Happy 235th birthday to the United States of America!
This Independence Day, we wish happiness to all our readers. The United States is the greatest nation on Earth and a place where everyone has an equal chance at happiness and prosperity. Every American is privileged to be a citizen of this great country.
Today, and every day, we must remember that the freedoms we have are not free. We should remember the sacrifices made by our fellow Americans in defense of this great nation and to expand freedom and democracy to others around the world.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Supreme Court Weakens the American People
The Supreme Court of the United States yesterday sided with Walmart by derailing a class action lawsuit stemming from allegations that the company discriminated against women by paying them less than male counterparts and not giving them advancement opportunities.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that Walmart policies denied them pay or promotion. In a unanimous decision, the court deemed the class in the class action was too large.
This is outrageous.
No class should be considered too large. In some cases, a class should consist of every American. The Supreme Court should have allowed the class action to move forward and for a decision to be rendered by a jury of average Americans. Instead, nine appointed justices weakened the power of the American people. While Walmart may have not discriminated against women, the case deserved to be heard so that a jury could make the decision and the arguments could be made by both sides in open court.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that Walmart policies denied them pay or promotion. In a unanimous decision, the court deemed the class in the class action was too large.
This is outrageous.
No class should be considered too large. In some cases, a class should consist of every American. The Supreme Court should have allowed the class action to move forward and for a decision to be rendered by a jury of average Americans. Instead, nine appointed justices weakened the power of the American people. While Walmart may have not discriminated against women, the case deserved to be heard so that a jury could make the decision and the arguments could be made by both sides in open court.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
No Freedom, No Money.
Saudi Arabian authorities yesterday released Manal al-Sherif, a woman arrested for driving, an activity forbidden to women in Saudi Arabia.
Such laws are utterly ridiculous and go against American ideals of freedom. The United States needs to take a stance against such policies and tell countries that they need to move forward with reforms in order to provide equality and freedom. Countries that fail to do this should be ineligible for any United States aid or protection. Saudi Arabia is protected from attack because the United States will come to its aid and defense, such as how the United States defended Saudi Arabia from Iraqi attacks in the early 1990s. Such protection should not exist for countries that are not willing to align themselves with the objective of furthering freedom.
The United States spends billions of dollars a year on foreign aid and defense. With a major deficit, the United States needs to ensure that it is not spending money to help countries that are not working to further freedom. That money is better spent reducing the United States deficit or helping countries that want to advance freedom.
Such laws are utterly ridiculous and go against American ideals of freedom. The United States needs to take a stance against such policies and tell countries that they need to move forward with reforms in order to provide equality and freedom. Countries that fail to do this should be ineligible for any United States aid or protection. Saudi Arabia is protected from attack because the United States will come to its aid and defense, such as how the United States defended Saudi Arabia from Iraqi attacks in the early 1990s. Such protection should not exist for countries that are not willing to align themselves with the objective of furthering freedom.
The United States spends billions of dollars a year on foreign aid and defense. With a major deficit, the United States needs to ensure that it is not spending money to help countries that are not working to further freedom. That money is better spent reducing the United States deficit or helping countries that want to advance freedom.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Happy Memorial Day
The Report hopes that all of its readers had a great Memorial Day holiday. We also remember the men and women who have died in defense of the United States, freedom, and democracy. They made the ultimate sacrifice for us, and we are forever indebted to them.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Republican 2012 Strategy
The best Republican strategy for the 2012 Presidential election can be summed up in a single sentence. While the pundits and others will devote hours of air time to the topic and write dozens of pages of editorials, the best strategy is the following:
Put forth a candidate who will defeat Barack Obama.
The Republican Party, if it wants to take back the White House, cannot put forth a candidate who only will appeal to the Republican or Tea Party base. They must nominate a moderate Republican, who is open to negotiation with Democrats in order to move the United States forward. This does not mean a candidate who is willing to tax more, spend more, and continue the mistakes of the Obama administration, but rather a candidate who can appeal to the American people, win a general election, and win electoral votes in swing states such as Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.
Put forth a candidate who will defeat Barack Obama.
The Republican Party, if it wants to take back the White House, cannot put forth a candidate who only will appeal to the Republican or Tea Party base. They must nominate a moderate Republican, who is open to negotiation with Democrats in order to move the United States forward. This does not mean a candidate who is willing to tax more, spend more, and continue the mistakes of the Obama administration, but rather a candidate who can appeal to the American people, win a general election, and win electoral votes in swing states such as Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Two Massachusetts Mayors Way Out of Line
Another story of government officials going too far has popped up in liberal Massachusetts. This time, two mayors want to ban Lazy Cakes Brownies. The brownies are made with a non-medicinal, non-narcotic, herbal dietary supplement that helps people relax and even helps them fall asleep.
In Fall River, Massachusetts, Mayor William A. Flanagan has called the brownies "despicable" and wants them banned. Meanwhile, in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Mayor Scott W. Lang wants the brownies banned from town. The two Mayors cite critics who say that the product appeals to children.
What we have here is another situation of the government going too far. Lazy Cake Brownies, on their box and on the product website, state that the product is for adults. While it might make sense to ban the product from sale to minors, like tobacco, alcohol, and pornography, it is absurd to ban it from an entire city or town.
Adults should be free to purchase the products they want to buy. What the two foolish Massachusetts mayors have done is simply given more attention to Lazy Cakes Brownies, which will likely lead to more sales for the manufacturer. (Case in point, had they not made the absurd decision to try to ban the product, The Report would not have written a piece mentioning the product. Our piece will be read by hundreds of readers, many of which may have never heard of the product before and might become curious and decide to buy a box of Lazy Cakes Brownies for themselves.)
In Fall River, Massachusetts, Mayor William A. Flanagan has called the brownies "despicable" and wants them banned. Meanwhile, in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Mayor Scott W. Lang wants the brownies banned from town. The two Mayors cite critics who say that the product appeals to children.
What we have here is another situation of the government going too far. Lazy Cake Brownies, on their box and on the product website, state that the product is for adults. While it might make sense to ban the product from sale to minors, like tobacco, alcohol, and pornography, it is absurd to ban it from an entire city or town.
Adults should be free to purchase the products they want to buy. What the two foolish Massachusetts mayors have done is simply given more attention to Lazy Cakes Brownies, which will likely lead to more sales for the manufacturer. (Case in point, had they not made the absurd decision to try to ban the product, The Report would not have written a piece mentioning the product. Our piece will be read by hundreds of readers, many of which may have never heard of the product before and might become curious and decide to buy a box of Lazy Cakes Brownies for themselves.)
Monday, May 16, 2011
Is Obama A "Food Stamp President?"
Newt Gingrich was recently accused of being a racist for calling President Barack H. Obama a "food stamp President." Unfortunately, for President Obama and the left, Gingrich is not only correct, but also not racist. Gingrich has rejected the allegations that he is racist, as he should. Food stamps are a government entitlement that Americans receive based on their income. Race does not play a role in obtaining food stamps.
President Obama has failed to wholeheartedly support economic policy that would create jobs and get people off of food stamps. Instead of discussing how entitlements can be reformed or phased out, the left attacks fiscal conservatives by using scare tactics, telling the elderly that if they vote Republican they'll lose their Medicare and telling those in poverty that they'll lose their food stamps and subsidized housing. Rather than enable people to have jobs and make choices in a free market, the left would prefer for government to hand out entitlements. Entitlement spending is putting the country on the path to bankruptcy. The President's solution, it appears, comes from the story of Robin Hood, where he would like to take from the "rich" middle class and redistribute income to the "poor."
Americans will be happier, and feel a stronger sense of accomplishment when they are able to find jobs and buy things with their own money instead of using government entitlements. The success of entitlement programs for the poor should be measured, as Ronald Reagan suggested, by how many people leave the programs. With a stronger economy, fewer Americans will need food stamps. Instead of being a "food stamp President," President Obama needs to be a "jobs President", who puts Americans into jobs instead of entitlement programs.
President Obama has failed to wholeheartedly support economic policy that would create jobs and get people off of food stamps. Instead of discussing how entitlements can be reformed or phased out, the left attacks fiscal conservatives by using scare tactics, telling the elderly that if they vote Republican they'll lose their Medicare and telling those in poverty that they'll lose their food stamps and subsidized housing. Rather than enable people to have jobs and make choices in a free market, the left would prefer for government to hand out entitlements. Entitlement spending is putting the country on the path to bankruptcy. The President's solution, it appears, comes from the story of Robin Hood, where he would like to take from the "rich" middle class and redistribute income to the "poor."
Americans will be happier, and feel a stronger sense of accomplishment when they are able to find jobs and buy things with their own money instead of using government entitlements. The success of entitlement programs for the poor should be measured, as Ronald Reagan suggested, by how many people leave the programs. With a stronger economy, fewer Americans will need food stamps. Instead of being a "food stamp President," President Obama needs to be a "jobs President", who puts Americans into jobs instead of entitlement programs.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Romney A Viable GOP Candidate
Many conservatives believe that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts) is not a viable Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. They cite Romneycare, a 2006 set of healthcare reform programs signed into law by Romney in Massachusetts which forced many residents to buy insurance, forced college students to drop out of school, and actually lead to increased healthcare costs in the state.
Despite the mistake of Romneycare, Mitt Romney is still a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. Romney recently came out well ahead of other potential Republican candidates in a New Hampshire poll. Regarded as a more moderate Republican, Romney has potential to secure independent votes and even the votes of Democrats. Additionally, he is able to present a stronger family values image than other candidates, such as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump, who have had multiple divorces and even affairs. When it comes to healthcare, Romney has advocated keeping the federal government out, using free markets to keep costs down, and giving people more choice in healthcare. Romney has learned from his mistakes, and in a speech today and an op-ed in the USA Today, Romney outlined how he would handle Obamacare if elected President in 2012:
Despite the mistake of Romneycare, Mitt Romney is still a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. Romney recently came out well ahead of other potential Republican candidates in a New Hampshire poll. Regarded as a more moderate Republican, Romney has potential to secure independent votes and even the votes of Democrats. Additionally, he is able to present a stronger family values image than other candidates, such as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump, who have had multiple divorces and even affairs. When it comes to healthcare, Romney has advocated keeping the federal government out, using free markets to keep costs down, and giving people more choice in healthcare. Romney has learned from his mistakes, and in a speech today and an op-ed in the USA Today, Romney outlined how he would handle Obamacare if elected President in 2012:
If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.While repealing all of Obamacare may not be necessary, as some portions of the bill such as the new young adult coverage provisions and the disallowance of "pre-existing condition" denials are good for the American people, one path to proper healthcare reform in the United States would be be to fully repeal Obamacare and start over from scratch ensuring that new reform doesn't include the higher taxes, unconstitutional individual mandates, and increased costs that Obamacare had.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Presidential Recall
People make mistakes. Sometimes, the American people as a whole make a mistake and elect a leader who fails to deliver. President Obama was a candidate who managed to attract many voters from the center, including many independents and even Republicans. Unfortunately, some of these people now regret having voted for President Obama, and some even have said that they will vote against him in the 2012 election.
When someone is elected President of the United States, the American people are stuck with that person for four years. Only if the President engages in impeachable conduct is there an opportunity for Congress to remove the President from office. Otherwise, the President has to be convinced that he should resign or would need to die. It is obvious that the death of the President is not a legitimate, moral, ethical, or legal way to remove him from office. Anyone who assassinates the United States President should be executed for the criminal act. Convincing someone to resign because they've failed to listen to the will of the people could be difficult, and leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the person the people might want out of office. Impeachment, while a method of removing the President in the Constitution, requires the President to engage in treason, accept bribes, or commit a crime.
The American people deserve a legitimate means of removing the President should he or she fail to follow the will of the American people. That is why a recall process should be made available. Should a simple majority of the American people desire the President to be recalled, then a special recall election will take place. The President will have the opportunity to defeat the recall and be elected again, but if the American people believe someone else can do the job better, then they can vote someone else into office.
Many states already have recall procedures. California and Wisconsin, for example, empower the people to recall elected officials. In 2003, California Governor Gray Davis was recalled and the people of California replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Wisconsin, a recall effort is currently being considered by union leaders and others who believe Governor Scott K. Walker has failed to adhere to the will of his constituents.
A national recall process for the President of the United States would serve to give more power to the American people, and enable the people to keep the President in check. A President who fails to adhere to the will of the people will find themselves serving an abbreviated term, while a President who listens to the American people would serve their four years, and perhaps even see re-election for four more.
When someone is elected President of the United States, the American people are stuck with that person for four years. Only if the President engages in impeachable conduct is there an opportunity for Congress to remove the President from office. Otherwise, the President has to be convinced that he should resign or would need to die. It is obvious that the death of the President is not a legitimate, moral, ethical, or legal way to remove him from office. Anyone who assassinates the United States President should be executed for the criminal act. Convincing someone to resign because they've failed to listen to the will of the people could be difficult, and leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the person the people might want out of office. Impeachment, while a method of removing the President in the Constitution, requires the President to engage in treason, accept bribes, or commit a crime.
The American people deserve a legitimate means of removing the President should he or she fail to follow the will of the American people. That is why a recall process should be made available. Should a simple majority of the American people desire the President to be recalled, then a special recall election will take place. The President will have the opportunity to defeat the recall and be elected again, but if the American people believe someone else can do the job better, then they can vote someone else into office.
Many states already have recall procedures. California and Wisconsin, for example, empower the people to recall elected officials. In 2003, California Governor Gray Davis was recalled and the people of California replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Wisconsin, a recall effort is currently being considered by union leaders and others who believe Governor Scott K. Walker has failed to adhere to the will of his constituents.
A national recall process for the President of the United States would serve to give more power to the American people, and enable the people to keep the President in check. A President who fails to adhere to the will of the people will find themselves serving an abbreviated term, while a President who listens to the American people would serve their four years, and perhaps even see re-election for four more.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Paul Ryan Has A Better Idea for Healthcare
With many states, individuals, businesses, and politicians opposing the "individual mandate" to buy health insurance included in Obamacare, you would think someone would propose a better solution. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has. The Republican behind A Roadmap for America's Future has proposed that the American people be given a tax credit of up to $2,300 if they buy their own insurance. That means that Americans can pay less tax by buying insurance, and if they choose not to buy insurance, their taxes would not go up/down nor would they be fined.
Rep. Ryan's plan encourages Americans to buy their own health insurance, while allowing people to make their own financial and health decisions instead of having the government force insurance on them that they might not want or use. Further, Rep. Ryan's plan is likely a legal plan, whereas Obamacare's "individual mandate" provision was already ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Rep. Ryan's plan encourages Americans to buy their own health insurance, while allowing people to make their own financial and health decisions instead of having the government force insurance on them that they might not want or use. Further, Rep. Ryan's plan is likely a legal plan, whereas Obamacare's "individual mandate" provision was already ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)