Monday, December 13, 2010

Here's the difference between wrong and ignorant

I never think people are ignorant for holding a political view. You can be a socialist and still be smart. You can be a far right wing libertarian and still be smart. You can be a terrorist thug and still be smart. You might be wrong, and I might disagree with your view of the world, but you are definitely not always ignorant.

Yet some people are ignorant (a fact) and wrong (my opinion). While I would never call a person ignorant to their face, I would call them wrong. And while I would never call a person ignorant to their face, I am willing to do so on my blog (although I'll keep the person anonymous).

There was an editorial in our Daily Newspaper with the following headline, "Is it the constitution, or politics," and the author criticized Jay Riemersma's column where he basically provided his advice to the new Congress in Michigan to hold true to the U.S. Constitution.

He notes the following: "I wonder why you and the GOP oppose the Health Care Reform Law? This legislation was borrowed from your party. The meat and potatoes are from ex-GOP Senator Bob Dole's plan from 1994 and ex-GOP Governor from Massachusettes Mitt Romney. How can you and your party justify creating a plan and when President Obama would like to implement it you then oppose it?"

Look, I can easily explain this. In fact, this person sort of hit the key right on the head when he wrote "ex-GOP." Bob Dole was a republican, but he was no conservative. In fact, Bob Dole is a moderate republican, which when translated comes out to be "LIBERAL!"

The 2010 election was about getting liberals out of Washington, be it either from the republican party or democratic party. Both Bob Dole is a liberaland republican. Senators like him moved the party to the left.

You have to remember republican and democrat are the parties, they can be controlled by different factions. Bob Doles faction was moderate (liberal) republican. Bob Reimersma's faction is concervative like most Americans are conservative. He represents the common folks in America.

Jay Reimersma is a Conservative, or a traditional American, or a Constitutionalist. He believes in the same principles as the founding fathers of limiting the scope of government by the Constitution's limits on the governments ability to make laws.

Basically, all Reimersma is saying is he wants to make sure Congress shall make no law that violates the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the Constitution only gives Congress the right to make laws in six areas (taxes, defense, state disagreements, etc) and are allowed to make no laws in any area except in these six.

To make laws in other areas is to take away our God Given freedoms and violates state and individual rights. Rowe-V-Wade was a violation of the Constitution in that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore abortion should be left to the states to decide.

Healthcare is not mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore this should be left to the states to decide. It's not Unconstitutional to have healthcare in the U.S., it's simply unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate it on all Americans.

This type of Federalism allows states to experiment, and that's what Mitt Romney did when he signed into law Massachusettes healthcare law. It's fine for a state to decide to create a healthcare program. The Fed cannot.

The editorialist also said that Obama has been far from perfect regarding the economy, yet he inherited Bush lost 779,000 jobs in his final months, and the recession was already underway. What he failed to mention was that the economy was booming until liberal democrats took over Congress in 2006.

He then wrote that Obama added 151,000 jobs in October. So, he criticezes Reimersma's claim that "we don't believe these policies represent progress at all." The editorialist claims, "That is a curious statement because I was led to believe that when a person takes a negative and turns that into a positive that was considered progress."

The truth is, when you create jobs through the government, you're going to have months when the job numbers go down. Yet when those jobs expire (and most of them do), jobs will be lost. It is in this way Keynesian economics (tax hikes and spending increases) that Obama uses create months of false employment hikes that create false optimism.

The same thing happened when FDR was president. Yet in order to know all of this you have to become educated. You have to read or something.

So while I hate to say it, this particular editorialist was ignorant and I just made him less ignorant, if he so chooses to heed this new wisdom. I'm not implying I know everything, yet I think I am correct in understanding that all republicans are not one and the same: some are liberals, and some are conservative, and some are libertarian, etc.

No comments: