high rate that demand is stifled and America's addiction begins to wane. I wonder if BP will take responsibility for that? I don't think so ...
The Gulf and gas prices
There's no question the ongoing spill in the Gulf of Mexico and BP's inability to contain it will have long-term repercussions on the industry and how government responds to future incidents. There's also little doubt this spill sets environmentalists clearly in the driver's seat for future policies as they relate to offshore drilling. I don't fault them. After all, industry made the mistakes, and boy, were they monumental. Perhaps it's time for the green faction to exert some muscle and exact a price for all those years industry thumbed its nose at their agenda.
But there's one issue that hasn't been discussed too much " the price of gas. At first, prices at the pump spiked, a typical reflexive action, but not necessary given that most of the crude in today's stations was bought weeks, even months, ago at pre-spill prices. But what happens next? If you've filled your tank lately, you've noticed that prices are actually on the DECLINE " down nearly 3-4 cents per gallon in the past 10 days, and expected to fall another 3-4 cents either this week or next.
Is that tube BP recently installed having its intended effect? Are we saving millions of gallons and hence, stations have excess supply? Not hardly. Economists chalk these latest price drops to a sharp rise in the dollar when compared to European currencies. If there's one sliver of benefit from the fiscal calamity facing Greece and her sister nations, it's that the U.S. dollar has backed its way into a position of prominence once again. I could spend two full columns arguing how that situation spells peril for us in the long term, but I won't go there.
Even then, this indirect benefit at the pump will be short-lived. Economists are already running forecasting models determining the long-term impact not of the loss of a major well in the Gulf presently, but of losses of potential new rigs many were relying on to meet the insatiable demand for crude domestically. Current rigs are already running at or beyond capacity. They can do no more. Further, if current moves by the Congress are any indication, you can bet regulators will be watching those existing wells like vultures.
The bottom line? Economists expect prices to rise significantly in about five years. Yes, folks, $5 per gallon of regular is not farfetched. So it appears the environmentalists will seal another win for their agenda " the goal of pricing fossil fuel at such a high rate that demand is stifled and America's addiction begins to wane. I wonder if BP will take responsibility for that? I don't think so ...
05/19/10
Obama's Supreme legacy
I'm loving the drama that is unfolding around President Barack Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Conservatives are, true to form, bungling the narrative they should be rightfully pushing " an unqualified liberal just chomping at the bit to legislate from the bench. Meanwhile, Miss Kagan's record on anything that might reveal her jurisprudence is so sparse that liberals are beginning to get a little skittish on just how she may rule on various issues.
As Ive said before, this president " and his successors " are entitled to nominate whomever they wish. We should gladly grant them that prerogative. That does not mean, however, the Senate shouldn't do its job and ask the tough questions.
Yet the most interesting part of this presidential vignette isn't the nominee herself. Rather, its what Miss Kagan and her selection reveal about the man behind the nominee " Barack Obama. This is less about her qualifications, and more about where Miss Kagan sits in this great cultural mixing bowl called America. The presidents choice is more of a social experiment than a well-wrought conclusion of her being the best constitutional scholar for the job. And by the way, that's still the No. 1 requirement the last time I checked said document.
Miss Kagan does not represent the real world, as Mr. Obama put it. If she does, look out, because heaven only knows where the court goes from here.Neither does she understand the law as if it affects ordinary Americans, as the president stated during his speech last week.
The Washington Posts Kathleen Harrington summed it up best by writing, a New York City girl who attended a prep school, Ivy League colleges and law school " who once barred military recruiters from Harvard's recruitment office and was an adviser to Goldman Sachs " can't be characterized as anything close to mainstream America.
There's only one word to summarize Mr. Obama's choice " legacy. Miss Kagan's ascension to the court affirms a liberal predilection the likes of which have not been seen since the Burger court. Think about it. The presidents domestic agenda is in a shambles. His foreign policy moves of late have been questionable, particularly with respect to Iran and North Korea, not to mention his inaction on Chinese currency. His party stands to lose at least one, if not both, chambers of Congress because of his leftist bent.
Obama's Supreme legacy
I'm loving the drama that is unfolding around President Barack Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Conservatives are, true to form, bungling the narrative they should be rightfully pushing " an unqualified liberal just chomping at the bit to legislate from the bench. Meanwhile, Miss Kagan's record on anything that might reveal her jurisprudence is so sparse that liberals are beginning to get a little skittish on just how she may rule on various issues.
As Ive said before, this president " and his successors " are entitled to nominate whomever they wish. We should gladly grant them that prerogative. That does not mean, however, the Senate shouldn't do its job and ask the tough questions.
Yet the most interesting part of this presidential vignette isn't the nominee herself. Rather, its what Miss Kagan and her selection reveal about the man behind the nominee " Barack Obama. This is less about her qualifications, and more about where Miss Kagan sits in this great cultural mixing bowl called America. The presidents choice is more of a social experiment than a well-wrought conclusion of her being the best constitutional scholar for the job. And by the way, that's still the No. 1 requirement the last time I checked said document.
Miss Kagan does not represent the real world, as Mr. Obama put it. If she does, look out, because heaven only knows where the court goes from here.Neither does she understand the law as if it affects ordinary Americans, as the president stated during his speech last week.
The Washington Posts Kathleen Harrington summed it up best by writing, a New York City girl who attended a prep school, Ivy League colleges and law school " who once barred military recruiters from Harvard's recruitment office and was an adviser to Goldman Sachs " can't be characterized as anything close to mainstream America.
There's only one word to summarize Mr. Obama's choice " legacy. Miss Kagan's ascension to the court affirms a liberal predilection the likes of which have not been seen since the Burger court. Think about it. The presidents domestic agenda is in a shambles. His foreign policy moves of late have been questionable, particularly with respect to Iran and North Korea, not to mention his inaction on Chinese currency. His party stands to lose at least one, if not both, chambers of Congress because of his leftist bent.
05/10/10
Time to get a job, Al Sharpton
Here we go again. Someone somewhere is playing the victim card, and the Rev. Al Sharpton is there to somehow pretend hes a victim too. The latest country-trotting for Sharpton involves a trip to sunny Arizona to feign utter outrage over the states enactment of tough new immigration laws.
Im not here to argue the merits of the state law. Even the Arizona Legislature just last week had to tweak the measure to ensure it was doing what lawmakers intended without violating constitutional rights. But Al Sharpton? Again? Didnt I see him at the local Dairy Queen last week? And just before that, on HBO with Bill Maher?
The good reverend is now vowing to bring so-called freedom walkers to Arizona this summer in acts of civil disobedience to protest and boycott the states actions. "You can amend it, you can bend it, you can do anything you want to it, but the law will inevitably promote racial profiling, Sharpton was quoted as saying. Bend ... amend ... Wait a minute, was that Jesse Jackson I just heard? Since when did Sharpton take to rhyming? And since when did these guys need to come up with we-shall-overcome lyrics every time they swoop in on an alleged injustice they deem worthy of their advocacy? And who pays for this stuff?
Can you tell Im a little fed up? So should most Americans be. In my mind, Sharptons presence cheapens the arguable claims of Arizona immigrants, or at least their right to challenge them as legitimate. Yet when Al Sharpton arrives on the scene, I feel the country heaves this collective sigh and goes about its other business.
Lets face it, hes a political ambulance-chaser. Sharpton may make a killin doing it, but I wonder if he really is helping those he purports to speak for.
Time to get a job, Al Sharpton
Here we go again. Someone somewhere is playing the victim card, and the Rev. Al Sharpton is there to somehow pretend hes a victim too. The latest country-trotting for Sharpton involves a trip to sunny Arizona to feign utter outrage over the states enactment of tough new immigration laws.
Im not here to argue the merits of the state law. Even the Arizona Legislature just last week had to tweak the measure to ensure it was doing what lawmakers intended without violating constitutional rights. But Al Sharpton? Again? Didnt I see him at the local Dairy Queen last week? And just before that, on HBO with Bill Maher?
The good reverend is now vowing to bring so-called freedom walkers to Arizona this summer in acts of civil disobedience to protest and boycott the states actions. "You can amend it, you can bend it, you can do anything you want to it, but the law will inevitably promote racial profiling, Sharpton was quoted as saying. Bend ... amend ... Wait a minute, was that Jesse Jackson I just heard? Since when did Sharpton take to rhyming? And since when did these guys need to come up with we-shall-overcome lyrics every time they swoop in on an alleged injustice they deem worthy of their advocacy? And who pays for this stuff?
Can you tell Im a little fed up? So should most Americans be. In my mind, Sharptons presence cheapens the arguable claims of Arizona immigrants, or at least their right to challenge them as legitimate. Yet when Al Sharpton arrives on the scene, I feel the country heaves this collective sigh and goes about its other business.
Lets face it, hes a political ambulance-chaser. Sharpton may make a killin doing it, but I wonder if he really is helping those he purports to speak for.
05/10/10
Republican Party and black advancement
Over the past several weeks we have received an unusual volume of mail requesting that research and writings be done regarding the Republican Party and its significance in advancing the plight of American blacks in this nation.
While pollsters and high priest of blackness continue to remind us that black support for the Republican Party has significantly dropped since the election of President Barack Obama, we don't hear much about the many serious black conservative candidates running for Congress today with an excellent shot at winning.
In reality, no political group has done more to help minorities than Republicans.
Originally formed out of the abolitionist movement, the Republican Party announced the total elimination of slavery as part of its official platform during the first Republican National Convention in 1856. For this, the Democrats derisively dubbed them Black Republicans.
During Lincolns third term, this Republican platform was finally realized. Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower were Republicans as well. It was Roosevelt who invited Booker T. Washington to the White House, and it was Eisenhower who sent federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., to enforce school integration.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Republicans helped push civil rights legislation into the mainstream. Eisenhower used federal troops to enforce the Supreme Courts desegregation ruling. And despite the myth to the contrary, a far greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (a sublime piece of legislation that had its roots in the Republican-backed Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875). In fact, the high level of Republican support prevented the 1964 Civil Rights Act from being filibustered by Southern Democrats who relied upon race-baiting to stay in office.
When the GOP once again embraces its founding principles, storied history and uncompromising stance on the critical issues, Americans of all stripes will realize that she is the party of choice.
Republican Party and black advancement
Over the past several weeks we have received an unusual volume of mail requesting that research and writings be done regarding the Republican Party and its significance in advancing the plight of American blacks in this nation.
While pollsters and high priest of blackness continue to remind us that black support for the Republican Party has significantly dropped since the election of President Barack Obama, we don't hear much about the many serious black conservative candidates running for Congress today with an excellent shot at winning.
In reality, no political group has done more to help minorities than Republicans.
Originally formed out of the abolitionist movement, the Republican Party announced the total elimination of slavery as part of its official platform during the first Republican National Convention in 1856. For this, the Democrats derisively dubbed them Black Republicans.
During Lincolns third term, this Republican platform was finally realized. Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower were Republicans as well. It was Roosevelt who invited Booker T. Washington to the White House, and it was Eisenhower who sent federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., to enforce school integration.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Republicans helped push civil rights legislation into the mainstream. Eisenhower used federal troops to enforce the Supreme Courts desegregation ruling. And despite the myth to the contrary, a far greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (a sublime piece of legislation that had its roots in the Republican-backed Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875). In fact, the high level of Republican support prevented the 1964 Civil Rights Act from being filibustered by Southern Democrats who relied upon race-baiting to stay in office.
When the GOP once again embraces its founding principles, storied history and uncompromising stance on the critical issues, Americans of all stripes will realize that she is the party of choice.
05/10/10
Too big to fail'
This regulatory environment worked very well into the late 20th century. When commercial banks failed, the FDIC arranged for their liquidation or merger and protected depositors. When investment banks failed because of risky behavior,the partners or shareholders lost their investments and the entities were liquidated or merged. No investment bank was too big to fail. During this period there were no major systemic financial crises.
However, with the increasing globalization of finance, American commercial and investment banks were increasingly competing against well-capitalized foreign banks that were not subject to the restrictions of Glass-Steagall. In 1999, a Republican Congress and a Democratic president (Clinton) repealed the portion of the act that separated commercial and investment banking. Commercial banks began acquiring investment banks and engaging in more risky investment activity formerly confined to investment banks.
Too big to fail'
This regulatory environment worked very well into the late 20th century. When commercial banks failed, the FDIC arranged for their liquidation or merger and protected depositors. When investment banks failed because of risky behavior,the partners or shareholders lost their investments and the entities were liquidated or merged. No investment bank was too big to fail. During this period there were no major systemic financial crises.
However, with the increasing globalization of finance, American commercial and investment banks were increasingly competing against well-capitalized foreign banks that were not subject to the restrictions of Glass-Steagall. In 1999, a Republican Congress and a Democratic president (Clinton) repealed the portion of the act that separated commercial and investment banking. Commercial banks began acquiring investment banks and engaging in more risky investment activity formerly confined to investment banks.
05/10/10
BP = better pay!
I've been monitoring the cleanup efforts by oil giant British Petroleum (BP) and its inability to cap a gaping hole in the ocean's floor that's oozing thousands of barrels of black gold per day. I have to say I'm perplexed that a billion-dollar corporation that has specialized in underwater oil extraction since the process was created can't seem to solve this crisis. I'm no engineer,but these guys are. So what's the problem? In applying with the Department of Energy and EPA to open the mega-platform years ago, BP told regulators they weren't worried about potential environmental damage to the coastline's industries if a spill ever occurred because the rig sat nearly 45 miles offshore, presumably allowing BP plenty of time to eradicate any damage prior to landfall.
And yet here we sit today, a modern-day Valdez in one of our nation's largest and busiest commercial ports. And after 11 days, oil continues to spew, polluting the coastline and threatening fishing and other commercial enterprises. Gulf-area workers and residents are growing restless. What's more unsettling than the spill itself is the fact that BP can't seem to plug the hole.
Our government is also growing restless. President Barack Obama traveled to Louisiana yesterday to vent his own frustrations, and I appreciated his tough talk.
"BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying this bill," Obama said. On behalf of all Americans, let me be the first to echo that sentiment.In fact, as far as the feds are concerned, BP should now stand for "better pay!" That's why I was worried when, in the same speech yesterday, Obama stated, "Your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis."
Uhh, just what exactly does that mean, Mr. President? I realize your administration believes government can play a role in every facet of our lives,but when it comes to this situation, don't you dare let BP off the hook.Besides the fact that our country is flat broke, not one American believes one tax dollar should be spent helping a British oil company; I don't care how many American jobs they create. This is their mess. Lean on them to speed up the process, but don't give them any slack. And please, refuse the urge to tilt another government department toward any grand agenda.
It's national situations like these that average Americans fully understand and appreciate. We don't need any new laws to gum up the works or any new bureaucracies to watch other bureaucratic agencies. Forget the chance to push a leftist philosophy and just play this one straight up the middle.
BP = better pay!
I've been monitoring the cleanup efforts by oil giant British Petroleum (BP) and its inability to cap a gaping hole in the ocean's floor that's oozing thousands of barrels of black gold per day. I have to say I'm perplexed that a billion-dollar corporation that has specialized in underwater oil extraction since the process was created can't seem to solve this crisis. I'm no engineer,but these guys are. So what's the problem? In applying with the Department of Energy and EPA to open the mega-platform years ago, BP told regulators they weren't worried about potential environmental damage to the coastline's industries if a spill ever occurred because the rig sat nearly 45 miles offshore, presumably allowing BP plenty of time to eradicate any damage prior to landfall.
And yet here we sit today, a modern-day Valdez in one of our nation's largest and busiest commercial ports. And after 11 days, oil continues to spew, polluting the coastline and threatening fishing and other commercial enterprises. Gulf-area workers and residents are growing restless. What's more unsettling than the spill itself is the fact that BP can't seem to plug the hole.
Our government is also growing restless. President Barack Obama traveled to Louisiana yesterday to vent his own frustrations, and I appreciated his tough talk.
"BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying this bill," Obama said. On behalf of all Americans, let me be the first to echo that sentiment.In fact, as far as the feds are concerned, BP should now stand for "better pay!" That's why I was worried when, in the same speech yesterday, Obama stated, "Your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis."
Uhh, just what exactly does that mean, Mr. President? I realize your administration believes government can play a role in every facet of our lives,but when it comes to this situation, don't you dare let BP off the hook.Besides the fact that our country is flat broke, not one American believes one tax dollar should be spent helping a British oil company; I don't care how many American jobs they create. This is their mess. Lean on them to speed up the process, but don't give them any slack. And please, refuse the urge to tilt another government department toward any grand agenda.
It's national situations like these that average Americans fully understand and appreciate. We don't need any new laws to gum up the works or any new bureaucracies to watch other bureaucratic agencies. Forget the chance to push a leftist philosophy and just play this one straight up the middle.
04/14/10
AWOL leadership on the budget
You just know the editors at the Washington Post enjoyed drafting Tuesdays front page headline on the federal budget picture: Presidents team is optimistic on deficit. Whewthat was close. For a few months there, liberals were beginning to wonder if they could ever spend with abandon again. Now, they have even a sliver of empirical evidence that all those taxes raised on financial institutions have started to pour in. Katie, bar the door. Its time to go shopping, Federal Government style! Never mind that even if this White House stays on its current course, it will continue to set major league records on spending, ending this year with close to $1.3 trillion in deficits. Unprecedented spending as far as the eye can see. The sad commentary in this fiscal charade is the average American is either completely oblivious to the goings-on around Washington or he/she simply doesnt care. If you were fed major services such as free health care and told you had a moral right to everything the federal government provided through its nanny doctrine, after a while, dont you think youd be duped, or at least so gluttonously fat off the largesse you couldnt move even if you wanted to?? Think its not happening? Think again. Fresh off a trillion dollar hangover, congressional Democrats are reminded they have to return from recess and actually govern according to the laws of the land. Chief among them is Congress actually having to produce a budget on how it will run the government for the next fiscal year. And yet, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are thinking thats not such a good idea. A budget merely complicates and formalizes their runaway habits, and thats much too nasty to have on paper, especially at this time. So come the statutorily-mandated deadline of April 15th for Congress to produce a budget, Democrats will be AWOL on the subject. Never mind that at the most desperate time when hardships abound, the first thing families do is sit down and pen a new budget, congressional Democrats do the exact opposite. Not only is their spending so shameful, they no longer want to be bothered by writing it down! Were so bankrupt as a country that even our kids and grandchildren will be on the hook for cleaning up this mess, and now they dont want to tell us how it will all be spent?? The situation would be laughable if it werent so dire. This latest move is another symbol of the Lefts true intentions " spend till it hurts, but be damned sure it hurts someone other than our special interests. Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est M-F.
AWOL leadership on the budget
You just know the editors at the Washington Post enjoyed drafting Tuesdays front page headline on the federal budget picture: Presidents team is optimistic on deficit. Whewthat was close. For a few months there, liberals were beginning to wonder if they could ever spend with abandon again. Now, they have even a sliver of empirical evidence that all those taxes raised on financial institutions have started to pour in. Katie, bar the door. Its time to go shopping, Federal Government style! Never mind that even if this White House stays on its current course, it will continue to set major league records on spending, ending this year with close to $1.3 trillion in deficits. Unprecedented spending as far as the eye can see. The sad commentary in this fiscal charade is the average American is either completely oblivious to the goings-on around Washington or he/she simply doesnt care. If you were fed major services such as free health care and told you had a moral right to everything the federal government provided through its nanny doctrine, after a while, dont you think youd be duped, or at least so gluttonously fat off the largesse you couldnt move even if you wanted to?? Think its not happening? Think again. Fresh off a trillion dollar hangover, congressional Democrats are reminded they have to return from recess and actually govern according to the laws of the land. Chief among them is Congress actually having to produce a budget on how it will run the government for the next fiscal year. And yet, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are thinking thats not such a good idea. A budget merely complicates and formalizes their runaway habits, and thats much too nasty to have on paper, especially at this time. So come the statutorily-mandated deadline of April 15th for Congress to produce a budget, Democrats will be AWOL on the subject. Never mind that at the most desperate time when hardships abound, the first thing families do is sit down and pen a new budget, congressional Democrats do the exact opposite. Not only is their spending so shameful, they no longer want to be bothered by writing it down! Were so bankrupt as a country that even our kids and grandchildren will be on the hook for cleaning up this mess, and now they dont want to tell us how it will all be spent?? The situation would be laughable if it werent so dire. This latest move is another symbol of the Lefts true intentions " spend till it hurts, but be damned sure it hurts someone other than our special interests. Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est M-F.
04/07/10
Virtues of Capitalism
Sometimes we need to be reminded that there never has been such a virtuous economic system as that of American capitalism. Others, not so fortunate to be in control of their futures "due to a burdening economic system, yearn for the power that is left in the hands of the individual in a capitalistic society.
Capitalism claims that it will reward those who produce and is therefore a system built on virtuous economic incentives. A person is free to excel or fail; and,always the market will set values and adjust itself when necessary.
The free thinking nature of our Founding Fathers assured that the new United States would follow this exemplary model. They knew what it was like to be hindered by a mercantilist system where much of enterprise was controlled by state. Liberal capitalism, with private enterprise, was at the core of the new freedom they sought in a foreign land.
Unlike any other economic system, capitalism instills a sense of virtue in those who are in the middle class and on the fringe of rising to greater heights. Too often socialism and communism unduly protects those who refuse to work and become contributing members of society. Yet, the individual in capitalism is exposed to the market and therefore is forced to add value to society.
In all, although discontents with our great economic incentive may arise, we must remember that the individual economic virtue is facilitated by this great economic system. There will never be anything greater than American capitalism!
Virtues of Capitalism
Sometimes we need to be reminded that there never has been such a virtuous economic system as that of American capitalism. Others, not so fortunate to be in control of their futures "due to a burdening economic system, yearn for the power that is left in the hands of the individual in a capitalistic society.
Capitalism claims that it will reward those who produce and is therefore a system built on virtuous economic incentives. A person is free to excel or fail; and,always the market will set values and adjust itself when necessary.
The free thinking nature of our Founding Fathers assured that the new United States would follow this exemplary model. They knew what it was like to be hindered by a mercantilist system where much of enterprise was controlled by state. Liberal capitalism, with private enterprise, was at the core of the new freedom they sought in a foreign land.
Unlike any other economic system, capitalism instills a sense of virtue in those who are in the middle class and on the fringe of rising to greater heights. Too often socialism and communism unduly protects those who refuse to work and become contributing members of society. Yet, the individual in capitalism is exposed to the market and therefore is forced to add value to society.
In all, although discontents with our great economic incentive may arise, we must remember that the individual economic virtue is facilitated by this great economic system. There will never be anything greater than American capitalism!
04/05/10
The Constitution and Health Care
There is nothing in the constitution which gives the government the right to tell people what goods and services they should purchase. Proponents of Health Care Reform argue that the Commerce Clause conveys this right to the government. It states "[The Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States "
Without dismissing the complex legal arguments of the expansive Commerce Clause, the mandate on individuals to purchase insurance is clearly at odds with the Tenth Amendment. Never before has the U.S. government required individuals to purchase a product or service unless they were doing so to participate in a public privilege such as driving on a government road. Clearly the Tenth Amendment was enacted with intent of limiting what the government could force its citizens to do.
If the government can force its citizens to buy health insurance, can it next mandate Americans to purchase General Motors cars? Organic foods? American-made TV sets?
Without mandated insurance for every American, health care insurance reform collapses.The young, the healthy and the optimistic will choose not to pay the high premiums required by community ratings (as opposed to actuarial calculations). They will only purchase health care insurance when they become sick or transition into a higher risk classification. That will further increase premiums and exacerbate the already complicated costly system.
The Constitution and Health Care
There is nothing in the constitution which gives the government the right to tell people what goods and services they should purchase. Proponents of Health Care Reform argue that the Commerce Clause conveys this right to the government. It states "[The Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States "
Without dismissing the complex legal arguments of the expansive Commerce Clause, the mandate on individuals to purchase insurance is clearly at odds with the Tenth Amendment. Never before has the U.S. government required individuals to purchase a product or service unless they were doing so to participate in a public privilege such as driving on a government road. Clearly the Tenth Amendment was enacted with intent of limiting what the government could force its citizens to do.
If the government can force its citizens to buy health insurance, can it next mandate Americans to purchase General Motors cars? Organic foods? American-made TV sets?
Without mandated insurance for every American, health care insurance reform collapses.The young, the healthy and the optimistic will choose not to pay the high premiums required by community ratings (as opposed to actuarial calculations). They will only purchase health care insurance when they become sick or transition into a higher risk classification. That will further increase premiums and exacerbate the already complicated costly system.
03/29/10
What future will be left for our children?
Though the healthcare bill is a debacle, of much more significance is the future of young people and our nation. The level of unfunded mandates including social security and Medicare are over 40 trillion dollars. This situation threatens to destroy our financial future. When social security was first enacted, it was a logical program, because there were five workers for every retiree. Now there are only three workers for every retiree and in20 years there will only be two workers for every retiree. The significance is that in the beginning there were more people putting in than taking out and as our population ages and life expectancy increases there will be more people taking out than putting in. So you must push the system back to something that is logical that will work again. Why did it work before? Because the average age of death was 61 and the benefits wouldn't kick until the ripe old age of 65. Therefore adjustments are absolutely necessary. If you don't adjust accordingly, you will soon see part II of Bernie Madoff. You will soon awaken to the startling fact that our government no longer has the funding to pay your benefits.
The alternative for the government is too raise taxes to an unbelievable level for everyone, which basically changes our society to serfdom once again,like the pre American European society. They will also commence to monetize the debt, which simply means printing money and devaluing the dollar to the point where it become worthless. Either of these solutions is a disaster for our children and grand children. If there is any shred of decency left in our society, we should heed the words of George Washington and many of our founding fathers who felt that it was morally unjust to pass on debt to the future generations.
Are any of us surprised that this country remains vehemently against the recent healthcare bill that was passed by intimidation and mobster like negotiations.
What future will be left for our children?
Though the healthcare bill is a debacle, of much more significance is the future of young people and our nation. The level of unfunded mandates including social security and Medicare are over 40 trillion dollars. This situation threatens to destroy our financial future. When social security was first enacted, it was a logical program, because there were five workers for every retiree. Now there are only three workers for every retiree and in20 years there will only be two workers for every retiree. The significance is that in the beginning there were more people putting in than taking out and as our population ages and life expectancy increases there will be more people taking out than putting in. So you must push the system back to something that is logical that will work again. Why did it work before? Because the average age of death was 61 and the benefits wouldn't kick until the ripe old age of 65. Therefore adjustments are absolutely necessary. If you don't adjust accordingly, you will soon see part II of Bernie Madoff. You will soon awaken to the startling fact that our government no longer has the funding to pay your benefits.
The alternative for the government is too raise taxes to an unbelievable level for everyone, which basically changes our society to serfdom once again,like the pre American European society. They will also commence to monetize the debt, which simply means printing money and devaluing the dollar to the point where it become worthless. Either of these solutions is a disaster for our children and grand children. If there is any shred of decency left in our society, we should heed the words of George Washington and many of our founding fathers who felt that it was morally unjust to pass on debt to the future generations.
Are any of us surprised that this country remains vehemently against the recent healthcare bill that was passed by intimidation and mobster like negotiations.
03/26/10
Financial Amber Alert
Two financial events occurred in the last 24 hours which may be the beginning of the US governments financial apocalypse. Yesterday the NY times reported that Social Security disbursements exceeded revenues for the first time. This was not expected to happen until 2016. This is the beginning of Americas financial hole in Social Security that will only become deeper as baby boomers continue to retire. Unless there is the political will to fix the social security imbalance immediately, it will eventually bankrupt the treasury of the U.S Government.
Secondly,the Wall Street Journal reported today that "Unease at Deficit Hurts Demand for Treasuries". The U.S government is beginning to have trouble financing its huge deficits. Unlike past treasury auctions over the past few years, the usual foreign buyers did not show up to finance Americas deficit. Moody's warned investors last week that American AAA bond rating is in jeopardy. Have investors begun to heed Moody's warnings and unofficially downgrade Americas AAA bond rating? This is leading to significant increases in interest rates which will affect not only the cost of government borrowing,but the cost of consumer and business borrowing as well. As interest rates increase, consumer and investment spending will decline and government deficits will continue to expand. This is not the recipe for stimulating a weak economic recovery.
Are ever increasing government deficits, projected tax increases and increased interest rates going to stall Americas weak recovery? Is this the beginning of the second phase of a W recession? If so, this will further exacerbate the governments deficit financing problems.
Financial Amber Alert
Two financial events occurred in the last 24 hours which may be the beginning of the US governments financial apocalypse. Yesterday the NY times reported that Social Security disbursements exceeded revenues for the first time. This was not expected to happen until 2016. This is the beginning of Americas financial hole in Social Security that will only become deeper as baby boomers continue to retire. Unless there is the political will to fix the social security imbalance immediately, it will eventually bankrupt the treasury of the U.S Government.
Secondly,the Wall Street Journal reported today that "Unease at Deficit Hurts Demand for Treasuries". The U.S government is beginning to have trouble financing its huge deficits. Unlike past treasury auctions over the past few years, the usual foreign buyers did not show up to finance Americas deficit. Moody's warned investors last week that American AAA bond rating is in jeopardy. Have investors begun to heed Moody's warnings and unofficially downgrade Americas AAA bond rating? This is leading to significant increases in interest rates which will affect not only the cost of government borrowing,but the cost of consumer and business borrowing as well. As interest rates increase, consumer and investment spending will decline and government deficits will continue to expand. This is not the recipe for stimulating a weak economic recovery.
Are ever increasing government deficits, projected tax increases and increased interest rates going to stall Americas weak recovery? Is this the beginning of the second phase of a W recession? If so, this will further exacerbate the governments deficit financing problems.
02/01/10
Mr. President, how are you defining a small business owner?
In the aftermath of President Obama's State of the Union address, its evident,and rightfully so, that the economy continues to impact and exert enormous weight on the eyes of those looking at empty bank accounts. President Obama continues to infuse heavy doses of hope infused rhetoric aimed directly at the middle class and small business; only time will answer whether his propositions come with a wickedly pure heart.
Mr. President, how are you defining a small business owner?
In the aftermath of President Obama's State of the Union address, its evident,and rightfully so, that the economy continues to impact and exert enormous weight on the eyes of those looking at empty bank accounts. President Obama continues to infuse heavy doses of hope infused rhetoric aimed directly at the middle class and small business; only time will answer whether his propositions come with a wickedly pure heart.
The President's assertion of no capital gains tax on small business investments is likely to instill hope in those seeking real change in the marketplace.However, many unanswered questions and concerns remain among a doubting public.Many small business owners now question the Presidents criteria for a small business owner.
Clearly,depending on where your business is established, a small business can take on radical and a more complex meaning. The definition of a small business changes from state to state. Whats President Obama's definition? He has only gone so far as to stipulate that these businesses need to hire new employees or raise wages. One can only hope that these are the only prerequisites.
Any market capitalist should be fearful of policy that allocates funds to only a specific segment in the market. We should want these benefits to go to all small businesses, not just those that fit an Obama defined specific profile.Though, we must acknowledge that while the parameters are vague and left to the Administrations interpretation, it is still a step in the necessary direction.
The American people should also be incredulous of the Washington's usual smoke mirrors that can be deceptively painful to interpret. This policy does nothing to repair a broken monetary system that has pumped trillions of recklessly printed dollars into the Almighty American dollar reservoir. This would in turn spell more disaster and further contribute to untold inflation inflicted damage that would make Hannibal Lector look like the Easter Bunny.
So, while President Obama has convinced the world that he is going in the right direction of pro-small business policy, he, in all actuality, is doing little to correct the bigger threat at hand: inflation, and soon to be crippling stagflation.
Knowing that the damage is severe and ongoing, are their Obama policies in place to alleviate the suffering of many Americans and halt the downward spiral of this economy? The deeper sadness is that this administration has squandered trillions of wasted dollars that this economy or the people will ever see again. Can the American people ever be assured of ever recouping their investment in the foreseeable future?
Taking on the monetary policy of the nation will be far too much of a task for a President lacking in financial policy savvy and who is infected with a socialist financial ideology. Irrespective, Americans deserve politicians who will fight to honor that historical little piece of green paper that sustains their value in a much larger world.
01/21/10
Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten: You're Fired.
It is extremely difficult to understand how the President and his White House feels that the loss in Massachusetts is no reflection on his leadership, policies or agenda. Have they become so arrogant and out of touch? Will they remain stubborn, blind and deaf, only to continue to ignore the will of the people? The people personally like and respect our president, but he needs to hear their outcry, anger and disgust with the direction our America is quickly headed. The victory in Massachusetts last night was not about Republicans or Democrats, it was about America. America fired the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, and hired the Democrats in the process. The people have since turned the tables and have become so utterly disappointed with what few positive results the Democrats have produced that they are now firing them in hopes that they will finally get someone who represents their interests and not the interests of banks, Wall Street, the auto industry, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. In other words, everyday Americans would like to see their individual lives improved from the many policies Congress and the White house are now initiating.
Mayday! Mayday! Abandon healthcare, abandon cap and trade, give us real immigration reform, protect us against terrorism, create jobs in the economy and listen to our angst! The midterm election started last night, ten months in advance. Last night's midterm election results dont bode well for our President, Congress, and the current Democratic leadership.
And, the republicans are no better, as they havent shown the leadership expected to thrive and succeed at a time when our country needs them most. Irrespective, the American people have decided: Democrats are worse! And they will continue to fire them until they understand and put in place policies that serve them, and not their monarchical mentality.
The people have spoken: to Democrats, Republicans, and to anyone else who wants to lead them, both in Congress and in the white house. They need jobs, a healthcare plan that doesnt punish us and destroy our entrepreneurial way of life. Cap and trade is destructive to the economy for many states in this country. Wake up Mr. President, Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike; the American people are livid, disgusted and fatigued with a Washington that only serves their selfish interest. And, if you don't start serving the American people, then, like they say on the apprentice, "You're fired!
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 0pm - 10 pm est.
Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten: You're Fired.
It is extremely difficult to understand how the President and his White House feels that the loss in Massachusetts is no reflection on his leadership, policies or agenda. Have they become so arrogant and out of touch? Will they remain stubborn, blind and deaf, only to continue to ignore the will of the people? The people personally like and respect our president, but he needs to hear their outcry, anger and disgust with the direction our America is quickly headed. The victory in Massachusetts last night was not about Republicans or Democrats, it was about America. America fired the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, and hired the Democrats in the process. The people have since turned the tables and have become so utterly disappointed with what few positive results the Democrats have produced that they are now firing them in hopes that they will finally get someone who represents their interests and not the interests of banks, Wall Street, the auto industry, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. In other words, everyday Americans would like to see their individual lives improved from the many policies Congress and the White house are now initiating.
Mayday! Mayday! Abandon healthcare, abandon cap and trade, give us real immigration reform, protect us against terrorism, create jobs in the economy and listen to our angst! The midterm election started last night, ten months in advance. Last night's midterm election results dont bode well for our President, Congress, and the current Democratic leadership.
And, the republicans are no better, as they havent shown the leadership expected to thrive and succeed at a time when our country needs them most. Irrespective, the American people have decided: Democrats are worse! And they will continue to fire them until they understand and put in place policies that serve them, and not their monarchical mentality.
The people have spoken: to Democrats, Republicans, and to anyone else who wants to lead them, both in Congress and in the white house. They need jobs, a healthcare plan that doesnt punish us and destroy our entrepreneurial way of life. Cap and trade is destructive to the economy for many states in this country. Wake up Mr. President, Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike; the American people are livid, disgusted and fatigued with a Washington that only serves their selfish interest. And, if you don't start serving the American people, then, like they say on the apprentice, "You're fired!
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 0pm - 10 pm est.
01/19/10
Screw Nonunion Workers for Health Care Reform
Nonunion workers of America unite and defeat health care reform legislation before you are screwed.
President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Read, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democratic Congress have negotiated a health care compromise which screws nonunion American workers. Under the terms of the compromise, Cadillac health insurance plans for unionized and government employees will be exempt from a 40% tax on these rich plans. However, the 40% tax will be paid on identical plans provided to nonunionized private sector employees. This compromise will add about $60 billion to the costs of the pending health care reform legislation. It is an understatement to say that this compromise is grossly unfair to nonunion American workers and is a national scandal to payoff the political allies of the Democratic Party.
The union bosses who agreed to this compromise should be ashamed of their hypocrisy toward American workers. Union leaders have once again shown that they care more about their power and influence in the Democratic Party than they do about American workers. It is no wonder that the labor union movement in the United States has been declining for decades. American workers in the private sector have long recognized organized labors Faustian bargain with the Democratic Party and have been abandoning the labor movement. Unions represent 9% of the private sector workers today compared to a high of 36% in 1945.
Americans need to take a serious look at how the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress are abusing their power and ignoring the will of the people in the name of health care reform. The Cadillac insurance tax exemption is only the most recent bribe to a reluctant constituency that Congressional Democratic leaders have concocted to pass unpopular health care reform. A number of other bribes have surfaced from closed congressional negotiations over the past several weeks.
The Cornhusker Kickback negotiated by Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska unfairly exempted his state from future unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates generated by the health care reform legislation. These as yet undisclosed costs estimated to be in the billions of dollars will be paid by the taxpayers of the remaining 49 states. Senator Nelson negotiated such a sweet heard deal for his constituents that a majority of the voters of Nebraska are embarrassed at their senators unconscionable fleecing of their fellow Americans.
In the Louisiana Purchase, Democratic Senator Landrieu sold her vote for a $300 million aide package. Louisiana, like the other 48 states (excluding Nebraska), will incur a huge unfunded mandated expenses from Medicare and Medicare if the health care legislation is passed. The state will have to fund these expenses with additional taxes without additional federal revenue. ($300 million is not enough to prevent state tax increases.) Yes, President Obama may literally keep his promise not to raise Federal taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, but he is breaching the spirit of his promise by forcing the states to raise taxes to pay for his unfunded federal health care mandates. America got a much better deal in the original Louisiana Purchase. The taxpayers of Louisiana will realize that they did not get such a good deal in Landrieus Louisiana Purchase when the state has to increase taxes to pay for health care reform.
Poor Senator Dodd of Connecticut sold his vote for a mere $100 million university health facility. He was such a poor negotiator that he decided not to seek reelection rather than have his constituents unceremoniously fire him.
These unconscionable political deals using your taxpayer dollars are the tip of the iceberg. Michigan got a deal to exempt Michigan Blue Cross from the insurance company tax. Florida, Pennsylvania and New York got a deal to protect their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Vermont got $10 Billion for health centers. If President Obama had not breached his campaign promises to put these negotiations on C-span, undoubtly more of these deals would be exposed for American voters to review and accept or reject.
Fortunately, this legislation is not the fait de complis that many of us thought on Christmas Eve. Out of left field, Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown is creating a tsunami in the health care debate. In the special election on Tuesday to fill Ted Kennedys Senate seat, Democratic candidate Attorney General Martha Coakley was expected to blow away Brown in the most reliable blue state in the nation where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. Several weeks ago, Coakley led Brown in the polls by 19 points. Today the race is a dead heat. The game changer was Browns promise to be the 41st vote in the US Senate against the pending health care reform legislation. If Brown wins the election, this health care legislation is DOA.
Do not expect President Obamas visit to the Bay State on Sunday to help Coakley gather white working class votes. The president tore his britches with this group of voters when he said the Cambridge police acted Stupidly in arresting African-American Harvard professor Louis Gates for talking back to the cops. While the Massachusetts white working class usually votes predictably for Democrats, they tend to be law and order Democrats and are not particularly tolerant on racial issues. Coakley took a huge risk in having Obama come to the Bay State.
Even if Brown looses the race, he would have sent a resonating message to Blue Dog and moderate Democrats. If they want to keep their seats, they should vote against this legislation. Americans do not want this corrupt version of health care reform. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 55% of Americans are against this legislation and only 40% are in favor .
Nonunion private sector workers will not benefit from the Democrats health care reform legislation. They are being used by the Democratic Party and the labor unions to finance this health care legislation with the Cadillac health care tax. Their state taxes will increase because of unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates placed on the states. Federal taxes will eventually increase to pay for the disclosed and undisclosed deals in this legislation for special interest groups and to buy votes. Even if their federal taxes are not directly increased, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical providers will pass on their increased federal taxes to their customers in the form of higher prices. Workers health care will not improve and the cost of their health care will not decline as a result of this legislation.
Nonunion private sector working Americans are the key to turning the tide on this health care legislation. If they live in Massachusetts, they can vote for Brown on Tuesday or stay home if they cannot pull the lever for a Republican. If they live in the other 49 states, they need to contact their congressmen and and senators with a clear message " Kill This Health Care Legislation. The Democrats will listen to American workers now and kill the bill or loose their jobs in November.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10pm est.
Screw Nonunion Workers for Health Care Reform
Nonunion workers of America unite and defeat health care reform legislation before you are screwed.
President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Read, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democratic Congress have negotiated a health care compromise which screws nonunion American workers. Under the terms of the compromise, Cadillac health insurance plans for unionized and government employees will be exempt from a 40% tax on these rich plans. However, the 40% tax will be paid on identical plans provided to nonunionized private sector employees. This compromise will add about $60 billion to the costs of the pending health care reform legislation. It is an understatement to say that this compromise is grossly unfair to nonunion American workers and is a national scandal to payoff the political allies of the Democratic Party.
The union bosses who agreed to this compromise should be ashamed of their hypocrisy toward American workers. Union leaders have once again shown that they care more about their power and influence in the Democratic Party than they do about American workers. It is no wonder that the labor union movement in the United States has been declining for decades. American workers in the private sector have long recognized organized labors Faustian bargain with the Democratic Party and have been abandoning the labor movement. Unions represent 9% of the private sector workers today compared to a high of 36% in 1945.
Americans need to take a serious look at how the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress are abusing their power and ignoring the will of the people in the name of health care reform. The Cadillac insurance tax exemption is only the most recent bribe to a reluctant constituency that Congressional Democratic leaders have concocted to pass unpopular health care reform. A number of other bribes have surfaced from closed congressional negotiations over the past several weeks.
The Cornhusker Kickback negotiated by Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska unfairly exempted his state from future unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates generated by the health care reform legislation. These as yet undisclosed costs estimated to be in the billions of dollars will be paid by the taxpayers of the remaining 49 states. Senator Nelson negotiated such a sweet heard deal for his constituents that a majority of the voters of Nebraska are embarrassed at their senators unconscionable fleecing of their fellow Americans.
In the Louisiana Purchase, Democratic Senator Landrieu sold her vote for a $300 million aide package. Louisiana, like the other 48 states (excluding Nebraska), will incur a huge unfunded mandated expenses from Medicare and Medicare if the health care legislation is passed. The state will have to fund these expenses with additional taxes without additional federal revenue. ($300 million is not enough to prevent state tax increases.) Yes, President Obama may literally keep his promise not to raise Federal taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, but he is breaching the spirit of his promise by forcing the states to raise taxes to pay for his unfunded federal health care mandates. America got a much better deal in the original Louisiana Purchase. The taxpayers of Louisiana will realize that they did not get such a good deal in Landrieus Louisiana Purchase when the state has to increase taxes to pay for health care reform.
Poor Senator Dodd of Connecticut sold his vote for a mere $100 million university health facility. He was such a poor negotiator that he decided not to seek reelection rather than have his constituents unceremoniously fire him.
These unconscionable political deals using your taxpayer dollars are the tip of the iceberg. Michigan got a deal to exempt Michigan Blue Cross from the insurance company tax. Florida, Pennsylvania and New York got a deal to protect their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Vermont got $10 Billion for health centers. If President Obama had not breached his campaign promises to put these negotiations on C-span, undoubtly more of these deals would be exposed for American voters to review and accept or reject.
Fortunately, this legislation is not the fait de complis that many of us thought on Christmas Eve. Out of left field, Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown is creating a tsunami in the health care debate. In the special election on Tuesday to fill Ted Kennedys Senate seat, Democratic candidate Attorney General Martha Coakley was expected to blow away Brown in the most reliable blue state in the nation where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. Several weeks ago, Coakley led Brown in the polls by 19 points. Today the race is a dead heat. The game changer was Browns promise to be the 41st vote in the US Senate against the pending health care reform legislation. If Brown wins the election, this health care legislation is DOA.
Do not expect President Obamas visit to the Bay State on Sunday to help Coakley gather white working class votes. The president tore his britches with this group of voters when he said the Cambridge police acted Stupidly in arresting African-American Harvard professor Louis Gates for talking back to the cops. While the Massachusetts white working class usually votes predictably for Democrats, they tend to be law and order Democrats and are not particularly tolerant on racial issues. Coakley took a huge risk in having Obama come to the Bay State.
Even if Brown looses the race, he would have sent a resonating message to Blue Dog and moderate Democrats. If they want to keep their seats, they should vote against this legislation. Americans do not want this corrupt version of health care reform. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 55% of Americans are against this legislation and only 40% are in favor .
Nonunion private sector workers will not benefit from the Democrats health care reform legislation. They are being used by the Democratic Party and the labor unions to finance this health care legislation with the Cadillac health care tax. Their state taxes will increase because of unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates placed on the states. Federal taxes will eventually increase to pay for the disclosed and undisclosed deals in this legislation for special interest groups and to buy votes. Even if their federal taxes are not directly increased, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical providers will pass on their increased federal taxes to their customers in the form of higher prices. Workers health care will not improve and the cost of their health care will not decline as a result of this legislation.
Nonunion private sector working Americans are the key to turning the tide on this health care legislation. If they live in Massachusetts, they can vote for Brown on Tuesday or stay home if they cannot pull the lever for a Republican. If they live in the other 49 states, they need to contact their congressmen and and senators with a clear message " Kill This Health Care Legislation. The Democrats will listen to American workers now and kill the bill or loose their jobs in November.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10pm est.
01/15/10
The Vindictive Success Tax
Uncle Sams recent reckless clamoring through our weakened and volatile American economy is beginning to make the Russian economy, terrorized by mafia thugs, look like a walk along a moonlit beach.
If it wasnt enough that Uncle Sam has viciously coerced every last business and individual into an exploitative 35% partnership via the income tax"where he is always the first to get paid. He is also taking any means necessary to beat every last penny out of our top economic performers.
This can be clearly seen in the treatment of the successful institutions of the financial community who voluntarily or forcefully accepted TARP funds. The program committed $700 billion to financial institutions with troubled assets created by the 2008 financial crisis. Of the original commitment, $500 billion was lent to or invested in financial institutions and $100 billion of these loans were repaid. For its risky investment, Americas unwanted senior business partner pocketed an additional $35 billion in profit within the first nine months of the program. When the remainder of TARP funds is repaid, it is unlikely taxpayers will lose their investment. (This does not include the amount that the administration lent to the automobile industry outside of the original scope of TARP.)
But wait, Uncle Sam wants more from the nations most successful and profitable financial institutions: President Obama wants to levy a $90 billion Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on the big banks who are the whipping boys for this financial mess. He is exonerating the government, the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from any responsibility of the financial meltdown so he can place the full responsibility for the meltdown on the nations financial institutions. In the process, he can extort additional taxes from them, euphemistically called Responsibility Fees to finance his fiscally irresponsible budget by forcing them to pay twice for their TARP participation. It is obviously clear that his burring rhetoric is blinding even basic accounting.
Why do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a pass from the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee even though they encouraged risky loans to be given out as a form of welfare? They made the politically correct payoff by flushing out hundreds-of-thousands of dollars a year to democratic candidates.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that the current administration is mustering another surprise attack on capitalism. Irrespective, I have faith that the American people are going to stand up against this thuggery?
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est.
The Vindictive Success Tax
Uncle Sams recent reckless clamoring through our weakened and volatile American economy is beginning to make the Russian economy, terrorized by mafia thugs, look like a walk along a moonlit beach.
If it wasnt enough that Uncle Sam has viciously coerced every last business and individual into an exploitative 35% partnership via the income tax"where he is always the first to get paid. He is also taking any means necessary to beat every last penny out of our top economic performers.
This can be clearly seen in the treatment of the successful institutions of the financial community who voluntarily or forcefully accepted TARP funds. The program committed $700 billion to financial institutions with troubled assets created by the 2008 financial crisis. Of the original commitment, $500 billion was lent to or invested in financial institutions and $100 billion of these loans were repaid. For its risky investment, Americas unwanted senior business partner pocketed an additional $35 billion in profit within the first nine months of the program. When the remainder of TARP funds is repaid, it is unlikely taxpayers will lose their investment. (This does not include the amount that the administration lent to the automobile industry outside of the original scope of TARP.)
But wait, Uncle Sam wants more from the nations most successful and profitable financial institutions: President Obama wants to levy a $90 billion Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on the big banks who are the whipping boys for this financial mess. He is exonerating the government, the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from any responsibility of the financial meltdown so he can place the full responsibility for the meltdown on the nations financial institutions. In the process, he can extort additional taxes from them, euphemistically called Responsibility Fees to finance his fiscally irresponsible budget by forcing them to pay twice for their TARP participation. It is obviously clear that his burring rhetoric is blinding even basic accounting.
Why do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a pass from the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee even though they encouraged risky loans to be given out as a form of welfare? They made the politically correct payoff by flushing out hundreds-of-thousands of dollars a year to democratic candidates.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that the current administration is mustering another surprise attack on capitalism. Irrespective, I have faith that the American people are going to stand up against this thuggery?
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est.
Video List
 |
|
|
