The New Generation

War on women no Fluke

2012-03-10T23:28:00.001-05:00

The "war on religion" or "war on women" or"contraception issue" or "Sandra Fluke" or whatever you choose to call it has takes on a life of it's own.

But make no mistake about this controversy, This is no fluke.

This is a concentrated, organized effort by progressive forces to accomplish two broad goals:

1. Continue to shape and mold the Constitution of the United States into what they believe it should be.
2. Develop a "back up" or "fail safe" against Rick Santorum.

So let us take a closer look at the motives and the way they are doing actually getting this accomplished, because make no mistake, they're winning this one.

It all started with this. the moment George Stephablahblahnopolus brought it up in a GOP debate. What gave it a way was not the fact that he brought it up. But that he was so adamant if getting a response in an attempt to get Mitt Romney on record.

This was done as "bait" it was put out there and to Rick Santorum's detriment, he was the only one to take the bait. he talked about it, kept getting questions about it, and then came the gauntlet.

When Obama and the left brought up the Obamacare mandate. Some will say that it was actually the catholic church that brought it up, but the reason a religious institution brought it up was because someone in the administration attempted to enforce it.

Let me take this chance to point out that leftist constantly say that Jesus would want universal health care, or that Jesus would be a socialist,,,, that's BULLSHIT. Jesus taught love for neighbor, but not at the tip of a roman spear.

So the newest war on religion was born. The catholic church went back and forth back and forth with the Obama administration, and they eventually got some type of mediocre compromise which gave the left cover to say "Obama fixed it". but did they? Here is a response straight from Archbishop Naumann.

New Generation member Derek, who attends the Archbishop's church said he called it a "coercion mandate instead of a contraception mandate" and I believe that's right.

before I continue rambling, let me point out how the left has once again exposed their hypocrisy on this one. So the left is always outraged about this so-called, non-existent separation of church and state. What they actually want is for the church not to interfere with the state, but the state to harass the church at every turn. So it is an outrage, and "offensive" when a church puts up a nativity scene in private land, but when the government imposes a mandate on the church "it's for the greater good of reproductive health".

Just to point to a bit more evidence that the left's war on religion DOES exist, and is no FLUKE, pun intended, let me point to two articles:

-One from Reuters, head line: Banks foreclosing on Churches in record numbers.
-Another also from Reuters, headline: U.S. adds Vatican to money-laundering "concern" list.

So they're right, there is NO war on religion. There is however a war on Christianity. Keep in mind this is coming to you from a Jewish man.

This is a part of a long process that the progressives have undertaken, as it was the case of the Soviets, to replace religion with the state. There is GOAL #1.

Enter Sandra Fluke.

They claimed that she was silenced by Chairman Isa, let me make one thins clear. She was not silenced, she could have gone anywhere she wanted and talked about whatever the hell she wanted to speak. Just because you dont get an audience with who you want an audience with, does not mean you got silenced. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, NOT A RIGHT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO HEAR YOU SPEAK. I say this because of MORONS like this chick. I've already written an answer to this lovely video which you may read here.

So Sandra Fluke is put up there, again as bait so they can counter the war on Christianity", with the "war on women"

I sometimes find my self impressed with Bill Oreilly, and he did a good job linking Sandra Fluke, straight to the White House.

I firmly believe that they are actually grooming Sandra Fluke to replace Nancy Pelosi. I bet you she'll move to San Francisco when she graduates law school.

The bottom line on this is that the left is trying to advance a narrative which Rick Santorum allowed them to advance. And that is that Rick Santorum is a religious bigot. They are doing this in the off chance that he should win the GOP nomination.

So, they bottom lines?

-The left is attempting to shape and mold the first amendment into what they want it to be.
-There is no "war on religion", just a "war on Christianity".
-This is an orchestrated fail safe should Rick Santorum win.
-The leftists are still hypocrites.
-And yes..... If Sandra Fluke actually spends $3000 in birth control, and wants you to pay for, then she's still a SLUT.

-Lastly don't let anyone call this crap "reproductive health", call it for what is is "freedom from sexual responsibility"

I'm done...for now.

Joel Frewa

Thought of the day

2012-03-08T21:08:00.005-05:00

So here is my thought of the day......if you're a "moderate" that means you are in the political middle. And you're more likely to get compromise from "across the isle"...whatever...

Compromise leads to the middle, which by definition, leads to mediocrity. Thus compromised principles lead to mediocre principles, and mediocre principles lead one to " reach across the isle" .....and yes, I only have one thought per day.

Why do they make it so easy?

2012-03-04T02:35:00.002-05:00

So this girl make me happy. She makes me happy because she makes it so easy. So does she really believe that she is...in her own words..."entitled to reproductive health" meaning free birth control?

First of all, start calling it what it is. Its not "reproductive health", it is "freedom from sexual responsibility". Secondly if you're going to make yourself responsible for your "reproductive health" then have the critical thinking skills necessary to come to the logical conclusion that if you're going to do that, that should include paying for your own damn birth control.

Thirdly, who the hell is denying women access to birth control? see that is where the left goes off the rails, and they don't even know it. they constantly make these absurd claims such as this one:

- if you don't want government to provide free birth control to all, you hate women.
- if you don't want the government to provide Chevy volts to everyone, free of charge, you hate the environment.

And lastly, why is it that these people think they are so "hip", so "now" so "with it", so "intellectual", so "cultured", so "evolved" that when someone comes around who disagrees with them, they "live in a different century?" who discovered time travel and didn't tell me about it?

I wish they would stop trying to deceive the American people with these false statements of about so called choices. Obama does it all the time in his populist, class warfare speeches. "we can either invest in the green energies of the future, or can admit that we are racists, nature hating, warmongers". give me a break.

The video below is a perfect example of the left's lack of intellectual honesty. And i love how she just stares into the camera, as if she's thinking "i'm doing such a great thing, why are there people so dumb out there"

Statement by TNG President Joel Frewa

2012-03-03T21:57:00.001-05:00

TNG President Joel Frewa's statement about Sandra Fluke's testimony to Congress about the contraception debate.

America’s primary elections system is broke

2012-03-01T23:31:00.001-05:00

America’s primary elections system is broke

By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.

tlucente@limanews.com
419-993-2095

LIMA, Ohio — America’s election system is broke. Specifically, our presidential election system. More specifically, our presidential primary election system.

That is the lesson we relearn, and forget, every four years.

Just look what happened in Michigan.

Michigan, like a few other states, has an open primary system where voters can vote in whichever primary they wish.

Why anyone thought it was a good policy to allow Democrats a voice in choosing the GOP nominee and vice versa is a mystery to me.

Of the Democrats who voted in the GOP primary there, some 53 percent, according to USA Today exit polling, voted for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

Why would anti-tea party liberal Democrats vote for tea party darling Santorum? Clearly, these voters were trying to help Santorum win because, in their minds, he has less of a chance of beating President Barack Obama in November than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The whole point of the primary system is for the party to choose its candidate. Allowing those who don’t belong to the party to vote destroys the point of having a primary system.

There are other problems with our primary system as well. For example, states vie to be first because, usually, the nominee is chosen early in the process and states voting later have no say in who the candidate is going to be.

Early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire have an extraordinary amount of power in choosing the candidate; however these states are not representative of the U.S. electorate.

Our primary system is also protracted, which costs not only a lot of money but can put the party challenging an incumbent at a great disadvantage as the candidates crisscross the nation taking shots at each other. They also have to start fundraising years in advance and actively campaigning a good year before the general election.

There are many reform proposals out there but they all fail to deal with the real problem, which is the idea of a primary system altogether.

It’s time to eliminate primaries, not reform them.

Most Americans probably don’t realize that the primary system is a relatively new development.

The U.S. Constitution is silent on political parties so how they decide to choose a candidate is wholly a party matter.

In the early days of the Republic, the members of the Congress chose their party’s candidate. In 1832, the parties went to a convention system where the party faithful gathered and chose their candidates. Delegates for the national conventions were usually chosen at state and local conventions. The political convention is a time-honored American tradition.

The first primary elections took place in the early part of the 20th century and were mostly nonbinding beauty contests to let those going to the convention know how the electorate felt in that particular state. It wasn’t until 1972 when the primaries were reformed and became the main vehicle for choosing the candidates.

Since then, only two incumbents have faced serious primary challenges: President Gerald Ford was challenge by former California Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1976 and U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

It’s easy to see the problem. With the possible exception of Reagan, we haven’t had a decent president since the dominance of the primary system. Mostly because it requires not a smart and decent person, but rather someone who can raise the money to conduct two national elections.

Another problem is that the vast majority of American voters, when they bother to even show up at the polls, are woefully uninformed. This exacerbates the problem when the electorate first chooses the candidates and then votes for the winner.

A convention system would at least allow those who are most informed and most vested in the party’s future to choose the nominee before allowing the electorate to vote.

The convention system was not perfect. However, it was far superior to our primary system, provided the nation with men who now loom large in the history books, and, to top it all off, made for great political theater.

Unfortunately, our election laws are geared toward protecting the two major parties and protecting incumbents so don’t count on meaningful change anytime soon.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

Thomas J. Lucente Jr. is a columnist with The Lima (Ohio) News, a Freedom Communications newspaper. He is also a veteran of the Iraq war and a law student at the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. Visit his blog at http://www.lucente.org. Readers may write to him at The Lima News, 3515 Elida Road, Lima, Ohio 45807-1538, or e-mail him at tlucente@limanews.com. His telephone number is 800-686-9924, ext. 2095. Follow him on Twitter at http://tho.lu/twitter, Google+ at http://tho.lu/google, and Facebook at http://tho.lu/facebook.

—————

PHOTO of Thomas J. Lucente Jr. available by request.

—————

Visit The Lima News online at http://www.limaohio.com.

__________________________________________________________________

Thomas J. Lucente Jr.
Freedom is a gift from Providence, not a political grant from government.
Night Editor/Editorial-Page Columnist
The Lima (Ohio) News * 3515 Elida Road * Lima, Ohio 45807
419.993.2095 * Fax 419.229.2926

http://www.lucente.org
http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com
http://www.twitter.com/ThomasLucente
http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaslucente
http://www.facebook.com/lucente

[Praying heavenward] Homer Simpson: I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!

What is this election coming to?

2012-02-29T23:56:00.004-05:00

Not because I have any particular disdain for Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, but shouldn't we have learned our lesson from 2008's Presidential bid that left us with a loss at the hands of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) - a "moderate" Republican? Apparently we conservatives tend to coalesce around whomever isn't so conservative anymore...

Analyze this: through 10 states thus far in the nomination process, we have Romney in the lead, with Santorum 63 delegates behind the "Massachusetts Moderate". As if losing by a 9 million vote margin only 3 short years ago, how can any Republican contender be seriously considered if they have any semblance of John McCain's characteristics in debate?

Senator Santorum (R-PA) is going to be clobbered by the 1 billion dollars incumbent President Barack Obama is going to throw at him. The whole issue of contraception and freedom of religion will leave the pendulum in Obama's favor. Here's why: Santorum is essentially a 4th Bush term (after George H.W. Bush's only terms and W's 2 terms) and as we all know, Obama doesn't seem to know how to handle much... EXCEPT manipulating any scenario where he can blame another. Santorum will be ridiculed by the mainstream media as has already occurred over several statements he's made that relate back to principled and hard-working values and fundamentals of Catholicism. Just now with the ensuing drama about birth control in the church, apparently 64% of women prefer the decision of the Obama administration, which is astoundingly ludicrous to say the least! Imagine a noble and valiant fighter like Santorum in a duel over morality with B.O. I do understand every candidate is going to be vetted intensely but as we witnessed in the last debate on February 22nd, amid Republicans, Santorum is no great debater and this worries me greatly.

Now for my favorite, Mitt Romney. How can a candidate who has spent his entire political career as a liberal Democrat prior to announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination be a serious candidate for any Republican? I mean, give me a break! The only thing people tend to say is "HE LOOKS PRESIDENTIAL" which quite frankly, some of the worst leaders of our time have been elected because they look young and charming... Wait, sound familiar? (See 44th President!) You know where Obama got his idea for an individual mandate and ObamaCare right? Yup, that's thanks to Mitt Romney. Again, i have no personal vendetta against the man but it is becoming clear that the only reason he's been able to amass such a lead and establish himself in this nomination process is because of his ability to outmaneuver and outspend his political opponents by a 5:1 ratio that will once again be turned against him supposing he's the nominee for the Grand Ol' Party. When Obama's guns, money, and media get their sights set on Mitt Romney, we'd better look out because a landslide of a defeat is coming, AT US.

I'm predicting it's actually going to be one of the worst political defeats in modern time if Republicans don't get their act together. For the last 5 election cycles dating back to the election of George Herbert Walker Bush, the election contests have been pretty tight. However, if there does not stand a stark contrast between President Obama and the Republican nominee, no matter who he is, come November, it's going to be worse than when Barry Goldwater was annihilated by Lyndon Johnson.

Look out America!

If gas prices, unemployment, stagflation, de-valuation of our dollar, and encroachment on religious principles have gotten this bad in Obama's first term, IMAGINE THE DESTRUCTION HE CAN DO WHEN HE DOESN'T HAVE TO FACE RE-ELECTION!!!

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964

Impressions of CPAC 2012

2012-02-13T09:07:00.013-05:00

When The New Generation Founder and President Joel Frewa approached me with the idea of attending the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. from February 9 - 11, my first thought was, "Yeah, right... like I am going to be able to go...!" As I said in my introduction way back when, I am Joe Everyman. I'm no one special, just a Dad, a Vet, a Husband, and a guy trying to make ends meet.

When I woke up at 4:30 AM on Wednesday morning (February 8th) and hopped on my Harley to head to the Austin Airport (riders, you understand!), I was pretty doggone excited, but still in a state of disbelief. Even after flying through Chicago and landing in Baltimore, I still wasn't exactly sure it was real. But as my cab pulled up to the Washington, D.C. Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, and I saw the throngs of people (ending day estimates were over 11,000 attendees), I began to believe!

Once Joel arrived (his flight from Miami had been delayed and he was about 5 hours behind schedule) and we registered for the Conference, and once I put on that badge with the blue VIP cord (Joel squared me away beyond my wildest expectations), I realized something: I was here, I was Joe Everyman, surrounded by thousands of Joe Everymen. To be sure, I was rubbing elbows with some very wealthy people, and some folks with incredible influence, but we all had one common purpose and that united us.

We were all there, not so much to defeat the man Barrack Obama (be certain that this is important to us, however!), not even to defeat the ideology he and those he surrounds himself with espouse, but to stand for something: at the risk of sounding a little cheesy, allow me to quote Superman – Truth, Justice, and the American Way! We stood for the Founding Principles handed down to us in the written word of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (which had recently been shown to me as not only the foundation of our nation, but also the law of the land – look up United Stated Code law #1...). We stood for minimalist central government and placing the decisions of our lives in our own hands, and where government is necessary, at the lowest level possible. We stood for fiscal responsibility and not handing enslaving debt to our kids and grand-kids. We stood for bringing our country back to the principles and morals upon which it was founded: courtesy, duty, honor, integrity, courage. Respect for all people and an expectation of respect in return. In short, it was electrifying.

I expected a lot of speeches, and they did run non-stop from 9 AM to 5 PM all three days with two banquets replete with vocal dissertation, but Joel and I attended three total. There were also many panels and discussions, seminars and classes, and opportunities galore to meet people of all walks of life. So we networked.

Please understand that when I say we networked, I put the emphasis on work. I am not a real people person; I have my close friends and several not-so-close friends, but I don't actively seek more. I do not look for people for whom I may do favors, nor do I ask favors from those whom I meet. So networking is a foreign concept. I had to step out of my comfort zone. But I discovered something spectacular: I learned that these people were fun and funny and interesting! I made friends I never expected to meet. We formed relationships that I hope will continue, even if only once a year. Networking wasn't the chore I expected it to be. Can we, then, as new-found friends do things for one another? Do I do things for my friends? Do they do things for me? I was able to go to CPAC, wasn't I?

Then there were the moments of meeting people I wrongly assumed would be either unfriendly or arrogant just by their positions. I learned that every person there probably felt awed by someone else there, that none of us was self-important enough to put on airs or be disrespectful in any way. When I met Congressman Allen West from Florida, he saw the Jumpmaster wings on my lapel and immediately became a brother, a compatriot, regardless of his notoriety and position. I felt as though I was greeting a friend. When I met and walked with Ted Cruz, who is running for US Senate in the Great and Sovereign State of Texas, he and I laughed and carried on as if we'd known one another for years. When I met Congressman Steve King from Iowa, he was warm and encouraging of The New Generation. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin was more interested in my having been a Soldier in Iraq when he was battling unions in Madison than in discussing his battle. I met chiefs of staff and legislative assistants, movie stars and campaign managers. They were all engaging and interested in us, and every single one of them thanked me for my service. I was even chastised for thanking someone for thanking me; it was explained to me that they were sincere and if I thanked them, it was as if they were being artificially grateful. With great unease, I am trying to say, "You're welcome."

To be sure, there were those there who did not appreciate our positions on the issues. Occupy Washington tried numerous times to storm the castle, but were repelled in every instance by law enforcement, security personnel, and at times the conventioneers themselves. I was standing in line to meet a candidate when Joel came up and regaled me with stories and pictures of the protesters being run off by CPAC folks wearing red "Occupy the White House!" T-Shirts. I myself was in Sarah Palin's keynote address when the call of "MIKE CHECK!" shot out from the other side of the auditorium. By the second pronunciation, the crowd began to chant "USA! USA! USA!" and we drowned them out. They were escorted out by security and well-meaning Conservatives. They did manage to knock an older woman seated in the back row out of her seat in the process, but many others of us swarmed her to help her to her feet and see if she was injured (she was not, thankfully).

But despite the rhetoric between the three leading camps within the GOP (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich) and a few from the Paul camp, everything remained not only civil, but a continual reminder that we are all on the same side, that we all want an America wherein these occupiers, who would knock a woman out of her chair out of spite as they were ejected, can have a government that will get out of their way and provide an environment in which opportunity is guaranteed and outcome is truly up to us.

And so I returned home yesterday, riding the final leg back on my Harley, energized, encouraged, and ready to get back to the hard work of restoring our nation, as it is the duty of each Joe Everyman.

America is truly a welfare state

2012-02-13T08:05:00.002-05:00

For those eager to read of my experiences with Joel Frewa at CPAC, stay tuned.. until then, here is my friend Thomas Lucente again...!

********************************************************************

America is truly a welfare state

By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.

tlucente@limanews.com
419-993-2095

LIMA, Ohio — President Barack Obama has been called by Newt Gingrich the “food stamp president.” A study released this month proves the moniker is deserved.

Gingrich bases his claim on the fact that 14.2 million new people have joined the food stamp rolls since Obama took office. The total as of October stood at 46.22 million Americans on government food assistance. If that seems a phenomenal number, that’s because it is. It represents about 15 percent of the American population.

But that is not the whole picture.

The Heritage Foundation on Wednesday released its latest Index of Dependence on Government report. The results were staggering.

America has truly become a welfare state.

The most frightening thing in the new report is that the average American relying on federal government assistance now receives more in benefits than the average American’s disposable personal income. The Index reports Americans who rely on government receive an average $32,748 worth of benefits, surpassing the average American’s disposable personal income of $32,446.

Overall, some 67.3 million Americans, or almost 22 percent, rely “on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions,” according to the abstract of the study, which was authored by William Beach and Patrick Tyrrell.

Supporting those 67.3 million Americans costs U.S. taxpayers about $2.5 trillion each year. More than 70 percent of federal spending goes toward these dependency programs.

The problem is compounded by the fact that 49.5 percent of American workers pay no federal income tax.

You don’t need a doctorate in economics to see this trend cannot be sustained.

“The United States has long reached the point at which it must reverse the direction ... or face economic and social collapse,” they wrote. “Yet policymakers made little progress ... since the 2010 Index of Dependence on Government was published.”

Even liberals have to understand that a soaring national debt and nearly a quarter of Americans depending on government aid is a disaster in the making.

While Obama and his fascist policies have to shoulder much of the blame, we can’t place it all on his shoulders. He just happens to be the skipper of this shipwreck at the moment, though he is accelerating the boat toward the iceberg.

The study found that we expended 15 times more resources toward paying for people dependent on government in 2010 than we did in 1962. The Index of Dependence on Government grew by 8.1 percent in 2010 alone. It has grown 60.7 percent since 2001.

There does not appear to be an end in sight. If anything, the problem is going to get worse.

“Over the next 25 years, more than 77 million boomers will begin collecting Social Security checks, drawing Medicare benefits, and relying on long-term care under Medicaid,” the authors wrote. “No event will financially challenge these important programs over the next two decades more than this shift into retirement of the largest generation in American history.”

Making matters worse is that many, if not most, of these boomers who will be collecting these entitlements are middle-class to upper-class Americans and can afford to support themselves. This is because these federal retirement entitlements are pegged to a person’s age, rather than his or her financial situation.

“Paying for these ... entitlements in the coming years will require unprecedented levels of deficit spending,” the authors wrote. “Americans face $45.9 trillion in unfunded obligations (read: new borrowing) over the next 75 years. That is more than $200,000 per American citizen — an unsustainable level of debt that is sure to slow the economy and could force even higher rates of taxation in the future.”

Retirement is not the only area bankrupting our futures. Farm subsidies, college, health care, housing, indeed, nearly every area of human activity is being subsidized by the federal government.

I understand the human desire to help those in need. However, government assistance is not charity. Forcing someone at the point of a gun to support someone else should not make one feel good.

Ultimately, dependence is just another form of government control and tyranny. Fortunately for governments, too many people do not think.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

—————

PHOTO of Thomas J. Lucente Jr. available by request.

—————

Visit The Lima News online at http://www.limaohio.com.

__________________________________________________________________

The question of common sense is always 'What is it good for?'

Public education has outlived its usefulness

2012-01-20T07:56:00.001-05:00

Public education has outlived its usefulness

By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.

tlucente@limanews.com
419-993-2095

LIMA, Ohio — During the last decade, those advocating for school choice have made real inroads into breaking the government’s stranglehold on education.

In 1999, 349,000 children attended the nation’s 1,542 charter schools. Today, that figure has ballooned to 2.05 million. Additionally, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools reports that the waiting list to get into one of the nation’s 5,637 charter schools could fill almost 5,000 more schools.

Nearly 200,000 children are attending private schools as a result of 34 school voucher and other similar private school choice programs in 19 states. According to the Friedman Foundation of Educational Choice, 130 private school choice bills were introduced in statehouses across the country last year.

Home schooling has also doubled in the last 10 years with about 1.5 million families nationwide choosing to educate their own children compared to 850,000 in 1999, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Unfortunately, there is still a long road to travel. That is why this week has been named National School Choice Week.

Government school officials across the country claim they want school choice but then they challenge it and complain about it every chance they get.

The fact remains, most private schools outperform most government schools and for less money.

I have heard all the arguments why this is true, i.e., private schools get to choose their students, parents who send their children to private schools are often more involved, etc.

In reality, it is a whole host of reasons, including federal and state regulations that hamper the efficient education of children.

When school officials are confronted with this, their only argument, which is silly even on its face, is that the private schools should have to suffer under the same restrictions as the government schools.

In other words, let’s bring all schools down to the lowest common denominator.

What this shows is that most of these government school officials don’t really care about education; they only care about government education.

Government education is a 19th century innovation that has outlived its usefulness, if it had any.

If we are going to have a government education system, then it should be a school of last resort. The real goal of all professional educators should be to get the government out of the business of education.

Still, if we are going to have compulsory education and we want the government to pay for it, there is probably a better way than building these education camps — which are more like prisons in some urban districts — where the Constitution prevents the government from properly controlling and educating the children sent there.

Historian Robert Wright postulated that it would have been cheaper if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves than fight the Civil War.

I suspect a similar idea would be true in the education arena. That is, it would be cheaper if the government paid to send children to private schools rather than run its own school systems.

A few seconds with a calculator seems to bear this out. There are 55.5 million school-age children in the United States. A $5,000 voucher for each child, which would cover tuition at the vast majority of private schools in the United States, would cost $277.5 billion. There are other factors that would come into play, of course, but you get the picture.

In fact, we could double that voucher to $10,000 and still spend less than we are today.

In the 2008-09 school year, as a nation we spent $604.86 billion on primary and secondary government education, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Of that amount, $311.89 billion went to the salaries and benefits of the government schools’ union workers. We obviously cannot afford that. At the end of the 2009 fiscal year, government school systems had a combined debt of $399.12 billion.

The fact remains that the United States spends more per pupil than any other nation in the world, with the possible exception of Switzerland. Yet, our students are routinely surpassed by children in nations that spend less.

Clearly, something is wrong.

For more than 150 years we have let the government educate our children. Now it is time to try something new.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

—————

PHOTO of Thomas J. Lucente Jr. available by request.

—————

Visit The Lima News online at http://www.limaohio.com

And you thought Obama could not run for re-election against George Bush...

2012-01-03T12:51:00.002-05:00

It's here. We have finally arrived at the first day of the 2012 primary season. As we look back, the fluidity of the race stand out. Every candidate has been up, has been down, and some have gone out. The Iowa roller coaster seems to have finally landed on Rick Santorum. If I may offer a quick word on the former Pennsylvania Senator. Rick Santorum is as tied to George Bush as Barack Obama is tied to Nancy Pelosi. THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT CANNOT HAVE COME SO FAR IN THE PAST 3 YEARS TO SETTLE FOR GEORGE BUSH JR. Rick Santorum is a big spending republican, nothing more, nothing less. Im done...for now.

Brevity is the Soul of Wit...

2011-12-29T11:40:00.001-05:00

Less than a week.

Five days and a wake-up.

The Iowa Caucus is Tuesday.

The 2012 Election season is officially underway, with Super Tuesday being March 6 and the nominee by that time, statistically, will be chosen.

Have you decided for whom you will cast your ballot?

This is the primary; ignore the media types who will try to tell you, via polls which could be easily skewed to whatever perspective is desired, who the “front runner” is (not one vote has at this writing been cast! Who is really a front runner? The score is tied at 0-0!). Look at the candidates. Decide who is best for America. Who holds to the values of our Founders, that the “government which governs least governs best?” Who has promised to uphold the Constitutional principles of the Chief Executive to defend our nation and represent us to foreign powers? Who has sworn to support the free market, which has saved our nation countless times since the days of Plymouth? Who has sworn to hold government accountable for the debacle our national debt has become? Consider these questions for yourself, remember that no one candidate is a perfect human being (there has been only one in history), no one candidate will agree with you 100% on everything you espouse, but find the candidate who holds most in common with your values. Remember that Obama can be defeated by a well-dressed baboon in November if his record is exposed, and cast your ballot for the candidate of your conscience!

When all is said and done, we will hopefully have a nominee who will espouse the Conservative beliefs of over 40% of the United States and be able to teach those principles during the debates and campaign as Ronaldus Magnus did in 1980. If you just vote for whoever the media’s frontrunner of the day is, we will be guaranteed to end up with the media’s choice of candidate. The media is overwhelmingly in Obama’s camp, so in effect if you vote that way you are only voting for the opponent of his choosing. The opponent he is certain to defeat or, if not, will continue his policies, even if slowed down. We are too close to the edge of the cliff to slow down; we must change direction in the magnitude of 180°. Now, not in 2016. So consider your vote carefully, this is too important to let others decide for you.

‘Nuff sed.

TNG interviews Bill Randall

2011-12-28T16:36:00.000-05:00

More from Thomas Lucente

2011-12-17T17:36:00.001-05:00

Senate gives Americans Bill of Rights Day gift — more tyranny

By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.

The Lima (Ohio) News

LIMA, Ohio — The story from The Associated Press was typical of mainstream media coverage.

Reporter Donna Cassata’s lead paragraph read: “The House passed a massive $662 billion defense bill Wednesday night after last-minute changes placated the White House and ensured President Barack Obama’s ability to prosecute terrorist suspects in the civilian justice system.”

Seems innocuous enough. However, what she was referring to certainly is not.

Buried in the National Defense Authorization Act, which ironically passed the Senate on Thursday, the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, is a provision that allows the U.S. military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens without charges or trials. This authorization undoes a right dating back to the June 15, 1215, signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England.

Like many mainstream media outlets, the AP downplayed this provision by reporting, erroneously, that there is an exemption for American citizens.

The truth is much more sinister.

What the law actually does, in a very misleading way, is mandate that the military detain suspected terrorists or those who aid terrorists and hold them without charges or trial at the discretion of the president.

The “exemption” provision, meanwhile, simply removes the mandate when it comes to U.S. citizens. It does not, however, remove the authorization for the military to detain American citizens. In other words, it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.

Doesn’t sound like much of an “exemption” to me.

Attempts in the Congress to change the bill to clearly prevent the detention of American citizens seized on American soil failed.

Obama threatened to veto the bill, but not because he was opposed to the unlimited military detention of American citizens. He simply wanted to make sure he had the power to decide who should be locked up and who should be released. Isn’t this the same Obama who criticized President George W. Bush for abusing his power? Isn’t this the same Obama who campaigned on closing the military prison on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ending the Patriot Act?

And now this bill makes the Patriot Act look like a walk in the park.

The bill turns the military into a domestic police force and gives the president the power to round up American citizens at his discretion. This law is so bad even FBI Director Robert Mueller questioned its wisdom.

Like the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism measures, this new authorization, which codifies a power Obama has claimed he already possesses, will most likely be used for simple law enforcement rather to fight terrorism. In its first 10 years, the Patriot Act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases.

This is the modus operandi of tyrants. They create a boogeyman, in this case terrorism, and then beg for powers to combat this evil. Then they use the tools against the very people they claim to be protecting.

Some argue this would never get by the Supreme Court. However, the rounding up of Americans on U.S. soil and putting them in military detention without trial has never been tested by the Supreme Court.

We have no way of knowing how the Supreme Court will rule if a case arose under this provision. The court gives great leeway to the executive and legislative branches when it comes to executing foreign policy, especially where war and national security are concerned.

Or, as U.S. Sen. Carl Levin put it: “The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, ‘There is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.’”

It’s that kind of thinking that really makes this new power scary.

It is unclear why the Obama administration pushed for this provision given that this does not seem to fix any specific problem (since 9/11, more than 400 terrorists have been prosecuted and convicted in federal court) and the administration already believes it has this power.

Giving the military the power to indefinitely detain American citizens is anathema to what America stands for. Passing it on Bill of Rights day was just an extra slap in the face.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

Thomas J. Lucente Jr. is a columnist with The Lima (Ohio) News, a Freedom Communications newspaper. He is also a veteran of the Iraq war and a law student at the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. Visit his blog at http://lucente.org. Readers may write to him at The Lima News, 3515 Elida Road, Lima, Ohio 45807-1538, or e-mail him at tlucente@limanews.com. His telephone number is 800-686-9924, ext. 2095. Follow him on Twitter at http://tho.lu/twitter, Google+ at http://tho.lu/google, and Facebook at http://tho.lu/facebook.

—————

PHOTO of Thomas J. Lucente Jr. available by request.

—————

Visit The Lima News online at http://limaohio.com.

__________________________________________________________________

Vigilance is my Watchword

2011-12-07T09:41:00.006-05:00

Yesterday, Tuesday, December 6th 2011, President Obama gave a chilling speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. This is the venue of Theodore Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" speech on August 31, 1910, and Obama's speech is a paraphrase of that blood-curdling epic.

Obama stated, “I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.” Compare it to what Roosevelt said: "I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.”

Roosevelt went on to say in the same speech, “We are face to face with new conceptions of the relations of property to human welfare, chiefly because certain advocates of the rights of property as against the rights of men have been pushing their claims too far. The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

So, who determines the degree to which the public welfare requires your private property?

Strip the GOP title from Roosevelt. Heck, strip the name “Roosevelt” from the quote. Boil it down to its essence and it says, in short, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It is Marxism. But where Marx openly called for the violent uprising of the “proletariat” (Operation Wall Street, anyone?), Roosevelt was starting a new political party, the Progressive Party. The Progressive idea was simply that Americans would resist a Communist revolution a la Marx (Lenin was still a student at this time), but the ideas of Communism could be foisted upon them in baby steps. Progress. Not revolution; evolution (which is why Progressives today are so adamant that the Theory of Evolution be the only acceptable story of human origins taught in schools; it validates their struggle!).

Obama is, without a doubt, and by his own admission, a student of Marx. His cabinet is utterly filled with self-professed Marxists. This is no secret, and in this forum I am certainly preaching to the choir. But this is why the candidacy of John McCain was such a disastrous concept: McCain declared his favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt and that he would model his presidency on him. I am sure he would say that he meant the presidency of Roosevelt, nearly a decade prior to the Progressive Party, but what were TR’s greatest accomplishments as president? For starters, he founded the FDA – the Federal Food and Drug Administration. What was the first act of the FDA? They went after Coca-Cola in order to enforce the removal of cocaine from Coke. But before the FDA even declared their purpose, Coke had already removed the cocaine voluntarily. Did the FDA take note of the fact? No. They instead pursued Coke viciously and dragged them into Federal Court (at great expense to both Coke and Taxpayers). Coke won. Coke won. So the FDA went after Coke for myriad other, more trivial matters. Does this sound familiar? Can anyone say “Amish Milk Debacle?” “Gibson Guitars?”

Teddy Roosevelt was all about big government. He believed the Executive Branch and the President in particular should be the superior branch of government (which incidentally means he thought he should be the one to determine the degree to which the public welfare requires your private property!). The Constitution, of course, declared all branches co-equal, and the Founders actually envisioned the House of Representatives to be a little more equal because it is the voice of the people (more on this in a later blog; see The New Generation’s proposed Amendment to the Constitution on Congressional Term Limits). But TR brought the presidency to the status it enjoys today; Congress now wants the President to introduce legislation and budgets, an alien idea prior to 1900. As we Conservatives are well aware, any time government attempts to provide a solution to any crisis, it only complicates the crisis and often begins several other crises from the unintended consequences of their interference. John McCain was a Big Government Progressive, regardless of party (remember, TR was a GOP President). His daughter Meghan McCain declares herself “like, you know, a Progressive Republican, fer sure!” Progressivism knows no party lines; it is just a little more obvious among the Democrat Party.

Now it should be obvious to you, dear Conservative reader, that we must avoid any Progressive candidate.

So let me leave you with an unsettling quote: “And for government to not leave guarantees that you don’t have the ability to change, no private corporation has the purchasing power or the ability to reshape the health system, and in this sense I guess I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my ‑‑ on health where I come from, I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay.”

This is a quote from Republican front-runner Newt Gingrich. Can we afford to continue driving toward the cliff?

TNG Congressional Term Limits petition

2011-12-05T23:10:00.001-05:00

Congressional Term Limits Petition

WHEREAS the people’s representatives are not accountable to the people, but to the special interests that fund their campaigns;

WHEREAS the people are lied to by pandering career politicians looking to expand their power;

WHEREAS usurpations on the liberty of the people, and the sovereignty of the States have become common practice;

WHEREAS Politicians enrich themselves and their well connected friends on the backs of the taxpayer;

NOW THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE; exercising our inalienable right under the first amendment, to petition our government for a redress of grievances; call on the respective legislatures of two thirds of our Sovereign States to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which will impose strict term limits of two terms for United States Senators, and three terms for United States Congressional Representatives.

SIGN THE PETITION...

What can I say? This guy is good...

2011-12-02T07:55:00.002-05:00

Another one from Tom, who once again beats me to the punch.

******************************************************************

Depression-era labor laws harmful in modern global economy

By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.

The Lima (Ohio) News

LIMA, Ohio — Chalk up another “victory” for unions as American Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Tuesday. The reason? High labor costs compared to its competitors.

It seems the unions were demanding things such as a 10 percent signing bonus followed by 7 percent raises in each of the next three years for pilots. Seven percent raises?! Even in a great economy, a demand for 7 percent raises for three straight years combined with a 10 percent signing bonus would be ludicrous. It is a downright criminal demand in this miserable economy when the company was failing to make a profit.

And what was American offering that was so horrible that the unions would rather destroy the company than accept?

American offered job protection, signing bonuses, and pay raises to the tune of a 3.21 percent raise in the first year followed by three annual increases of 1 percent each. In turn, American asked for changes to pension benefits and increased productivity.

With each passing day I grow more disgusted with labor unions. The sheer stupidity of driving your employer into the ground shows a complete disregard for anything beyond selfish greed and thirst for power coupled with total ignorance of how economies work. Oh, and a love of Marxism to boot.

In theory, I have no problem with unions. The right of workers to band together to bargain with employers is a great example of the freedom of association, a fundamental human right.

Unfortunately, the labor scheme we have today is far afield from simple freedom of association thanks to a large body of outdated statutory law.

Take, for example, the un-American Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932. The act prohibits union-free contracts, what the union thugs pejoratively call “yellow-dog” contracts. Yet, if we were to accept the notion that workers have the freedom to associate, should not other workers, those who rightfully reject unionism, have the freedom to contract with an employer free of unions?

Of course. Only an anti-freedom, un-American thug would say otherwise.

The act also gives unions special legal immunity under antitrust laws. Whatever labor unions do, even if violence is involved, cannot be enjoined as an illegal restraint of trade. That means that strike targets, their suppliers, their customers, and replacement workers may be prevented from exercising their fundamental right to voluntary trading and exchange.

While antitrust laws themselves should not exist, because they serve as an un-American restraint on trade, the idea that any group should get a special exemption under the law makes it even worse.

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 further eroded the idea of free association when it gave federal protection to the idea of exclusive representation. That means that during a certification election, if a majority of workers wish to be represented by a union, then all the workers are forced to be represented by that union. That is not free association by any stretch of the imagination. To be free, the association must also be voluntary.

Also, the act outlaws company unions or their modern-day equivalent, labor-management cooperation committees, also known as “quality circles” or “employee involvement teams.”

Another federal pro-union law is the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which costs federal taxpayers about $8.6 billion a year by preventing the federal government from using more efficient, nonunion workers through its requirement that all federal contractors and subcontractors pay a “prevailing wage,” which really means an inflated union wage.

It is patently silly that our dynamic modern economy is being hampered by laws that made little sense 75 and 80 years ago and make even less sense today. This is true even if you buy into the myth that unions were somehow once needed and were responsible for needed labor reform.

American Airlines is but the latest example of how unions work. They drain a company of its lifeblood through exorbitant salaries and benefits, driving up the cost of everything because companies have to pass that cost onto their customers. Or, even worse, force companies to relocate overseas where the labor market is more reasonable. These contracts also prevent companies from hiring more workers.

In the end, unions hurt the middle class the most, the very segment of the population they claim to be helping through higher costs and fewer jobs.

Just look at the auto industry. Many middle class families cannot afford a new automobile because of unions. Union labor contracts add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new car. Then, when the money ran out, the government came in with bailout money, which actually prevented the auto companies from becoming more efficient through the bankruptcy process and maintained those economically inefficient but golden labor contracts.

If we are to avoid future bailouts and bankruptcies, we need to put an end to all these ridiculous federal laws that give unions special protection.

Charles W. Baird, professor emeritus of economics at California State University, East Bay, outlined a plan in a June paper for the Cato Institute (http://tho.lu/3n6).

Among his wise recommendations were the elimination of exclusive representation or, barring that, at least passing a national right-to-work law. Other suggestions included repealing Davis-Bacon rules, allowing company unions, protecting replacement workers, allow nonhiring of union organizers, and requiring greater union financial transparency (unions hide their money by placing it in various trust funds, which President George W. Bush tried to fix, but President Barack Obama is turning back those reforms).

It is past time that the Congress put some sanity back into our labor market and begin to undo the damage from these Depression-era labor laws.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

—————

PHOTO of Thomas J. Lucente Jr. available by request.

—————

Visit The Lima News online at http://www.limaohio.com.

__________________________________________________________________

No surprise here: Study shows teachers overpaid

2011-11-25T08:27:00.004-05:00

This is not my original work, but that of the accredited author named below. Tom is an old friend of mine and I am proud to know him. Check out his blog (Lucente.org) for more of his work!

Drew

*******************************

No surprise here: Study shows teachers overpaid

By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.

The Lima (Ohio) News

LIMA, Ohio — While it will come as no surprise to those who actually pay attention, a new study shows that government teachers are dramatically overpaid, deflating a myth long perpetuated by the American Federation of Teachers and other teachers unions.

The Nov. 1 study, “Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers” by Drs. Jason Richwine and Andrew G. Biggs, shows that government teachers, on average, earn 52 percent more than comparable private employees. This amounts to the government overcharging taxpayers about $120 billion each year at a time when state budget deficits, according to a June study by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, are about $103 billion.

No one is opposed to teachers receiving a fair salary; however, if a teacher’s skills are worth $X in the free market, why should the government pay 52 percent more than that? This occurs because teacher pay, thanks to union strong-arm tactics and weak-kneed school officials, is often based on how much the government can afford to pay at the present time instead of on how much teachers actually should be paid.

To demonstrate this point, the study shows that government teachers who leave the profession often see a wage decrease of about 3 percent while workers who leave their professions to become teachers see a wage increase of about 9 percent. If teachers were underpaid, the opposite would be true. Government teachers also earn almost 10 percent more in wages than equally qualified private-school teachers.

While teachers enjoy comparable or slightly higher wages than the private sector, where teachers really rake in the dough is in their benefit packages, as evidenced by their unreasonable and militant opposition to pension and health care reform in states such as Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Florida. Teacher benefits are, on average, 40 percent more generous than those for comparable private-sector workers.

For example, let’s consider pension plans.

Most private-sector workers have a defined-contribution plan, usually a 401(k) or a 403(b), where there is no set level of payout in retirement.

Most government teachers, indeed, government workers in general, have a defined-benefit plan, where they will receive a guaranteed fixed payment after retirement for life.

While the private-sector employee is at the whim of the markets, the public-sector employee has a guaranteed pension with the risk borne by the private-sector employees who actually fund the pension systems, including bailing them out when the expected investment returns do not materialize.

On average, the government teacher sees a retirement income 4.5 times higher than a comparable private-sector worker. For example, according to the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in Illinois, the average benefit paid in that state to a 60-year-old retired teacher with 35 to 39 years of service was $67,452 a year, a nice chunk of change for a retirement income.

Additionally, teachers and other government workers are not saddled with Social Security, which pays workers a below-market rate of return on their “investments.”

Other areas that enrich schoolteachers include generous retiree health care plans, better job security and more paid leave (teachers enjoy a lot of time off, including summer, Christmas, and spring breaks, none of which “count” as vacation time.)

Government teachers often point to their advanced degrees as a reason for the higher pay (while at the same time claiming they are underpaid).

However, credential inflation is rampant in the education field.

In his book, “Inside American Education,” Dr. Thomas Sowell reported that in 1980-81 students majoring in education scored lower on both the verbal and math portions of the SAT than students majoring in any other subject. Even before that, The Journal of Higher Education reported in 1960 on the problem of low grading standards in education departments.

More recent data suggest the trend has not changed. Studies show that education majors “earn” higher grades than other students because education classes are easier than other classes with stricter grading. An education degree is one of the easiest degrees to earn, if not the easiest.

Also, studies show that while teachers score above the national average on intelligence tests, they score below the average for other college graduates.

It would seem these advanced degrees do more for teacher salaries than student proficiency.

School salary schedules reward phony advanced degrees and “butt in seat” time instead of excellence and merit, thanks to teachers unions that care more about power than children. Or as Albert Shanker, the late, iconic head of the United Federation of Teachers, once pointedly put it, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

Given this data, it is laughable that President Barack Obama demanded $30 billion this year to “save teacher jobs” and increase teacher pay.

The root of the problem, really, is government control over education. The time is long past for the separation of school and state. Given even the least bit of thought, it is obvious how anathema it is to a free society to turn our children over to the government for education.

Additionally, the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the process has led us to this untenable fiscal situation where out-of-control teacher wages and benefits are driving up the cost of providing mediocre education.

What this study clearly shows is that government teacher compensation could, and should, be reduced with little effect on retention or recruitment while giving a big boost to communities facing budget deficits. A win-win.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

Thomas J. Lucente Jr. is a columnist with The Lima (Ohio) News, a Freedom Communications newspaper. He is also a veteran of the Iraq war and a law student at the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. Visit his blog at http://lucente.org. Readers may write to him at The Lima News, 3515 Elida Road, Lima, Ohio 45807-1538, or e-mail him at tlucente@limanews.com. His telephone number is 800-686-9924, ext. 2095. Follow him on Twitter at http://tho.lu/twitter and Facebook at http://tho.lu/facebook.

—————

PHOTO of Thomas J. Lucente Jr. available by request.

—————

Visit The Lima News online at http://www.limaohio.com.

__________________________________________________________________

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

2011-11-24T11:44:00.001-05:00

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Geo. Washington

Taking a Stand

2011-11-17T07:37:00.006-05:00

I hate to be the one who breaks President Reagan's Cardinal Rule ("Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican"), but I am a Conservative first (with Libertarian leanings) and I vote Republican because I believe a third party split would doom our Nation. On that note, here is my discourse about how I went from being merely skeptical about Ron Paul to being firmly against his nomination as President (as if he actually had a glimmer of hope for securing the Republican nomination).

A friend of mine passed along to me a link to a YouTube video for Ron Paul (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=player_embedded). It basically turns the tables on the Iraq situation, saying that invaders had established a military base in Texas and patrol our streets, terrorizing us. It holds that we would defend ourselves, even by acts similar to what insurgents in Iraq have done.

Admittedly, the video is thought provoking, but it is a pure propaganda piece and could have come straight from Code Pink. I reject the premise of the video entirely, having spent about 3 years of my life in Iraq, and I can tell you with certitude that this is pure malarkey. American Soldiers are not the terrorizers in Iraq. We fought a war and were continually attacked first by Iraqi Fedayyin and then al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now Iran is funding and training the foreign fighters opposing not so much US Forces as the Iraqi people themselves. This video was made by someone without a firm grasp on reality.

The more accurate analogy would be if America had threatened a foreign power with bogus claims of a superweapon, and that country (call it China) invaded to take it away, but US Special Forces kept attacking the Chinese from civilian homes in civilian clothes. Then Occupy Wall Street started attacking the Chinese. After these threats were dealt with, Mexico sent in the Cartels while prepping their Army for invasion with real versions of the aforementioned fake superweapon and began rattling their sabers that they were going to attack the British, who have no right to exist because they are Protestant and predominantly Catholic Mexico claims they heard the Pope insists that Mexico should wipe Britain out as a scourge.

One of the big draws of Congressman Paul is his support for the Second Amendment, and in Texas that has a deep-seated importance. I, however, believe in discarding what people say and looking at what they do. Ron Paul has a history in Congress of playing political games by proposing bills quietly in order to vote against them vocally and thus appear to be the "friend of the Constitution." The Second Amendment is very important to me, but other issues are, too, such as National Defense (Paul is Left of the Democrats on this issue), support of our allies, especially Israel (Paul doesn't believe in Allies and is a proclaimed "Anti-Zionist"), and support for our military (this video just called us terrorizers). Rick Perry is pro 2nd Amendment. Michelle Bachmann is pro 2nd Amendment. Herman Cain is pro 2nd Amendment. Rick Santorum is pro 2nd Amendment. Newt Gingrich is pro 2nd Amendment. Heck, I think even Mitt Romney is pro 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment is a litmus test for a candidate, we have room to shop.

On defense, Mr. Paul seems to hold a position of "Head in the Sand" isolationism; if we ignore the problem it will go away. Most 7-year olds know better than this. He claims we should always declare war before committing troops to a fight, but in 235+ years we have declared war only eleven times, eight of those declarations were between 1917-1918 & 1941-1945, yet we have fought over 200 armed conflicts (the Civil War was an undeclared war, for example). We Americans are some serious lawbreakers by Mr. Paul's standards; maybe President Obama was right to apologize for us after all? That sure is what this video seems to indicate Paul is suggesting, anyway. The video outright said the "foreign occupying troops" were terrorizing the locals. Simply untrue in the case of Iraq and puts Paul in the distinct company of John F'ing Kerry.

Insofar as anti-Zionism is concerned, a Zionist is simply one who is an advocate for an independent, sovereign Jewish homeland. Simply put, it is someone who believes the country of Israel in its current form has the right to exist. To say one wants to wipe out the Zionist "scourge" but not wipe out modern day Israel is completely contradictory. If Mr. Paul is anti-Zionist, then he and I have a very key difference.

On support for the Military, war is never a blessing and to suggest otherwise would take someone who has never fought one. W. T. Sherman was right; "War is Hell." Regardless, it is sadly necessary to fight wars from time to time. To do otherwise is to cede freedom. Argue what you may, all intelligence at the time indicated Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), was trying to become a nuclear power, and he had already had terrorist ties with Abu Nidal's organization. He was paying PLO suicide bombers' families, and had made overtures to bin Laden if not direct support. He was a threat. The timing was horrible, but in the wake of 9/11 and what appeared at the time to be a certain, swift victory in Afghanistan, the chance was taken.

Yes, we were invaders, conducting a Congressionally authorized military action against a threat nation and its official state military. By the book. We were given clearly defined goals: remove Hussein and stop the proliferation of WMD. WMD includes biological and chemical, and we seized tons of those munitions. The nuke program was evidently a product of Saddam's boasting and faulty intel, it would appear in retrospect. But that fact neither negates the purpose of the war nor does it make it an illegal action; could we really take the chance that it was correct? It merely means one piece of the puzzle, albeit major, was wrong. Ron Paul is dead wrong to call us illegal or terrorizers. We did our duty professionally.

If Mr. Paul is going to use the sacrifice of our professional military to his own political ends, I suggest his political end come very swiftly.

TNG Statement on the Balaced Budget amendment

2011-11-11T20:58:00.001-05:00

Just a heads-up: You will hear a lot of talk this year about a Balanced Budget Amendment and possibly some action as well. During their campaigns and following their victories on election night last November, Senator Mike Lee (UT) and Senator Rand Paul (KY) have vowed to fight to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.

The following must be taken in to consideration however: It is not enough to simply pass an amendment requiring that the budget be balanced. Those dishonest politicians in Washington D.C. will simply perennially raise your taxes while the spending continues to increase in the same manner that they always are side-stepping the Constitution.

In order to have the intended effect of limiting the Federal Government's spending habits, this amendment requires two provisions and they MUST be spelled out in black and white, indisputable language:

First, specify how we calculate the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Second, the amendment must state that the federal government can only spend a specified percentage (the amount will be determined later but it should be no higher than 20%) of the previous year’s GDP.

This way, the federal government's spending is only allowed to grow if America's GDP grows first. If America's GDP does not grow, then Washington will not have permission to spend more. And if America's GDP shrinks, so must Washington's purse. It will then be in Washington's best interest to the allow the free market work its miracles and will be less inclined to place burdensome regulations on American businesses.

Should the amendment pass but fails to contain those 2 critical provisions, the states should not ratify it.

Please share and consider passing this information along, especially to your congressman and your senators. If we have a Balanced Budget Amendment, it MUST be done the right way.

Donate to The New Generation

Join the TNG Newsletter

New Presidenial Candidate Ranknings

2011-11-10T22:08:00.001-05:00

Check out the latest Gadsen rankings for the GOP hopefuls.

Some surprises this week.
check out specifically Buddy Roemer, Newt gingrich, and you gotta love the stand that Fred Karger is taking.

If you didn't know, Fred Karger is running for president, and he's making a stand that may not go over too well in Florida.

Joel Frewa.
President
The New Generation
KEEP UP THE FIRE!

Brokered Convention for GOP in 2012?

2011-11-06T23:36:00.004-05:00

Every presidential election year the prospect of a brokered convention gets floated by both parties. In 2008 the rumor always was that the Democrats would have a brokered convention between Hillary and Obama. This always turns out to be wrong, and every party is well unified behind a candidate long before the convention rolls around.

But this time it's different. This time there is a TEA Party component. This time we are coming off the biggest anti-Establishment mid-term election ever.

So, let us play out this scenario assuming the current polling holds true.

We begin with Iowa, where Herman Cain pics up all 28 delegates. After Iowa we Assume Bachman and Santorum drop out.

We follow that with New Hampshire where Mitt Romney picks up a big win, but because of their proportional delegate allocation he only gets 10 out of the 12 delegates, and we'll assume that Cain will get 1 and perhaps Ron Paul another. We also assume Huntsman leaves the race after NH.

Cain 29, Romney 10, Paul 1

We move on to South Carolina, another winner-take-all State. Here current pooling shows Herman Cain leading, so we'll assume that he takes all 25 delegates. We assume that Rick Perry leaves the race after SC.

Cain 54, Romney 10, Paul 1

Florida is next, and they have just announced they will be a winner take all State, So following the current polling we assume that Romney takes 50 delegates (50% less than usual due to penalty).

Cain 54, Romney 60, Paul 1

We move on to Nevada which is another proportional distribution state. Romney leads the NV polls so we assume he wins 50% of the 28 Delegates, Cain gets 25%, Gingrich picks up his first delegates taking 15%, and Paul gets the remaining 10%.

Cain 57, Romney 74, Gingrich 5, Paul 3.

Maine is next with 24 proportionally distributed delegates. Polling shows the same as NH, so we assume the same breakdown.

Cain 63, Romney 86, Gingrich 13, Paul 6

Here is where is starts to get tricky and complicated.

Colorado and Minnesota are next. Both winner-take-all states. Romney is leading Colorado, Cain is leading MN by a small margin.

Cain 103, Romney 100, Gingrich 13, Paul 6

Then comes Supper Tuesday, or Super Tuesday week, with the following states all packed into the same week.

Arizona-29
Michigan-30
Alaska-27
Georgia-76
Idaho-32
Massachusetts-41
North Dakota-28
Oklahoma-43
Tennessee-58
Texas-155
Virginia-49
Vermont-13
Wyoming-29
Kansas 40

The problem is that all of these states have proportional delegate allocation corresponding to the percentage of the vote each candidate receives. Because we have no way of knowing how the actual vote shapes out, we assume the following distribution for these primaries.
Winner 50% - Second 25% - Third 15% - Fourth 10%

After all of the tedious math we end up with the following count:

Cain 393, Romney 295, Gingrich 125, Paul 96.

At this point we may assume that Newt Gingrich would drop out. We would assume the same for Paul, but we know better by now.

Illinois and Louisiana are next, both proportional contests, so we assume the same results, leaving us with:

Cain 439, Romney 348, Paul 111.

At this point things would begin to get a little easier considering that all of the remaining primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all.

Maryland, Washington, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Ohio, and Utah round up the primary/caucus calendar, in that order.

Assuming the current polling trends, which are not very extensive at all for these states, we end up with the final delegate counts of:

Cain 944, Romney 775, Paul 111.

This leaves all candidates short of the necessary 1142 delegates to win the nomination.

In our assumptions we have not taken into account the delegates for Washinton DC or the independent territories such as Guam or PR. Gingrich would still hold 125 delegates. But we still see a scenario where if current polling holds true, we would get to a brokered convention.

This is a verty real scenario. Given the amount of polarization within the Republican Party between the establishment and the TEA Party.

This analysis does constitute an endorsement of any candidate.

Joel Frewa
President
The New Generation.

Donate to The New Generation

The American Jobs Act

2011-11-01T19:29:00.001-04:00

The presidents new effort to "create jobs" can be broken down in one of two ways. This lame attempt at baby stimulus is either:

1- An attempt to put up a bill which he knows 100% will not pass congress, yet he proposes it anyway. He does this because he thinks that he will be able to deflect the poor economy onto republicans in congress. An accusation would be completely false. This is his economy. It has been since the moment he got the stimulus bill through congress.

2- The president truly believes that he can get this through congress somehow. Now my cynical side tends to think of it like this....they pass the jobs bill which is riddled with pork projects that would go to union labor ( through a no-bid contract). So all this money would now flow indirectly to union coffers, and it would then be reinvested in gross amounts directly into the presidents reelection campaign.

Which ever you choose to believe is up to you. Given the current state of congress, the first option would seem more likely, either way, the president has rigged the game so that no matter what congress does he gets a good political piece of the pie.

KEEP UP THE FIRE

Joel Frewa
President
The New Generation

Herman Cain reports record fundraising day

2011-11-01T15:45:00.000-04:00

Herman Cain reports record fundraising day

Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself

2011-10-31T10:35:00.004-04:00

The line traditionally continues "I'm a man of wealth and taste," but in this case neither are true. In regards to wealth, I pay my bills and obligations, I keep my family fed. But I have no real savings, no legacy to pass on to my offspring. Regarding taste, ask my teen-aged daughters; they will insist I never had any!

So I am not the devil, nor do I require any sympathy.

My name is Andrew, but you can call me Drew. I am a veteran who has deployed multiple times to combat as an Infantryman, I am a Texan, and I am a Christian husband and father. I am an Joe Everyman. This blog will be from that point of view. I do not judge any person by their demographic goups, gender, color, religion, or education; I ask the same from you. I believe in MLK's statement that we should judge a person not by the color of their skin (nor any other exterior property) but by the content of their character.

I believe the Founding Fathers meant what they said when they wrote it down and we should take them at their word; I am a student of history.

I believe that every time I have gone overseas I have returned to find a few more of my freedoms eroded; I am righteously indignant.

I believe that Americans are unique in that we value the life and property of the individual over the collective; I am an American.

I believe America is great because Americans are good. I am an optimist.

So I look forward to sharing a little of my mind with you, and reading what other bloggers here on The New Generation have to share as well.