Selected Blogs
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
When people talk about blindness, it is usually meant with regards to an individual losing one’s own eyesight; however, truthfully, there are other ways that an individual could become blinded. A man or woman could be blinded due to one’s own ego and pride. A man or woman could be blinded by living in denial and being oblivious to it all. A man or woman could be blinded by a cause or an endeavor. Finally, there are the men and women that become blind due to ideology.
To me, this can be all too dangerous.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Whenever there is an argument about cutting spending and cutting the deficit, often times there will be those voices that will claim that the supporters are hurting a segment of the population, hurting children, hurting workers, etc, or engage in the fine art of denial. Recently, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) claimed that by cutting spending for things like public television, supporters wanted to hurt Elmo and Big Bird. In Wisconsin, there are protesters that are saying that by cutting spending deeply, it is tantamount to Nazism. Some people, like propagandist filmmaker Michael Moore, are even claiming that there is no budget crisis and that states and the federal government have tons of money available. All in all, when you hear the opponents of debt reduction and spending restraints talk, it is not only comical but tragic as well. It is as if they are alcoholics and drug addicts who do not want to admit that they have a problem.
States like New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida, New York and others are facing big budget and state deficits; the federal government’s national debt is at $14 trillion and counting. Painful choices will have to be made and the days where we lived in blindness are very much over. This nation has to face reality, and while reality is not pretty, it is better than living in denial.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
For over 40 years, every presidential administration has promised that by a certain date, the U.S. would be energy sufficient and would very much lower its dependence upon foreign oil. The administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and now Barack Obama have all stated by a certain date and time in the future, the U.S. would be independent when it came to energy. All these statements and all these promises have turned out to be untrue.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
There are many individuals that have this belief that politicians are a “smart lot.” That they know the law and what is just and unjust according to it. Over a period of five months now, I have heard, read and watched interviews and speeches that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to law, particularly U.S. Constitutional Law, politicians are ignorant. It does not matter if these politicians reside in local or state government, nor does it matter if they are at the federal level. The fact that these people have this belief that there are no limits to their power and that they can do anything to force their will upon people and individuals is not only frightening but also disgusting.
- There are politicians that believe that they have a right to restrict political speech using campaign finance laws and other legislation and force.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In every human life, there are times when one must make tough and painful choices in order to move forward. These choices may come in matters concerning one’s health and welfare, one’s emotional and psychological well being, with regards to one’s family or regarding one’s financial, moral or economic well being. These choices are very difficult and are very tough to make. Nevertheless, these choices are made everyday to secure a better tomorrow and are done bravely with great consultation. When it comes to politicians, however, it is a very different story. Often times, politicians would like to take the easy way out or make no decision whatsoever in terms of issues, policy and when it comes to deficits and spending. These are people who not only want to have their cake and eat it too, but also want to keep what they have in terms of access, money, prestige and power, not to mention control of the purse strings.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 2003, President George W. Bush stated the following: “When somebody hurts, government has got to move.” It was President Bush that believed that every solution required government intervention. He was not alone. This has been the belief of a majority of Americans since the 1900s. Americans since that time have believed that government was the instrument that could provide for all, that could make people moral and virtuous and can right any wrong in human activity and human life. After examining the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, after looking at our national debt, our unfunded liabilities and the intrusions by government in all aspects of human life, the report card is in: this belief and philosophy is bankrupt.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Whenever I hear critics of a non-interventionist foreign policy speak, they always attack those who hold this view as “isolationists.” They claim that non-interventionists want to isolate themselves from the globe, that they want to create a bubble between them and the outside world, not engaging in any interaction with the foreign world. That characterization is false and very-very-dishonest.
A non-interventionist foreign policy is the belief in “peace, commerce, honest friendship will all nations,” and “entangling alliances with none,” to use the bold words of Thomas Jefferson. It is the belief that all nations have the right to engage of freedom of trade and freedom of exchange, that all nations should be friendly to one another, but that no nation should involve itself in the quarrels of other nations or in another nation’s political and social disputes. This was the foreign policy position of the U.S. for 100 years. It was rejected in 1898 when President William McKinley and Congress decided to go to war with the nation of Spain over Cuba. Since then, the U.S. has been following an interventionist path and has caused the U.S. to become the world’s busybody, not to mention the world’s policeman. This interventionist policy has also caused the U.S to get entangled in alliances with dictators and despots not only in places like the Middle East but elsewhere. It has caused populations in other nations to hate the U.S. because of these alliances.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
The assassination attempt on Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the death of six other people, including a federal district court judge, was a heinous act. What was even more despicable was the fact that there were members of the mainstream press that wanted to assign blame not to a mentally ill gunman, but to others.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 1964, at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater stated in his acceptance speech that “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no Vice” and that “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” When it comes to defending freedom, liberty and supporting the causes that I believe in, I must confess that I am an extremist. However, one thing that I am not, nor will I ever be, is a fanatic. There is a big difference.
- Details
- Written by: Bob Ingle
- Category: Selected Blogs
New Jersey has unusually strong — some say stupid — gun laws, and while it's debatable how much safer it makes us, in the case of one young man the way the law was applied is a disgrace to the legal system and the state.
Brian Aitken, a native New Jerseyan and Rutgers grad, moved to Colorado, where he purchased two handguns legally. When his marriage broke up, his ex-wife and son moved to Toms River. To be closer to his boy, Aitken sold his house and returned to the Garden State.
In January 2009, when he was visiting his parents' house, his mom became concerned about Aitken's mental state after he had been denied a visit with his son three times in two weeks. His mom, Sue, told Dennis Malloy of 101.5 FM radio she had been trained to call police in such cases. She hung up after dialing 911 without talking to anyone but the cops showed up anyway. She told them her concerns and the police called Brian en route to his Hoboken apartment and asked that he return to his parents' house. He did.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 1920, the U.S. was facing an economic depression. It came in the aftermath of World War I and after the progressive administration of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Republican Warren G. Harding replaced Wilson in the Oval Office.
To fight the depression, Harding and members of Congress supported a policy that would usher in the Roaring 1920s. The policy was to cut taxes by 50% and cut spending by the same amount. The policy brought about more revenues to the government and brought about 10 years of economic prosperity.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
After September 11, 2001, there has been this argument put forth by political pundits, politicians, attorneys and others that claim that in order to win the War on Terror, the rethinking of civil liberties must be done. That Americans, in order to win, must give up some freedoms in order to obtain protections. Even some civil-libertarians such as Alan Dershowitz agree with this argument. I personally find it faulty.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that this is done. When the war is over, will our liberties be restored? The answer is “no.” When government obtains a power it rarely relinquishes it. Not without a fight. Therefore, when anyone says that Americans must surrender some liberties to get the protection of the government, I get very weary.
Ben Franklin had it right when he stated that those who give up essential liberty in order to obtain security deserve neither.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
The forrth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person to be seized.”
Since 2001, with the passage of laws like the Patriot Act and with new and intrusive technologies like body scanners at airports making its way in to the light, one must wonder if the forth amendment is still applicable today. Sadly, there are many politicians, judges and political pundits (Progressives, “moderates,” liberals and conservatives) that are saying that it does not. These people, all of them, state because of the war on terror, because of safety and because of the need of government to generate revenue, all this trumps the Bill Of Rights. I find this to be very much wrong.
If the Constitution is the law of the land, then it must be treated as such. There can be no digression, no cutting of corners and no setting aside of the law for any purpose, noble or evil. Therefore, the choice is clear to me: follow the law or be ruled by fiat. I choose to follow the Constitution which is and always will be law.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
I am a strong supporter of the Tea Party movement. I believe the movement is correct when it says that the federal deficit and the astronomical spending done by the government are both unsustainable. I agree with the movement when it calls for cutting government down to constitutional size. Where I part company with the Tea Party movement, is when the movement says that entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be left alone. Considering that these programs are facing financial difficulties and are unsustainable under their present forms, and the fact that these programs are 39% of the U.S. Budget, to not reform them and ignore the problems that these programs face would be wrong and dangerous to the fiscal health of this republic.
Cutting the deficit and cutting spending will require tough and painful choices. It will require the United States to make tough decisions to get back on the road to solvency. These decisions cannot be put off for another day or for another generation. To do that, would be nothing more than passing the buck and taking the easy way out. No man, woman and no politician likes to make tough choices, but if it is for the better, it must be done to ensure better futures.