Editorials

Join Us

Event Tickets

Login Form

Network with us!

Home

Editorials

We Welcome Your Opinions...

Let us know if you have a pithy editorial on any topic concerning our great nation.
email editorials to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Please put "SCRC editorial" in the subject line.

It's Always about the Environment, isn't it

Posted August 29, 2010 at 9:45pm

For those of you in California who don't read the Philadelphia Inquirer, the following note is based on an article from the August 29, 2010 edition (page A13):

Headline: "EPA denies a ban on lead in ammo"

This ruling was in response to a petition aimed at protecting wildlife from five environmental groups claiming that the lead in hunter's ammunition was dangerous to wildlife. Very creative. I would have thought that the ammunition itself was dangerous to wildlife, but due to the pesky 2nd Amendment, wildlife groups have to claim that the lead in the bullet is the real danger.

At first I thought, wow, the EPA has been reasonable for once. But then I read further.

The EPA only declined to rule because it did not believe it had jurisdiction (this from the Agency that had no problem with its jurisdiction to rule that the substance that we each exhale and that is vital for all plant life to exist, is a "Hazardous Substance" and subject to regulation.)

Yes, upon further reading I saw that the EPA is still considering the merits of the portion of the petition that seeks to ban lead in all fishing sinkers.

For those of us who believe in smaller government, the straw-man from the left: "...so you want to eliminate Medicare and pave your own streets??" .. is seen for the distraction that it is. Of course Government has a role, including for Defense; public projects and certain social safety nets.

We just don't want the government into every minutia of our lives down to our tackle boxes.

Regards,

Jersey JD

A Side Note from the Editorial Department: California Assembly Bill (AB-2223) which proposed to ban lead ammunition failed passage in committee and is dead as of 06/29/2010

What's old is new again - Dems continue to sing the same song

Posted April 27, 2010 at 9:30pm

Watching President Obama's finger wagging at Wall Street last week struck a sensitive spot. And so, as Mr. Obama derides Wall Street, we would all do well to review the speech given by the last US President (Mr. Clinton) to give a speech at the same venue.

Give a read here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=46550

If Mr. Clinton were not so busy trying to suggest that Mom and Pop Tea Party attendees were the next Timothy McVeigh, perhaps he would have time to suggest that Mr. Obama read these remarks.

(the below remarks are from Bill Clinton while he was Pres, Just elected and blaming Bush Sr.) with the most relevant part at the end.

1. On "hope and change": "We also have in this country a crisis of belief and hope. When President Kennedy took office, younger than I was when I took office, over 70 percent of the American people fundamentally believed that their leaders would tell them the truth and that their system could succeed. Now it seems as if half the people just stand around waiting to be disappointed, waiting to be told what's wrong and who's failed and how the special interests once again have strangled the national interests and why they should go on about their business without believing things can be different. [What was unemployment then? Like 5 percent?]

2. Change, Change, Change. . ."This is a strange and, in a way, wondrous moment in our history when citizens everywhere desperately want things to change but still are wary of it and reluctant to place their faith in anyone's prescription. We must begin with the economy. We must change the way the Government works if we expect the economy to improve. And we must rebuild the confidence of the American people based on the three words which were the watch words of my campaign for President: more opportunity for all, more responsibility from all, and the clear understanding that we are a community and we're all in this together, going up or down together. Whether we like it or not, that is clearly the truth. And we must begin to act as if it were.

3. Why does the Government fail to deal with the problems that this age has brought to us and engaged the American people in dealing with them? Why have we seen the Government's debt grow from $1 trillion to $4 trillion in the last 12 years, while we reduced our investment in the people of America and their promise and their ability to compete? [Remember those quaint days when a 1 Trillion seemed like a large sum of money?]

4. Concern about the Deficit: How can we reduce the deficit? Let's start with the big problem of the debt. Well, the answer is not popular. To reduce the deficit you have to reverse what produced the deficit. What produced it? Tax cuts and spending increases. Doing what people like. The most popular thing in the world is for me to cut your tax and write you a check. And that was what was done by Government for the American people for 12 long years. I'll cut your tax and I'll write you a check—that's a good deal. It used to be known as a free lunch when I was a kid.

We should look at every program for possible savings, including ones that Democrats have favored for a long time. And there should be no tax increase, not a dollar, without the spending cuts. That is the meaning of the budget resolution that was passed a few weeks ago in record time. It contains the largest deficit reduction proposals in history, over $500 billion in deficit reduction over a 5-year period with more than 200 very specific cuts in programs. Those were tough to make, but necessary in the face of a $4 trillion debt that will continue to grow until the deficit itself is reduced to zero.[wasn't that a capaign promise

5. Mr. Obama: Are you listening: ? "That deficit is robbing us of our ability to invest in our future. More and more of our money just goes to pay interest on the debt. If we don't change it, by the end of the decade over 20 cents on every dollar you pay in taxes will go just to service the debt. Now, that is also a redistribution of wealth away from middle class taxpayers to the upper income people who hold the debt, instead of to invest in the jobs and the education and the infrastructure of the future of New York and the rest of America."

Jersey JD

JerseyJD is based in Southern New Jersey and expresses his thoughts and opinions about issues that affect this great country. JerseyJD welcomes any & all comments, retorts, and challenges to his thoughts.

email JerseyJD your thoughts at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Obama is Fulfilling Campaign Promises

Posted April 4, 2010 at 9:30pm

This is the problem with the "NetFringe" of the Conservatives/The Right/The Republicans/Tea Partiers --

That is: They take that which is demonstrably and can be proven to be true, correct and verifiable (in this case, Obama's progressive agenda) and create e-mails that have the "look and feel" of urban legend; and make it sound like they have just discovered something new.

The calm facts are these:

1. Before Obama was a serious primary candidate and everyone thought Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, Jonah Goldberg of National Review wrote the book "Liberal Fascism". This book lays out the Progressive movement from the turn of the Century (This is why many conservatives in the Republican Party did not support McCain, who himself is an avowed "progressive Republican [in the mole of Teddy Roosevelt]". Goldberg's book has a 2007 copyright (based on the acknowledgments section of the book, it took years before that to research and write). I've read several influential books in my life, but (as I said to my wife) the decision to read Liberal Fascism is like deciding which pill to take in the movie the Matrix. Reading it opens your eyes; And

2. Sets the groundwork for other reads like "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Slays (sp?) (Also, written before Obama took office).

3. Obama was clear ("Let me be perfectly clear") just before the election, that he wanted to "Fundamentally transform" the country. To what? Those media on the intellectual/ Beltway right that were so caught up with the "crease of his pant leg" and his "coolness" (all in contrast to the Cowboy Bush (also a progressive by the way)), and those on the media Left that had tingles running up their legs failed to notice this, or report it to the public at large.

4. And then there are the very clear -- in audio tape -- accounts of then Candidate Obama expressing his support for a single payer Health Care system, but informing his union audience that it may take many years to get there.

And so here we are today. There is nothing sinister or new about President Obama's objectives. He stated them in his campaign, and one can not blame him for feeling that he has been elected to carry out his promise to "fundamentally transform" the country.

He said to "Joe the Plumber" on the Campaign trail that the country should "spread the wealth". A compliant Media immediately attacked - - You guessed it -- the plumber! Now it turns out from statements on the Senate Floor by Max Bauxus (Sp?) to statements from former Democratic Chair Howard Dean on CNN, that YES indeed, this Healthcare Bill was about "spreading the wealth" and addressing the "mal-distribution" of "wealth" in this country.

So, I agree with Dr. Krauthammer, but for folks to act as if they've just now discovered a secret and sent e-mails that need to be verified by snopes in the manner of pop rocks and cola or kidney thieves really debases and marginalizes the very facts that have been as plain as day for anyone to see for at least the last year and a half.

At least people are becoming awake and eyes are opening.

- JerseyJD

Transformation Sunday

Posted March 19, 2010 at 11:00pm

Sunday is a big day for the country. We have gone from the Congress voting on bills that it has not read to passing bills it has not voted on.

The President, who has assured the country that KSM will be found guilty but wants KSM tried in civilian courts to show the world that America is all about due process, suddenly is not at all interested in the process utilized to pass "health care reform".

And it is a shame. Pelosi will likely get her votes on Sunday and as a result the Senate Bill, that passed on Christmas eve, that no Senator who voted on it believed would ever become law, will be signed by the President and become law - without the House ever voting on it. And as a result, the fulcrum will have tilted (perhaps irreversibly) towards a European style economy; a progressive country where the Government and the collective is more valued than the individual and the citizen.

Unfortunately, unlike Europeans and Canadians of the past, starting Monday, Americans (and by the way Europeans and Canadians as well) will not have a "US style" health care system to resort to, and our economy will continue to need to support not just Universal Health care, but our military as well (a burden Europe and Canada have always been happy to leave to the U.S.).

Monday morning won't feel any different, but America will be -- and Obama will have fulfilled his campaign promise to "fundamentally transform" this country.

JerseyJD

Chief Justice John Roberts is correct in his response to Obama

Posted March 11, 2010 at 2:00pm

Recently Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts responded to President Obama's State of the Union criticisms of the Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission" case.

Regarding Chief Justice Roberts’ comments: I see nothing controversial. His main point was very profound and pro separation of powers and pro co-equal branches: I don’t have a transcript but I believe the quote was to the effect of:

“. . .the IMAGE (emphasis mine) of having the members of one branch of the government, standing up [and] literally surrounding the Supreme Court cheering and hollering, while the Court, according to . . . protocol, has to sit there, expressionless, I think this is very troubling.”

If you parse the sentence, as I heard it, he is concerned with the “image”. The visual. In other words, as he said he has no problem with criticism. In fact, as he said, some as a result of their office have an “obligation to criticize.” But the setting, circumstances and decorum matter. Not to the Court… but to the Republic and the public IMAGE that is created of each branch of the Government.

The Left’s reaction to the Chief Justice’s answer to a student’s question are way out of line.

JerseyJD

"Health Insurance Affordability" is what's needed

Posted March 1, 2010 at 9:00pm

Given the recent Blair House "Summit", I want to add a few thoughts on the current debate on "Health Care":

1. We all (politicians, media, citizens) need to begin to distinguish in the language that we use between “health care” reform and “health insurance affordability” reform. The US has the best “health care” in the world. The US has very expensive and in many (but not most) instances, unfair “health insurance”. We need health insurance reform (and reforms such as tort reform to make insurance more affordable). The Republicans have been saying as much for a year; Thursday they did so more clearly and with media attention. But even the Republicans tend to revert to the vernacular of "health care reform". We all need to remain disciplined and accurate in the language we use.

2. In an effort to make health care more affordable, we should not reduce the quality of our health care (which has been the proven result in Canada, Europe and elsewhere).

3. Employer provided health care is a mid point between Government provided and Individual Pay. Companies, naturally would like to be relieved of this cost. They have made a political calculation that Government pay is the most likely.

But we really should be moving towards a more individual pay model. (Actuarial pricing would still be made on groups, but not based on the arbitrary group of employees). (i.e. If you lose your job, your home and auto insurance rates don’t triple after 18 months).

JerseyJD