Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
“The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.” – San Francisco city supervisor Geraldo Sandoval
“The only true heroes are those that find ways to help defeat the US Military.” – Nicholas DeGenova, Univ of Columbia professor
“Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq played a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home the average IQ soared.” – Ted Rall, political cartoonist
“…655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?” – Rosie O’Donnell
For the average Liberal evil does not exist, only misunderstandings. Anyone who uses the word “evil” is either too lazy or too superficial to understand those with whom they disagree. They believe that all disagreements can be solved peacefully by those willing to put forth the effort; and that militaries and weapons are not necessary. Number 14 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe in: The US Military.
Ask any Liberal what they think about the military and you will get the standard, pre-packaged political answer. You’ll hear words like “hero”, “brave”, “courage” and so on. There are few phrases more popular among Liberals than “I support the troops”. They say it over and over in an almost pathologic sort of way, trying to convince themselves and others. Occasionally, a more outspoken Liberal may praise the troops while cursing the commanders and, of course, the Pentagon and just about any Republican President. The point is they wouldn’t dare openly criticize our troops. However, there are times when they slip (see above) and the truth can be seen. Liberals can’t stand our military and anyone who wears the uniform.
Liberals see military folk through many different prisms. In some cases, they take pity on those who serve. They believe that no intelligent, self-aware, self-respecting person would ever knowingly join the military without being duped, deceived or ill-persuaded in some way. That explains the latest national trend among Liberal activists to drive military recruiters away from college campuses. These students are bright, with lots of potential. The military is no place for such a person.
In some cases, they see military folks as just plain dumb, with limited options (see Ted Rall above). Believe it or not, I dealt with this one personally. Even though I was in medical school, on the verge of receiving my MD with a higher class rank than the majority of my peers, a physical therapy student suggested that my decision to join the military was “stupid” because I could make so much more money in the private sector, and the military would be a waste of my talents. Interesting and quite enlightening. The Liberal opinion about the Marines and the Army, the “grunts” if you will isn’t much different. They’re just a bunch of dumb kids who couldn’t make it in the real world so the military was their only option. Which is why they view our troops as reckless, dangerous and in need of supervision. This is evidenced by President Obama’s recent push to award our troops with medals for “showing restraint”. It’s his way of saying “good job not killing any babies”.
And then there is the “killer” view. Simply put, Liberals see our troops as a bunch of blood-thirsty brutes, killers who have found a sanctuary, a place where they can kill. John Kerry compared our troops to Ghengis Khan and spoke of them raiding villages and terrorizing innocent people. Obama used similar language. Dick Durbin compared our troops to the Gulag. John Murtha suggested they were murderers. The “restraint” medal crosses over into this viewpoint as well, but no one exemplifies this opinion better than Hollywood. I could fill page upon page with movie references that portray our troops as a bunch of uncivilized, violent beasts. And I could fill many pages on Jane Fonda alone. But don’t take my word for it, just take a trip to your local video store. Rent “Casualties of War” and “Platoon” and you’ll think that our troops in Vietnam were murderers and rapists. “Dances With Wolves” portrays them as ignorant, unrefined and brutal. In “Men of Honor” and “Hart’s War” they’re racist. Even “Saving Private Ryan” shows the greatest generation to be hesitant, reluctant to carry out their duty, and quick to execute prisoners of war. And this movie was supposed to glorify our World War II veterans. I dare say there is only one topic that has received more negative scrutiny from Hollywood than our military…Jesus Christ. There must be something about making the ultimate sacrifice for others that Hollywood finds repulsive.
Then there is the media, those who dance the “we support the troops” while hating them routine the best. Who can forget the General Betray Us ad that was purchased by moveon.org from the NY Times at a discounted rate? And have you noticed that news coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be inversely related to the results that American troops are achieving. During Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, one media study showed that over a month’s time – as Petreaus made progress in Baghdad and surrounding areas – news coverage of the situation in Baghdad dropped as much as 40%. We certainly don’t want any news stories about US troops doing good things now do we?
But all of this is not to say that the Liberals don’t see a genuine use for the military. Even though they hate using the military for war purposes, most Liberals will universally agree that using them in humanitarian missions is just fine. In their protests against the Iraq War, many of those Liberals were calling for action in Darfur using – you guessed it – our troops to help stabilize the region and dispense humanitarian supplies. Taking away their weapons and giving them a bag of wheat is the Liberal’s idea of putting our troops to good use. And there is no better place for social experimentation. The US military has been the frontline in the gay rights issue, the women’s rights issue and our effort to be sensitive towards the Muslim culture. Don’t ask Don’t tell is unacceptable if you wish to engage in homosexual behavior; but print up some business cards referring to yourself as a soldier of allah, and it works just fine.
So perhaps it is a bit unfair to say Liberals don't believe in the military. They believe, just in a military that does no harm, hurts no person, and provides a social channel for others to advance their political causes.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
No. 15: We The People
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
"Again, because it's a stupid country with stupid people who don't pay attention.” - Bill Maher.
One thing that really irks the Liberal about America is the fact that We The People are in charge, or at least that's how it's supposed to be. John Kerry was recently discussing the Dems low poll numbers, and he attributed it to the voters being "uninformed". It's not the policies we reject, nope. We're just ignorant of the truth. Number 15 on my list is, We The People.
When America was founded, our leaders wanted a nation that was free from the old European ruling class. One that didn't involve nobility or royalty, where bloodlines didn't matter and titles didn't exist. They rejected the notion that one man knows what's best for another man, and instead established a nation where the people govern themselves, and the ruling class had no power. The elites, scholars and academians were pushed aside in favor of the common everyday citizen. This was a unique concept, and is truly one of the things that makes America great.
Well, Liberals hate it. Liberals consider themselves to be open-minded, tolerant and enlightened. They believe they are sensitive to others. They are generally well-educated, so naturally they believe themselves to be more intelligent and wiser than the common sense American, which makes them suited to rule over us dumb hillbillies from middle America who don't know nuthin bout gubment. They've spent plenty of time in lecture halls, and very little time in the real world. The have read philosophy, and they think they know how the world "should" be.
So when they see the common sense American they look upon us with disgust. We are middle America, with strong family values, traditional values. We tend to be religious, which really makes them snicker. They see religion as a collection of "fairy tales" that we all cling to like a security blanket. Only the truly enlightened could free themselves from such a vice, and so they are proud to snicker at the religious folk.
They see our values as antiquated, old-fashioned. Only a foolish person - a "reactionary"- would maintain those traditional values. They have rejected the old-fashioned American traditions, thus transcending to a higher level of existence than us regular folk. This also includes rejecting American exceptionalism and developing a certain dislike for this nation. Only the wise, the enlightened could achieve such zen.
And, perhaps most important, is the self-loathing pillar of Liberalism. To be a true Liberal, you must hate at least one personal characteristic. Whether it be your race, your gender, your wealth, your religion, whatever. You can't fully achieve true "sensitivity" until you learn to despise something about yourself. And when us regular folk reject that idea, well that just proves that we're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc,etc.
Which brings us back to the Tea Party movement. This is something that was spontaneous, generated at the grassroots level by common, ordinary everyday Americans. A political movement of We The People. And I can't recall anything attracting more venom and vitriol from the Left. Boy do they hate the Tea Party. And if there is anything they hate more than the Tea Party, it would have to be Sarah Palin, another common American who lacks the Ivy League degree or the ruling class pedigree, or the self-loathing that is required to be considered wise amongst the Left. No, she's an idiot in their eyes because she is different from them. And We The People are idiots too.
First, the Tea Party was called fake...or "astroturf" as Nancy Pelosi put it. No way could anyone truly oppose the brilliance and wisdom of the ruling class. Must be fake. Then, we were called racist. That was only a matter of time. After all, why would people move against the brilliance and wisdom of the ruling class for any reason other than pure hate? Now, the latest, we're just plain crazy. Nuts. Coockoo. Loco. We're a bunch of psychos out there running crazy, don't pay attention. No one in their right mind could ever oppose the brilliance and wisdom of the ruling class.
The elites on the Left think they're better than us. Plain and simple. They think they're smarter, wiser, more understanding, more caring, more sensitive. They know what's best for us, and they truly believe that we're just too stupid to take care of ourselves, too stupid to see that they're the answer for all that ails us. The idea of We The People governing ourselves frightens them because they don't think we're capable. Someone needs to take care of us, thank goodness they're here.
They would've been very upset with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the 1770s.
"Again, because it's a stupid country with stupid people who don't pay attention.” - Bill Maher.
One thing that really irks the Liberal about America is the fact that We The People are in charge, or at least that's how it's supposed to be. John Kerry was recently discussing the Dems low poll numbers, and he attributed it to the voters being "uninformed". It's not the policies we reject, nope. We're just ignorant of the truth. Number 15 on my list is, We The People.
When America was founded, our leaders wanted a nation that was free from the old European ruling class. One that didn't involve nobility or royalty, where bloodlines didn't matter and titles didn't exist. They rejected the notion that one man knows what's best for another man, and instead established a nation where the people govern themselves, and the ruling class had no power. The elites, scholars and academians were pushed aside in favor of the common everyday citizen. This was a unique concept, and is truly one of the things that makes America great.
Well, Liberals hate it. Liberals consider themselves to be open-minded, tolerant and enlightened. They believe they are sensitive to others. They are generally well-educated, so naturally they believe themselves to be more intelligent and wiser than the common sense American, which makes them suited to rule over us dumb hillbillies from middle America who don't know nuthin bout gubment. They've spent plenty of time in lecture halls, and very little time in the real world. The have read philosophy, and they think they know how the world "should" be.
So when they see the common sense American they look upon us with disgust. We are middle America, with strong family values, traditional values. We tend to be religious, which really makes them snicker. They see religion as a collection of "fairy tales" that we all cling to like a security blanket. Only the truly enlightened could free themselves from such a vice, and so they are proud to snicker at the religious folk.
They see our values as antiquated, old-fashioned. Only a foolish person - a "reactionary"- would maintain those traditional values. They have rejected the old-fashioned American traditions, thus transcending to a higher level of existence than us regular folk. This also includes rejecting American exceptionalism and developing a certain dislike for this nation. Only the wise, the enlightened could achieve such zen.
And, perhaps most important, is the self-loathing pillar of Liberalism. To be a true Liberal, you must hate at least one personal characteristic. Whether it be your race, your gender, your wealth, your religion, whatever. You can't fully achieve true "sensitivity" until you learn to despise something about yourself. And when us regular folk reject that idea, well that just proves that we're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc,etc.
Which brings us back to the Tea Party movement. This is something that was spontaneous, generated at the grassroots level by common, ordinary everyday Americans. A political movement of We The People. And I can't recall anything attracting more venom and vitriol from the Left. Boy do they hate the Tea Party. And if there is anything they hate more than the Tea Party, it would have to be Sarah Palin, another common American who lacks the Ivy League degree or the ruling class pedigree, or the self-loathing that is required to be considered wise amongst the Left. No, she's an idiot in their eyes because she is different from them. And We The People are idiots too.
First, the Tea Party was called fake...or "astroturf" as Nancy Pelosi put it. No way could anyone truly oppose the brilliance and wisdom of the ruling class. Must be fake. Then, we were called racist. That was only a matter of time. After all, why would people move against the brilliance and wisdom of the ruling class for any reason other than pure hate? Now, the latest, we're just plain crazy. Nuts. Coockoo. Loco. We're a bunch of psychos out there running crazy, don't pay attention. No one in their right mind could ever oppose the brilliance and wisdom of the ruling class.
The elites on the Left think they're better than us. Plain and simple. They think they're smarter, wiser, more understanding, more caring, more sensitive. They know what's best for us, and they truly believe that we're just too stupid to take care of ourselves, too stupid to see that they're the answer for all that ails us. The idea of We The People governing ourselves frightens them because they don't think we're capable. Someone needs to take care of us, thank goodness they're here.
They would've been very upset with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the 1770s.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
No. 16: Equality
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
"All men are created equal..." - Thomas Jefferson. Number 16 on my list of things Liberals don't believe is Equality.
Common Sense Americans agree with Jefferson. All men are created equal. We are all born into this world with rights. Those rights are equal in status. One man's rights, regardless of circumstance or background, do not supersede another man's rights. And one man's rights cannot be compromised for the benefit of another man's rights. We ARE ALL EQUAL.
Liberals disagree. Granted, if you ask a Liberal if they believe that all men are created equal, well of course they will say yes. But you can't take a Liberal at his word. Look at his actions. When Liberals look at the world they don't see humans with equal rights. No way. Instead, they see victims and victimizers. The victimizers are usually wealthy, successful capitalists. Most of the time the victimizers are white male Westerners. They are almost always Christian and heterosexual. The ultimate victimizer is a white male heterosexual wealthy Christian westerner. These people border on evil in the eyes of Liberals, that is if they actually believed in the existence of evil.
The victims are quite different. Victims are always poor with some exceptions. They are usually a racial minority. More victims are women than men. Homosexuals are basically across the board victims. Sometimes Jews are victims, but that's rare. Muslims, on the other hand, are always victims (see Major Nassif and the Fort Hood massacre).
So Liberals have this dichotomy. Victimizers and Victims. And they believe that victims have more rights than victimizers. Equality is not at play here. Ask your local Liberal: Who has more rights, a white wealthy male Christian, or a poor black female Muslim? The correct answer is neither, they are equal. What would the Liberal say?
Why they believe this I don't know. Maybe it's a political thing. Yes, Liberal politicians raise a lot of money for their campaign by convincing victims that they have more rights than victimizers. And certainly the more victims who believe this goes further in ensuring those politicians retain power. So no wonder the Liberals expand their net of victims constantly. But I'm not sure if money is the motivating factor for your average neighborhood Liberal. I think some of it is guilt, or maybe just the fact that Liberals see a world where human OUTCOMES are unequal and feel that this somehow means that human RIGHTS are therefore unequal. Twisted logic? Yes, but I can't think of another reason why Liberals divide us up into victims and victimizers.
Take me, for example. I am successful. In the eyes of a Liberal, it's because of this demographic side of me that I have fewer rights than someone who doesn't fall into that demographic. And it's up to them, by way of government power, to enforce the imbalance of rights. So, I am forced to surrender a larger percentage of my income to the treasury. The reason for this is because I am more successful, therefore I am not allowed to keep the same percentage of my labor as someone who isn't as successful. And also, that person who isn't as successful has a RIGHT to things like education, healthcare, childcare, retirement, etc. Those things must be funded and so they are funded by people like me. My neighbor's right to healthcare thus supersedes any right I have to the fruits of my own labor. Do any Liberals out there disagree? Of course not.
President Obama has said that anyone who makes over $200,000 a year is doing well enough, and they can afford to pay a higher percentage of taxes. He ignores the fundamental American principle of property and ownership. No. He believes that property rights end at a certain level of income. If you have more property, then you have fewer rights to that property. And if someone is in need, then they have more rights to your property than you do. This is not equality.
The common sense American says that all men are created equal. That we are born equal. We have equal rights. However, equal rights do not translate into equal outcomes. Some people make the most of their rights and succeed. Some become quite wealthy. Others squander their rights and may not be as successful, may not be as wealthy. These are outcomes and they are most definitely not equal, even though we all have equal rights. The common sense American understands that equal rights and equal outcomes are two VERY different things, and if the government attempts to equalize outcomes then it can only do so by violating the rights of some of the citizens, thereby making their rights UNEQUAL in stature. The only way to maintain equal rights is to understand that outcomes will always be unequal, and dependent upon the actions of the individual. That, my friends, is a free society. And that is what happens when you have equal rights.
"All men are created equal..." - Thomas Jefferson. Number 16 on my list of things Liberals don't believe is Equality.
Common Sense Americans agree with Jefferson. All men are created equal. We are all born into this world with rights. Those rights are equal in status. One man's rights, regardless of circumstance or background, do not supersede another man's rights. And one man's rights cannot be compromised for the benefit of another man's rights. We ARE ALL EQUAL.
Liberals disagree. Granted, if you ask a Liberal if they believe that all men are created equal, well of course they will say yes. But you can't take a Liberal at his word. Look at his actions. When Liberals look at the world they don't see humans with equal rights. No way. Instead, they see victims and victimizers. The victimizers are usually wealthy, successful capitalists. Most of the time the victimizers are white male Westerners. They are almost always Christian and heterosexual. The ultimate victimizer is a white male heterosexual wealthy Christian westerner. These people border on evil in the eyes of Liberals, that is if they actually believed in the existence of evil.
The victims are quite different. Victims are always poor with some exceptions. They are usually a racial minority. More victims are women than men. Homosexuals are basically across the board victims. Sometimes Jews are victims, but that's rare. Muslims, on the other hand, are always victims (see Major Nassif and the Fort Hood massacre).
So Liberals have this dichotomy. Victimizers and Victims. And they believe that victims have more rights than victimizers. Equality is not at play here. Ask your local Liberal: Who has more rights, a white wealthy male Christian, or a poor black female Muslim? The correct answer is neither, they are equal. What would the Liberal say?
Why they believe this I don't know. Maybe it's a political thing. Yes, Liberal politicians raise a lot of money for their campaign by convincing victims that they have more rights than victimizers. And certainly the more victims who believe this goes further in ensuring those politicians retain power. So no wonder the Liberals expand their net of victims constantly. But I'm not sure if money is the motivating factor for your average neighborhood Liberal. I think some of it is guilt, or maybe just the fact that Liberals see a world where human OUTCOMES are unequal and feel that this somehow means that human RIGHTS are therefore unequal. Twisted logic? Yes, but I can't think of another reason why Liberals divide us up into victims and victimizers.
Take me, for example. I am successful. In the eyes of a Liberal, it's because of this demographic side of me that I have fewer rights than someone who doesn't fall into that demographic. And it's up to them, by way of government power, to enforce the imbalance of rights. So, I am forced to surrender a larger percentage of my income to the treasury. The reason for this is because I am more successful, therefore I am not allowed to keep the same percentage of my labor as someone who isn't as successful. And also, that person who isn't as successful has a RIGHT to things like education, healthcare, childcare, retirement, etc. Those things must be funded and so they are funded by people like me. My neighbor's right to healthcare thus supersedes any right I have to the fruits of my own labor. Do any Liberals out there disagree? Of course not.
President Obama has said that anyone who makes over $200,000 a year is doing well enough, and they can afford to pay a higher percentage of taxes. He ignores the fundamental American principle of property and ownership. No. He believes that property rights end at a certain level of income. If you have more property, then you have fewer rights to that property. And if someone is in need, then they have more rights to your property than you do. This is not equality.
The common sense American says that all men are created equal. That we are born equal. We have equal rights. However, equal rights do not translate into equal outcomes. Some people make the most of their rights and succeed. Some become quite wealthy. Others squander their rights and may not be as successful, may not be as wealthy. These are outcomes and they are most definitely not equal, even though we all have equal rights. The common sense American understands that equal rights and equal outcomes are two VERY different things, and if the government attempts to equalize outcomes then it can only do so by violating the rights of some of the citizens, thereby making their rights UNEQUAL in stature. The only way to maintain equal rights is to understand that outcomes will always be unequal, and dependent upon the actions of the individual. That, my friends, is a free society. And that is what happens when you have equal rights.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Delaware
Christine O'Donnell wins in Delaware. The GOP establishment has been dealt a major blow and they are all crying in their embroidered hankies. Here are my thoughts:
The Tea Party is a genuine grassroots populist political uprising. We haven't picked up pitchforks or tried to tar-and-feather anyone. No, instead we have dug in our heels and decided to make a stand right here, right now. There are a lot of problems in America and the two ruling parties are mainly the ones who created those problems. The Tea Party holds no allegiance to the GOP. In today's America there is very little difference between Republican and Democrat. Even Bill Clinton said the Tea Party makes George Bush look liberal. He's right, at least from a fiscal standpoint.
Washington is dominated by the political establishment. Some have D by their name, others have R, but they all behave pretty much the same. Gut the treasury, dole out gov't handouts to people and special interests in order to gain political favor, breed dependence and buy votes. Obama says the GOP in the Bush years ran up record deficits. He's right. Yet, Mr. Obama chose to double-down on those efforts and show the GOP a thing or two about deficit spending and mortgaging our future. That is unacceptable, so the Tea Party has taken a stand against both.
But the political establishment won't go down without a fight. They've been entrenched for decades, ignoring the will of the people, dating back to the 1930s (with a brief respite during the Reagan era). They feel they are invincible, and they have a lot of money behind them. O'Donnell, like Sarah Palin, was brutalized in this campaign. Her personal finances were attacked, as was her character, as if the ruling class has any sort of record to stand on in those two areas. She was called "unelectable", and now the GOP clan refuses to back her in the general election. Fine.
The same criticism was launched at Rubio, Angle, Brown and Morris. The GOP's message was: Trust us, we can win, the Tea Party can't. No thanks. In our eyes, the GOP and the Democrats are all the same and we're tired of it. We want people in Congress who actually REPRESENT the voters, will LISTEN to the voters and will ABIDE by the will of the voters. So, one by one, the good ole boys of the GOP are falling. Good riddance.
They said Castle could win, O'Donnell could not. So they asked the people to vote for the less-appealing candidate simply because he could win. No thanks. Things like that symbolize what's wrong in politics, namely voting according to what furthers your career, or keeps in step with your party and not according to what's right. O'Donnell has her flaws, no doubt. And she is certainly not a slick-tongued politician, but she does represent the people and pledges to protect the people's money. If she doesn't then she will get booted as well. Electable or not, a vote for her was right. We may lose the general election, but we will not lose our integrity in the process just so we can take back the Senate for the GOP. The GOP doesn't understand the wisdom behind that, which is exactly why we've abandoned them. Why vote Mitch McConnell to replace Harry Reid when, in truth, the two really aren't that much different? We are rejecting both, just as we rejected the aristocracy and nobility of the old-European ruling class of the 1700s that simply wanted us to just shut up and obey.
There is nothing the establishment fears more than a populist uprising, which explains the attacks. The Tea Party has been called xenophobe, homophobe, Christian extremists and, of course, racist...you name it. Most of these attacks come from the embedded politicians and the media that enables them. So be it. It will not weaken our resolve for change. I challenge you to see for yourself. We uphold the ideals of Dr. King, Susan B Anthony, Washington, Madison and Jefferson. That's a fact. If Dr. King were alive today he would be marching with us, if not leading us himself. We embrace immigration as a cornerstone principle of this nation. We treasure the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and we abide by them, fight for them and uphold them. The attacks on us are not genuine. Instead, they are an effort to retain power in Washington and retain control over the people. Nothing more. "Just shut up and obey, or you will pay". Well, we're not intimidated.
If Americans allow themselves to be influenced by the establishment and the ruling class, then they will reject the Tea Party. But if Americans decide to form their own opinion through experience, I think they will be surprised at how appealing the Tea Party really is. I encourage everyone to talk to a Tea Partier, attend a rally, listen to what we have to say. Yes, there are some kooks, but they don't represent our movement. You will agree with us more than you may think. But if you listen to the neo-marxist media, the academians, or the political ruling class, then you will certainly hate us as they do. Such is their strategy. They are pinning their hopes on the general population remaining ignorant of this movement.
Don't let the media influence your opinion, and don't let the slick politicians define us. We ARE the people. We DEMAND accountability from our leaders. We UPHOLD the values of the Constitution. And we DO NOT CONSENT to the frivolous, reckless governance that we've been subjected to from both parties. If you see us as anything different then you haven't seen the real Tea Party. And if that is "unelectable" then America has no hope for survival. Plain and simple. If we choose the status quo - GOP or democrat - then we choose a perilous path of self-destruction. This is our stand. We refuse to allow our nation to crumble without action. It was our complacency and apathy that allowed the ruling class to entrench themselves in Washington and stray from our Constitutional foundation. If that course continues it won't be because we remained complacent.
(Note: since this was posted the GOP has decided to help fund O'Donnell's campaign. Prior to this announcement, O'Donnell's website was flooded with contributions, even to the point that the site itself crashed)
The Tea Party is a genuine grassroots populist political uprising. We haven't picked up pitchforks or tried to tar-and-feather anyone. No, instead we have dug in our heels and decided to make a stand right here, right now. There are a lot of problems in America and the two ruling parties are mainly the ones who created those problems. The Tea Party holds no allegiance to the GOP. In today's America there is very little difference between Republican and Democrat. Even Bill Clinton said the Tea Party makes George Bush look liberal. He's right, at least from a fiscal standpoint.
Washington is dominated by the political establishment. Some have D by their name, others have R, but they all behave pretty much the same. Gut the treasury, dole out gov't handouts to people and special interests in order to gain political favor, breed dependence and buy votes. Obama says the GOP in the Bush years ran up record deficits. He's right. Yet, Mr. Obama chose to double-down on those efforts and show the GOP a thing or two about deficit spending and mortgaging our future. That is unacceptable, so the Tea Party has taken a stand against both.
But the political establishment won't go down without a fight. They've been entrenched for decades, ignoring the will of the people, dating back to the 1930s (with a brief respite during the Reagan era). They feel they are invincible, and they have a lot of money behind them. O'Donnell, like Sarah Palin, was brutalized in this campaign. Her personal finances were attacked, as was her character, as if the ruling class has any sort of record to stand on in those two areas. She was called "unelectable", and now the GOP clan refuses to back her in the general election. Fine.
The same criticism was launched at Rubio, Angle, Brown and Morris. The GOP's message was: Trust us, we can win, the Tea Party can't. No thanks. In our eyes, the GOP and the Democrats are all the same and we're tired of it. We want people in Congress who actually REPRESENT the voters, will LISTEN to the voters and will ABIDE by the will of the voters. So, one by one, the good ole boys of the GOP are falling. Good riddance.
They said Castle could win, O'Donnell could not. So they asked the people to vote for the less-appealing candidate simply because he could win. No thanks. Things like that symbolize what's wrong in politics, namely voting according to what furthers your career, or keeps in step with your party and not according to what's right. O'Donnell has her flaws, no doubt. And she is certainly not a slick-tongued politician, but she does represent the people and pledges to protect the people's money. If she doesn't then she will get booted as well. Electable or not, a vote for her was right. We may lose the general election, but we will not lose our integrity in the process just so we can take back the Senate for the GOP. The GOP doesn't understand the wisdom behind that, which is exactly why we've abandoned them. Why vote Mitch McConnell to replace Harry Reid when, in truth, the two really aren't that much different? We are rejecting both, just as we rejected the aristocracy and nobility of the old-European ruling class of the 1700s that simply wanted us to just shut up and obey.
There is nothing the establishment fears more than a populist uprising, which explains the attacks. The Tea Party has been called xenophobe, homophobe, Christian extremists and, of course, racist...you name it. Most of these attacks come from the embedded politicians and the media that enables them. So be it. It will not weaken our resolve for change. I challenge you to see for yourself. We uphold the ideals of Dr. King, Susan B Anthony, Washington, Madison and Jefferson. That's a fact. If Dr. King were alive today he would be marching with us, if not leading us himself. We embrace immigration as a cornerstone principle of this nation. We treasure the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and we abide by them, fight for them and uphold them. The attacks on us are not genuine. Instead, they are an effort to retain power in Washington and retain control over the people. Nothing more. "Just shut up and obey, or you will pay". Well, we're not intimidated.
If Americans allow themselves to be influenced by the establishment and the ruling class, then they will reject the Tea Party. But if Americans decide to form their own opinion through experience, I think they will be surprised at how appealing the Tea Party really is. I encourage everyone to talk to a Tea Partier, attend a rally, listen to what we have to say. Yes, there are some kooks, but they don't represent our movement. You will agree with us more than you may think. But if you listen to the neo-marxist media, the academians, or the political ruling class, then you will certainly hate us as they do. Such is their strategy. They are pinning their hopes on the general population remaining ignorant of this movement.
Don't let the media influence your opinion, and don't let the slick politicians define us. We ARE the people. We DEMAND accountability from our leaders. We UPHOLD the values of the Constitution. And we DO NOT CONSENT to the frivolous, reckless governance that we've been subjected to from both parties. If you see us as anything different then you haven't seen the real Tea Party. And if that is "unelectable" then America has no hope for survival. Plain and simple. If we choose the status quo - GOP or democrat - then we choose a perilous path of self-destruction. This is our stand. We refuse to allow our nation to crumble without action. It was our complacency and apathy that allowed the ruling class to entrench themselves in Washington and stray from our Constitutional foundation. If that course continues it won't be because we remained complacent.
(Note: since this was posted the GOP has decided to help fund O'Donnell's campaign. Prior to this announcement, O'Donnell's website was flooded with contributions, even to the point that the site itself crashed)
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11
Nine years ago a group of Muslim radicals murdered 3000 American civilians.
Despite what George Bush says, they did not do this because they hate freedom, hate liberty or hate what America stands for.
Despite what the Left says, they didn't do it because of America's involvement in the Middle East or our friendship with Israel.
Those Muslim extremists murdered 3000 American civilians because they believe their religion teaches them to do it. They believe their god commands them to do it. They adhere to a "convert or kill" philosophy. They feel that all humans must convert to Islam, and any who refuse must die. This is what they believe and that is why they kill.
They will continue to do it whether or not we're involved in Iraq. Whether or not we're fighting in Afghanistan. They will continue to do it whether or not a few whackos decide to burn the Koran. Whether or not we display tolerance and allow them to build a Mosque at ground zero. Whether or not we reach out to them for dialogue and understanding.
They will continue to do these things until: 1) We all convert to Islam, or 2) We are all dead, or 3) They are all dead.
There are no other options. Until one of these three things happen, the radicals will continue to murder the innocent. Plain and simple.
God bless those who grieve today. May your loss never be forgotten. May the reason for your loss never be distorted.
Despite what George Bush says, they did not do this because they hate freedom, hate liberty or hate what America stands for.
Despite what the Left says, they didn't do it because of America's involvement in the Middle East or our friendship with Israel.
Those Muslim extremists murdered 3000 American civilians because they believe their religion teaches them to do it. They believe their god commands them to do it. They adhere to a "convert or kill" philosophy. They feel that all humans must convert to Islam, and any who refuse must die. This is what they believe and that is why they kill.
They will continue to do it whether or not we're involved in Iraq. Whether or not we're fighting in Afghanistan. They will continue to do it whether or not a few whackos decide to burn the Koran. Whether or not we display tolerance and allow them to build a Mosque at ground zero. Whether or not we reach out to them for dialogue and understanding.
They will continue to do these things until: 1) We all convert to Islam, or 2) We are all dead, or 3) They are all dead.
There are no other options. Until one of these three things happen, the radicals will continue to murder the innocent. Plain and simple.
God bless those who grieve today. May your loss never be forgotten. May the reason for your loss never be distorted.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
More Leftist double standard
The intrigue about this idiot in Florida and all of his moronic followers who are calling for a "burn the Koran" day isn't that the guy's an idiot. Or that his followers are moronic. There's plenty of that nowadays in America to make this story rather boring. He seems to be hungry for attention, hungry for fund-raising, hungry for controversy or whatever. I don't know his motivation nor do I care. People like him should simply be ignored. That's how you deal with the foolish and ignorant. Whether you're talking about people who spew racism, anti-semitism, stereotypical hatred or someone who wants to destroy the sacred symbols of another person's religion. It's best just to ignore and marginalize them. And, by the way, if this guy professes to be a Christian I would suggest he take a few moments to acquaint himself with Christianity. There is nothing Christian about attacking someone else's religion. This guy is about as Christian as Bin Laden.
But the real intrigue in this story deals with the Left's reaction to it. The media is frothing at the mouth. They can't get enough of it. So much for marginalizing the foolish. No, they're giving this guy exactly what he wants: attention and controversy. Their giving him airtime, and I think it's a mistake.
What I don't hear is the fact that this church has a Constitutional right to burn the Koran. Interesting. The same people who rallied around the ground zero Mosque are suddenly silent when this fool wants to burn the holy book of Islam. Such is the world of relativistic liberalism. There are no concrete rights and wrongs with these people. Everything is relative and depends on the situation at hand. Want to build a Mosque at ground zero? Okay. Want to burn the Koran? Not okay. President Obama said the folks have a right to build the Mosque at ground zero, that it's a fundamental American principle. Robert Gibbs repeated this notion, as did Joe Biden. Has anyone heard the President stand behind these dopes in Florida who want to burn the Koran? Nope. It's just the latest example of why liberalism never appealed to me. It's too inconsistent as an ideology. I prefer solid principles, unwavering, consistent.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are solidly consistent. People have a right to build a Mosque at ground zero. People have a right to burn the Koran. But both are tasteless, offensive, disrespectful and provocative and shouldn't be tolerated. Good luck finding a liberal to agree with me on that.
So the media will continue to slobber over this story, no doubt sharing culpability with any consequences that occur as a result of global Muslim outrage. It's almost as if the Leftist media WANTS the world to hate us, WANTS the world to think we're anti-Muslim and are waging a holy war against Islam. Hmmm.
But the real intrigue in this story deals with the Left's reaction to it. The media is frothing at the mouth. They can't get enough of it. So much for marginalizing the foolish. No, they're giving this guy exactly what he wants: attention and controversy. Their giving him airtime, and I think it's a mistake.
What I don't hear is the fact that this church has a Constitutional right to burn the Koran. Interesting. The same people who rallied around the ground zero Mosque are suddenly silent when this fool wants to burn the holy book of Islam. Such is the world of relativistic liberalism. There are no concrete rights and wrongs with these people. Everything is relative and depends on the situation at hand. Want to build a Mosque at ground zero? Okay. Want to burn the Koran? Not okay. President Obama said the folks have a right to build the Mosque at ground zero, that it's a fundamental American principle. Robert Gibbs repeated this notion, as did Joe Biden. Has anyone heard the President stand behind these dopes in Florida who want to burn the Koran? Nope. It's just the latest example of why liberalism never appealed to me. It's too inconsistent as an ideology. I prefer solid principles, unwavering, consistent.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are solidly consistent. People have a right to build a Mosque at ground zero. People have a right to burn the Koran. But both are tasteless, offensive, disrespectful and provocative and shouldn't be tolerated. Good luck finding a liberal to agree with me on that.
So the media will continue to slobber over this story, no doubt sharing culpability with any consequences that occur as a result of global Muslim outrage. It's almost as if the Leftist media WANTS the world to hate us, WANTS the world to think we're anti-Muslim and are waging a holy war against Islam. Hmmm.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Drones: Take my advice
Okay, I can't take it anymore. I have to post about the ground zero Mosque. No, this will not be a commentary. Anyone who reads this page surely knows where I stand on the issue. Instead, I have a few words regarding the national debate on the issue.
For starters, if anyone reading this is ever engaged in a debate about the ground zero Mosque, and you for whatever reason feel the need to point out that those people have a right to build the Mosque, then please hit yourself upside the head with a hammer. It will say so much more, trust me. Making a statement like "they have a right to build it" basically screams "I am a moron". And there's no better way to say "I am a moron" than hitting yourself upside the head with a hammer.
How many times has this happened? You'll be engaged in a civilized discussion about the issue when suddenly any drone within the immediate vicinity feels the need to point out they have a right to build it. Thank you for that brilliant Constitutional insight. The intelligence is suddenly sucked out of the conversation. It's like Joe Biden walked in and entered the debate (by the way, Joe was recently heard on an interview saying...that's right, "they have a right to build it").
It's the same thing when you're discussing illegal immigration and a drone has to point out that it's wrong to oppose immigration, and how important immigration has been in our history. You just kinda look at that person with a blank stare unsure how to respond. Nothing screams idiot like the parroted opinion of a drone. And, honestly, how do you debate idiocy?
Hopefully, one day someone who controls the opinions of the drones and feeds them their talking point du jour will decide to instruct them on how to differentiate the terms "could" and "should". As in: Could they build the Mosque? vs. Should they build the Mosque? But right now, keeping them in confusion seems to be the best way to paint the conservatives - and anyone else who opposes a Mosque at ground zero - as intolerant Islamophobic radical racist nazis who hate the Constitution. Exactly how that helps the current administration is unclear, but that's his gameplan and he's sticking to it. Maybe the strategy is that anyone who is an intolerant Constitution-hating radical Islamophobic racist nazi can't be taken seriously when they say things like it's unconstitutional to force me to purchase something that I don't want to purchase. But I'm just speculating here.
Until then, looks like we'll have to put up with those occasional moronic statements. But a word of advice, instead of saying something like "they have a right to build it", you can say so much more by just hitting yourself upside the head with a hammer.
For starters, if anyone reading this is ever engaged in a debate about the ground zero Mosque, and you for whatever reason feel the need to point out that those people have a right to build the Mosque, then please hit yourself upside the head with a hammer. It will say so much more, trust me. Making a statement like "they have a right to build it" basically screams "I am a moron". And there's no better way to say "I am a moron" than hitting yourself upside the head with a hammer.
How many times has this happened? You'll be engaged in a civilized discussion about the issue when suddenly any drone within the immediate vicinity feels the need to point out they have a right to build it. Thank you for that brilliant Constitutional insight. The intelligence is suddenly sucked out of the conversation. It's like Joe Biden walked in and entered the debate (by the way, Joe was recently heard on an interview saying...that's right, "they have a right to build it").
It's the same thing when you're discussing illegal immigration and a drone has to point out that it's wrong to oppose immigration, and how important immigration has been in our history. You just kinda look at that person with a blank stare unsure how to respond. Nothing screams idiot like the parroted opinion of a drone. And, honestly, how do you debate idiocy?
Hopefully, one day someone who controls the opinions of the drones and feeds them their talking point du jour will decide to instruct them on how to differentiate the terms "could" and "should". As in: Could they build the Mosque? vs. Should they build the Mosque? But right now, keeping them in confusion seems to be the best way to paint the conservatives - and anyone else who opposes a Mosque at ground zero - as intolerant Islamophobic radical racist nazis who hate the Constitution. Exactly how that helps the current administration is unclear, but that's his gameplan and he's sticking to it. Maybe the strategy is that anyone who is an intolerant Constitution-hating radical Islamophobic racist nazi can't be taken seriously when they say things like it's unconstitutional to force me to purchase something that I don't want to purchase. But I'm just speculating here.
Until then, looks like we'll have to put up with those occasional moronic statements. But a word of advice, instead of saying something like "they have a right to build it", you can say so much more by just hitting yourself upside the head with a hammer.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
No. 17: The US Constitution
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
There are few things that anger Liberals more than our governing document. The US Constitution was written with a primary purpose of protecting the rights of individuals from abuse by the government, and limiting the power and scope of government. Every part of the Constitution deals with these tasks in one way or another. The basic concept of that document is that the government must be held in check. Boy do Liberals hate that. No other document (except for the Bible) riles them up more.
Of course, Liberals know how to say the right things. Every single one of them claims to love the Constitution and claims to abide by and protect it all times. They say that, because they know that common sense Americans feel the same way, and saying anything different would risk losing those votes. But deep down, Liberals have a big problem with the Constitution. It’s hard to implement total government authority when the governing document prevents precisely that. The answer? Treat the Constitution as a “living, breathing document”.
What the heck does that mean? Well, common sense Americans would say that words have meaning. Those meanings are concrete and unchanging, hence the whole point of writing a governing document to begin with. The Founders said certain things in the Constitution, they said what they meant and they meant what they said. If they meant something different, or if they meant for their words to be interpreted according to the whims, emotions, political ideologies or psychotic breaks of future political leaders then why have a Constitution at all? What’s the point? Of course, they allowed the document to be modified through the amendment process, which further underscores that they never intended it to be a document open for interpretation. Nope. If something needed to be changed then they built in a process to do just that.
Liberals don’t see it that way. You see, to Liberals the Constitution is similar to the Clintons’ marriage certificate. It’s a document of convenience that doesn’t have any real meaning aside from what they want it to mean. They cherry-pick things from the Constitution that fit their agenda and ignore those that don’t. For instance, the First and Second Amendments may as well be nonexistent in Liberal eyes. And the 10th Amendment? Yeah right.
However, the 9th Amendment is a-okay. That’s the one that says people have other rights that are not specified in the Bill of Rights. To Liberals, that means the right to murder an unborn child, the right to marry, the right to own a home, the right to a job, the right to an education and the right to the labor of a health care professional. They completely ignore the fact that immediately following the 9th Amendment is the 10th Amendment. In other words, the Founders said that people have other rights not specified in the Constitution, and any rights not specified in the Constitution will be an issue for the individual states. Baloney, say the Liberals, we'll keep #9 and toss that pesky 10th Amendment.
Some parts of the Constitution live and breathe so much that their meaning completely changes depending on the specific situation. Most recently, a judge rules that voters can’t define marriage because of the equal protection clause, and that voting down gay marriage amounts to discrimination. Because marriage is a right under the 9th Amendment, 7 million people in California are simply behaving as bigots for denying that right for gays, shame on them and their “moral disapproval”. However, when it comes to taxes, then that equal protection thing goes right out the window. If the people vote down gay marriage they are being discriminatory, but if the government takes a larger percentage of my income simply because I make more money then it’s perfectly okay.
And then there’s Eric Holder, our favorite buffoon attorney. He says that the Constitution grants supremacy to federal law and therefore Arizona violates the Constitution when it tries to enforce federal law. And yet, mention sanctuary cities – those places that ignore federal law in order to grant illegal immigrants a free ride – and suddenly the attorney general knows nothing about the supremacy clause.
Freedom of speech? That depends. If you want to make a pornographic film, or display a painting of Mary covered in feces, well then hurrumph hurrumph that’s protected speech. But broadcast conservative opinion on talk radio or come together as a corporation to voice your support for a political candidate and suddenly you’re a danger to society. See how this leaving, breathing thing works?
And don’t forget about the Commerce clause, that says the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. To Liberals, this means the government can force all citizens to purchase health insurance. Can you imagine how James Madison would react to this nonsense? The document he helped craft for the purpose of limiting government power is now being used to force citizens to purchase something they don’t want to purchase? Amazing.
So it would be best for the Liberals if the Constitution just disappeared. That way they could stop the charade, and stop the continuous square peg into a round hole stuff. Without the Constitution they could just carry on expanding government power and no one would have a legitimate beef. Perhaps one day, after all they are quite the dreamers. Until then, they’re sticking with the living, breathing thing. It’s been a surprising success.
There are few things that anger Liberals more than our governing document. The US Constitution was written with a primary purpose of protecting the rights of individuals from abuse by the government, and limiting the power and scope of government. Every part of the Constitution deals with these tasks in one way or another. The basic concept of that document is that the government must be held in check. Boy do Liberals hate that. No other document (except for the Bible) riles them up more.
Of course, Liberals know how to say the right things. Every single one of them claims to love the Constitution and claims to abide by and protect it all times. They say that, because they know that common sense Americans feel the same way, and saying anything different would risk losing those votes. But deep down, Liberals have a big problem with the Constitution. It’s hard to implement total government authority when the governing document prevents precisely that. The answer? Treat the Constitution as a “living, breathing document”.
What the heck does that mean? Well, common sense Americans would say that words have meaning. Those meanings are concrete and unchanging, hence the whole point of writing a governing document to begin with. The Founders said certain things in the Constitution, they said what they meant and they meant what they said. If they meant something different, or if they meant for their words to be interpreted according to the whims, emotions, political ideologies or psychotic breaks of future political leaders then why have a Constitution at all? What’s the point? Of course, they allowed the document to be modified through the amendment process, which further underscores that they never intended it to be a document open for interpretation. Nope. If something needed to be changed then they built in a process to do just that.
Liberals don’t see it that way. You see, to Liberals the Constitution is similar to the Clintons’ marriage certificate. It’s a document of convenience that doesn’t have any real meaning aside from what they want it to mean. They cherry-pick things from the Constitution that fit their agenda and ignore those that don’t. For instance, the First and Second Amendments may as well be nonexistent in Liberal eyes. And the 10th Amendment? Yeah right.
However, the 9th Amendment is a-okay. That’s the one that says people have other rights that are not specified in the Bill of Rights. To Liberals, that means the right to murder an unborn child, the right to marry, the right to own a home, the right to a job, the right to an education and the right to the labor of a health care professional. They completely ignore the fact that immediately following the 9th Amendment is the 10th Amendment. In other words, the Founders said that people have other rights not specified in the Constitution, and any rights not specified in the Constitution will be an issue for the individual states. Baloney, say the Liberals, we'll keep #9 and toss that pesky 10th Amendment.
Some parts of the Constitution live and breathe so much that their meaning completely changes depending on the specific situation. Most recently, a judge rules that voters can’t define marriage because of the equal protection clause, and that voting down gay marriage amounts to discrimination. Because marriage is a right under the 9th Amendment, 7 million people in California are simply behaving as bigots for denying that right for gays, shame on them and their “moral disapproval”. However, when it comes to taxes, then that equal protection thing goes right out the window. If the people vote down gay marriage they are being discriminatory, but if the government takes a larger percentage of my income simply because I make more money then it’s perfectly okay.
And then there’s Eric Holder, our favorite buffoon attorney. He says that the Constitution grants supremacy to federal law and therefore Arizona violates the Constitution when it tries to enforce federal law. And yet, mention sanctuary cities – those places that ignore federal law in order to grant illegal immigrants a free ride – and suddenly the attorney general knows nothing about the supremacy clause.
Freedom of speech? That depends. If you want to make a pornographic film, or display a painting of Mary covered in feces, well then hurrumph hurrumph that’s protected speech. But broadcast conservative opinion on talk radio or come together as a corporation to voice your support for a political candidate and suddenly you’re a danger to society. See how this leaving, breathing thing works?
And don’t forget about the Commerce clause, that says the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. To Liberals, this means the government can force all citizens to purchase health insurance. Can you imagine how James Madison would react to this nonsense? The document he helped craft for the purpose of limiting government power is now being used to force citizens to purchase something they don’t want to purchase? Amazing.
So it would be best for the Liberals if the Constitution just disappeared. That way they could stop the charade, and stop the continuous square peg into a round hole stuff. Without the Constitution they could just carry on expanding government power and no one would have a legitimate beef. Perhaps one day, after all they are quite the dreamers. Until then, they’re sticking with the living, breathing thing. It’s been a surprising success.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
No. 18: Education
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
"Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." That was a famous quote by the pioneer of childhood indoctrination, Vladimir Lenin. Lenin knew that children were impressionable. That they have vulnerable minds that can be molded according to your political ideology. That's why he targeted the children. The survival of his beloved soviet state depended on the children being properly indoctrinated. No. 18 on my countdown of things Liberals don't believe is Education.
Education, as I define it, involves the teaching of fact. Fact is truth. There is no denying fact. There is no arguing it. Fact is fact and education is the teaching of fact. The three school subjects that deal predominantly with fact are Math, Science and English. 2+2 is 4. The earth's atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen. And a sentence requires a subject and a verb. These are facts. History also contains facts but you have to be careful here because history is something that is prone to opinion, which Liberals love to teach. I'm for teaching historical fact but strongly opposed to teaching opinion.
Liberals disagree. They see our education system as an opportunity to further their agenda. Young minds are ripe to be molded and so they've chosen our education system as ground zero for advancing the Liberal cause. And this is no doubt the source of the major problems that our education system faces. After all, it's hard for our kids to score well on standardized tests when they are being taught about American imperialism, the salvation of the New Deal, and the great philosophy of Chairman Mao. And when you have teachers scolding students for wearing their "Jesus goggles" then you can see which direction we're headed. The more time you spend furthering your politics, the less time you have to teach basic scientific, mathematical and historical fact.
It begins with teachers. Now, this is dangerous ground for a conservative because teachers are considered saintly in Liberal eyes. Criticizing teachers will immediately invite a skewering from the Left because teachers can do no wrong. The reality is that, like all other professions, there are good teachers and bad teachers. But try saying that to Liberal and prepare for a tongue-lashing. The same people who call for the lynching of Catholic priests who commit sex crimes within the church willingly turn away without a whimper when a teacher is caught doing the same thing. Teachers are saintly. They can do no wrong.
The problem is that the teachers unions have made it virtually impossible to weed out the bad teachers. Again, teachers can do no wrong. So the bad teachers are firmly entrenched in the education system and continue to teach children regardless how incompetent or ineffective they may be. Ask any administrator about the difficulty in firing a teacher and prepare yourself for a long story. If Liberals believed in education they would be in favor of getting rid of the bad teachers. But education and indoctrination are two very different things.
Then there's the immense power of the teachers unions. They have lots of money and they wield it effectively, almost all of it going to the coffers of the Left. In return, the Left looks after them. The longstanding American tradition has been to keep education local, funded locally, run by local officials. This trend was bucked when Jimmy Carter established the Dept of Education, and so began the federal gov't digging their grubby little hands into our education system. This was also about the time the teachers unions began to grow in power. The more power the feds have in education the easier it is to lobby and influence that power. Simply put, it's easy for a union to influence a few congressmen rather than have to influence multiple school districts that are funded and run independent of the feds.
The Left will say that money is the problem. We don't spend enough on education and we don't pay the saints who teach nearly enough. They ignore the fact that education spending has done nothing but increase over the past 2 decades. They ignore the fact that the US spends more per student than the nations whose children kick our butts on standardized tests. They ignore the fact that the more we spend on education, the poorer we perform. But then again, ignoring facts is a centerpiece in Liberal education.
Mention things like charter schools, private schools or school vouchers and the Liberal will give you another tongue-lashing. Again, they ignore the fact that these types of schools consistently outperform public schools despite having fewer resources and paying their teachers lower salaries. Seems to me that if Liberals wanted good education for our kids then they'd acknowledge these facts and do what they could to maximize the availability of these alternatives to the public system. But who cares about facts? The Liberals dig their heels in and demand more money for education while the teachers unions stand firmly behind them. And if you oppose more money, then you obviously don't care about the children.
Barack Obama believes in public education. One of his first actions as President was nullifying the D.C. voucher program. This program was enormously successful and very popular with many inner city parents. But education is a public matter. So the President killed the program, and then enrolled both of his children in a pricey, prominent local private school.
Common sense Americans see education as many things, one of those being a civil rights issue. John McCain called it the civil rights issue of our time during his 2008 campaign. There are many inner city students, many of them black, who are trapped in inner city schools simply because of their address or their zip code. These schools do nothing but fail. And by that I mean fail to teach. Of course, the students themselves pass, enough so that many kids graduate high school unable to spell their own name. These schools are riddled with crime, drugs and teenage pregnancy. Children who attend these schools aren't going to learn as much as they are going to survive. Learning math and science takes a backseat when your life is literally in danger. It's a shame. A travesty. No student should be forced into that kind of environment. Not in this country. Not ever.
That's why common sense Americans favor vouchers. Let the responsible inner city parents send their kids to their school of choice, where they can be safe, where they can learn, where they have a fighting chance to kill the vicious cycle of poverty by learning what they need to succeed in life and get out of the ghetto. No way, say the Liberals. Instead, they just want to dump more money into that failing inner city school. It's lack of funding that's the problem. And if you oppose this, then you don't care about the children, and you're probably a racist to boot.
In truth, the Liberals (and the teachers unions) know that once a voucher program kicks in then those failing schools will bleed students to more competent schools. The bad schools eventually collapse, leaving many teachers and administrators without a job. Even worse, vouchers would shift the power in our education system away from the government and the teachers unions and toward the parents. When the parents can take their child and their tax dollars out of a school, you'd better believe they will have more power. No way will the Liberal ever allow that.
Even more disastrous for the Liberal cause would be the likelihood that a voucher system would result in more success in our education system. More inner city students would thrive, would succeed in life, would escape the inner city and embark on illustrious careers. This is bad politics because people like that could become Republicans. No way will the Liberal ever allow that. Instead, it's best for those inner city kids to stay in the failing school, and stay in the ghetto where they belong, dependent on government aid (and the Democrat party).
Thus the focus in education is not education, but rather indoctrination. Keep the kids from learning fact, and instead teach them ideology. Keep them away from success and instead keep them dependent on the government. If they were to succeed they could potentially become free thinkers. That's a dangerous thing for the State. Lenin knew it, and so do Liberals.
"Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." That was a famous quote by the pioneer of childhood indoctrination, Vladimir Lenin. Lenin knew that children were impressionable. That they have vulnerable minds that can be molded according to your political ideology. That's why he targeted the children. The survival of his beloved soviet state depended on the children being properly indoctrinated. No. 18 on my countdown of things Liberals don't believe is Education.
Education, as I define it, involves the teaching of fact. Fact is truth. There is no denying fact. There is no arguing it. Fact is fact and education is the teaching of fact. The three school subjects that deal predominantly with fact are Math, Science and English. 2+2 is 4. The earth's atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen. And a sentence requires a subject and a verb. These are facts. History also contains facts but you have to be careful here because history is something that is prone to opinion, which Liberals love to teach. I'm for teaching historical fact but strongly opposed to teaching opinion.
Liberals disagree. They see our education system as an opportunity to further their agenda. Young minds are ripe to be molded and so they've chosen our education system as ground zero for advancing the Liberal cause. And this is no doubt the source of the major problems that our education system faces. After all, it's hard for our kids to score well on standardized tests when they are being taught about American imperialism, the salvation of the New Deal, and the great philosophy of Chairman Mao. And when you have teachers scolding students for wearing their "Jesus goggles" then you can see which direction we're headed. The more time you spend furthering your politics, the less time you have to teach basic scientific, mathematical and historical fact.
It begins with teachers. Now, this is dangerous ground for a conservative because teachers are considered saintly in Liberal eyes. Criticizing teachers will immediately invite a skewering from the Left because teachers can do no wrong. The reality is that, like all other professions, there are good teachers and bad teachers. But try saying that to Liberal and prepare for a tongue-lashing. The same people who call for the lynching of Catholic priests who commit sex crimes within the church willingly turn away without a whimper when a teacher is caught doing the same thing. Teachers are saintly. They can do no wrong.
The problem is that the teachers unions have made it virtually impossible to weed out the bad teachers. Again, teachers can do no wrong. So the bad teachers are firmly entrenched in the education system and continue to teach children regardless how incompetent or ineffective they may be. Ask any administrator about the difficulty in firing a teacher and prepare yourself for a long story. If Liberals believed in education they would be in favor of getting rid of the bad teachers. But education and indoctrination are two very different things.
Then there's the immense power of the teachers unions. They have lots of money and they wield it effectively, almost all of it going to the coffers of the Left. In return, the Left looks after them. The longstanding American tradition has been to keep education local, funded locally, run by local officials. This trend was bucked when Jimmy Carter established the Dept of Education, and so began the federal gov't digging their grubby little hands into our education system. This was also about the time the teachers unions began to grow in power. The more power the feds have in education the easier it is to lobby and influence that power. Simply put, it's easy for a union to influence a few congressmen rather than have to influence multiple school districts that are funded and run independent of the feds.
The Left will say that money is the problem. We don't spend enough on education and we don't pay the saints who teach nearly enough. They ignore the fact that education spending has done nothing but increase over the past 2 decades. They ignore the fact that the US spends more per student than the nations whose children kick our butts on standardized tests. They ignore the fact that the more we spend on education, the poorer we perform. But then again, ignoring facts is a centerpiece in Liberal education.
Mention things like charter schools, private schools or school vouchers and the Liberal will give you another tongue-lashing. Again, they ignore the fact that these types of schools consistently outperform public schools despite having fewer resources and paying their teachers lower salaries. Seems to me that if Liberals wanted good education for our kids then they'd acknowledge these facts and do what they could to maximize the availability of these alternatives to the public system. But who cares about facts? The Liberals dig their heels in and demand more money for education while the teachers unions stand firmly behind them. And if you oppose more money, then you obviously don't care about the children.
Barack Obama believes in public education. One of his first actions as President was nullifying the D.C. voucher program. This program was enormously successful and very popular with many inner city parents. But education is a public matter. So the President killed the program, and then enrolled both of his children in a pricey, prominent local private school.
Common sense Americans see education as many things, one of those being a civil rights issue. John McCain called it the civil rights issue of our time during his 2008 campaign. There are many inner city students, many of them black, who are trapped in inner city schools simply because of their address or their zip code. These schools do nothing but fail. And by that I mean fail to teach. Of course, the students themselves pass, enough so that many kids graduate high school unable to spell their own name. These schools are riddled with crime, drugs and teenage pregnancy. Children who attend these schools aren't going to learn as much as they are going to survive. Learning math and science takes a backseat when your life is literally in danger. It's a shame. A travesty. No student should be forced into that kind of environment. Not in this country. Not ever.
That's why common sense Americans favor vouchers. Let the responsible inner city parents send their kids to their school of choice, where they can be safe, where they can learn, where they have a fighting chance to kill the vicious cycle of poverty by learning what they need to succeed in life and get out of the ghetto. No way, say the Liberals. Instead, they just want to dump more money into that failing inner city school. It's lack of funding that's the problem. And if you oppose this, then you don't care about the children, and you're probably a racist to boot.
In truth, the Liberals (and the teachers unions) know that once a voucher program kicks in then those failing schools will bleed students to more competent schools. The bad schools eventually collapse, leaving many teachers and administrators without a job. Even worse, vouchers would shift the power in our education system away from the government and the teachers unions and toward the parents. When the parents can take their child and their tax dollars out of a school, you'd better believe they will have more power. No way will the Liberal ever allow that.
Even more disastrous for the Liberal cause would be the likelihood that a voucher system would result in more success in our education system. More inner city students would thrive, would succeed in life, would escape the inner city and embark on illustrious careers. This is bad politics because people like that could become Republicans. No way will the Liberal ever allow that. Instead, it's best for those inner city kids to stay in the failing school, and stay in the ghetto where they belong, dependent on government aid (and the Democrat party).
Thus the focus in education is not education, but rather indoctrination. Keep the kids from learning fact, and instead teach them ideology. Keep them away from success and instead keep them dependent on the government. If they were to succeed they could potentially become free thinkers. That's a dangerous thing for the State. Lenin knew it, and so do Liberals.
Friday, July 23, 2010
No. 19: Fairness
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
I remember growing up and playing many backyard baseball games. Despite their benign appearance, these games were often hotly contested. There are few things more competitive than preteen boys seeking neighborhood bragging rights. Despite the heated competition, the contests were remarkably civil. The rules were followed and there were few arguments. However, on occasion the issue of fairness would come up and it was usually out of frustration. The scene would play out something like this…the game is tied, it’s been a tough back-and-forth, both teams are playing hard. Suddenly one kid belts a homer over the fence to win the game. A kid on the other team, upset about losing, throws his glove to the ground and yells “that’s not fair, you cheated”. Of course we all knew that kid was full of it. The game was won fairly, there were no rules broken, he was just mad because he lost. Yet, that didn’t stop him from claiming injustice. Such is the perception in the mind of a child and a full-grown Liberal.
Sound familiar? Number 19 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe is Fairness.
When I talk about fairness in this post I am talking about it in its truest form. I clarify this because Liberals love to use fairness as a rallying cry for their platform. Fairness is a major motivator for them. They seek fairness. They impose laws to achieve fairness. They speak of fairness whenever they can. They use it to appeal to average voters because all common sense Americans are for fairness. The problem is they define fairness in a completely different manner. It has a different meaning to them. So when I say Liberals don’t believe in fairness I mean fairness as a typical common sense American would define it, not as a Liberal would define it.
Injustice is defined, in part, as the violation of the rights of others. Fairness is defined, in part, as being free from injustice. If the rights of others are violated it is unjust, and if injustice exists then it cannot be fair. Sounds simple enough. Well, not according to Liberals. Simplicity is not their forte. We’ll start with the tax system.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens. One person’s rights cannot be violated for the sake of another person’s rights, and all of our rights bare equal standing under the law regardless of who or what we are. So a common sense American would say that a fair tax system would be one in which all Americans paid the same percentage of their income to the government, or perhaps would be based on consumption rather than income. In such a scenario, I would pay something like 20% in federal income taxes, my neighbor would pay twenty percent, so would the guy down the street and the guy on the other side of town. Nothing would change that number. If my income went up, I would pay 20%. If my income went down, I would pay 20%. That’s fair.
Not so in the mind of Liberals. The Liberal says that everyone paying the same percentage is completely unfair, thus rewriting the definition of fairness altogether. In their minds if I make $1 million and my neighbor makes $10,000 then a fair tax system would be one structured so that after taxes we both end up with, say, fifty thousand bucks. That’s fair. Never mind all that injustice stuff. They understand that I have the right to pursue more income so long as I do it legally. And they understand that the Constitution doesn’t allow me to be singled out and taxed more severely simply because I am more successful in my pursuits and make more money than my neighbor. Singling me out based upon my success would violate my right to equal protection and thus would be unjust, and by definition unfair. Imposing higher percentage taxation on someone based upon success is discriminatory. So what? Say the Libs. Fairness in their eyes can only be defined by outcomes, not by the means in achieving those outcomes. It’s only fair if we all end up with equal amounts of stuff regardless of effort, talent or skill, so sayeth the social justice doctrine.
But the concept of fairness in Liberal minds goes way beyond taxation and redistribution of wealth. They’ve even titled one of their key pieces of legislation the Fairness Doctrine to echo their never ending pursuit of fairness. This law basically states that any political or news program must present both sides of a political argument so the people can hear the whole story. Equal time. That’s fair. And if you don’t comply then you can’t use the airwaves. You can be shut down. That’s fair.
The common sense American knows about freedom speech. We know we have the right to free speech, specifically the right to speak our political opinions without punitive government action. If we speak our political opinion and the government takes action to silence us then our rights have been violated. Violation of rights is unjust and thus, by definition, unfair. Hogwash, say the Liberals. Equal time is fair, even if you don’t want to hear the buffoon who lacks common sense, and even if we shut down the radio station for refusing to air that buffoon’s opinion. It’s fair. That’s why we call it the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a wonder they don’t call our graduated income tax the Fairness Tax.
Thomas Sowell said (loosely quoting) that few things have been as damaging as the word “fair”.
George Washington said that we are a nation of laws not of men. Ooh, the Liberals hate that.
We Americans know all about fairness. Our nation was founded on it. “All men are created equal…” were the words used to announce our new nation. We know fair when we see it. They can use the word all they want in attempts to deceive us, and they no doubt do so because they know how appealing fairness is to America. But don’t be deceived. There is nothing truly fair about the Liberal agenda, no matter how much they say so.
I remember growing up and playing many backyard baseball games. Despite their benign appearance, these games were often hotly contested. There are few things more competitive than preteen boys seeking neighborhood bragging rights. Despite the heated competition, the contests were remarkably civil. The rules were followed and there were few arguments. However, on occasion the issue of fairness would come up and it was usually out of frustration. The scene would play out something like this…the game is tied, it’s been a tough back-and-forth, both teams are playing hard. Suddenly one kid belts a homer over the fence to win the game. A kid on the other team, upset about losing, throws his glove to the ground and yells “that’s not fair, you cheated”. Of course we all knew that kid was full of it. The game was won fairly, there were no rules broken, he was just mad because he lost. Yet, that didn’t stop him from claiming injustice. Such is the perception in the mind of a child and a full-grown Liberal.
Sound familiar? Number 19 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe is Fairness.
When I talk about fairness in this post I am talking about it in its truest form. I clarify this because Liberals love to use fairness as a rallying cry for their platform. Fairness is a major motivator for them. They seek fairness. They impose laws to achieve fairness. They speak of fairness whenever they can. They use it to appeal to average voters because all common sense Americans are for fairness. The problem is they define fairness in a completely different manner. It has a different meaning to them. So when I say Liberals don’t believe in fairness I mean fairness as a typical common sense American would define it, not as a Liberal would define it.
Injustice is defined, in part, as the violation of the rights of others. Fairness is defined, in part, as being free from injustice. If the rights of others are violated it is unjust, and if injustice exists then it cannot be fair. Sounds simple enough. Well, not according to Liberals. Simplicity is not their forte. We’ll start with the tax system.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens. One person’s rights cannot be violated for the sake of another person’s rights, and all of our rights bare equal standing under the law regardless of who or what we are. So a common sense American would say that a fair tax system would be one in which all Americans paid the same percentage of their income to the government, or perhaps would be based on consumption rather than income. In such a scenario, I would pay something like 20% in federal income taxes, my neighbor would pay twenty percent, so would the guy down the street and the guy on the other side of town. Nothing would change that number. If my income went up, I would pay 20%. If my income went down, I would pay 20%. That’s fair.
Not so in the mind of Liberals. The Liberal says that everyone paying the same percentage is completely unfair, thus rewriting the definition of fairness altogether. In their minds if I make $1 million and my neighbor makes $10,000 then a fair tax system would be one structured so that after taxes we both end up with, say, fifty thousand bucks. That’s fair. Never mind all that injustice stuff. They understand that I have the right to pursue more income so long as I do it legally. And they understand that the Constitution doesn’t allow me to be singled out and taxed more severely simply because I am more successful in my pursuits and make more money than my neighbor. Singling me out based upon my success would violate my right to equal protection and thus would be unjust, and by definition unfair. Imposing higher percentage taxation on someone based upon success is discriminatory. So what? Say the Libs. Fairness in their eyes can only be defined by outcomes, not by the means in achieving those outcomes. It’s only fair if we all end up with equal amounts of stuff regardless of effort, talent or skill, so sayeth the social justice doctrine.
But the concept of fairness in Liberal minds goes way beyond taxation and redistribution of wealth. They’ve even titled one of their key pieces of legislation the Fairness Doctrine to echo their never ending pursuit of fairness. This law basically states that any political or news program must present both sides of a political argument so the people can hear the whole story. Equal time. That’s fair. And if you don’t comply then you can’t use the airwaves. You can be shut down. That’s fair.
The common sense American knows about freedom speech. We know we have the right to free speech, specifically the right to speak our political opinions without punitive government action. If we speak our political opinion and the government takes action to silence us then our rights have been violated. Violation of rights is unjust and thus, by definition, unfair. Hogwash, say the Liberals. Equal time is fair, even if you don’t want to hear the buffoon who lacks common sense, and even if we shut down the radio station for refusing to air that buffoon’s opinion. It’s fair. That’s why we call it the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a wonder they don’t call our graduated income tax the Fairness Tax.
Thomas Sowell said (loosely quoting) that few things have been as damaging as the word “fair”.
George Washington said that we are a nation of laws not of men. Ooh, the Liberals hate that.
We Americans know all about fairness. Our nation was founded on it. “All men are created equal…” were the words used to announce our new nation. We know fair when we see it. They can use the word all they want in attempts to deceive us, and they no doubt do so because they know how appealing fairness is to America. But don’t be deceived. There is nothing truly fair about the Liberal agenda, no matter how much they say so.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
No. 20: Common Sense
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
Some of the smartest people I know barely made it out of high school. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met have a wall full of diplomas and a long line of initials behind their name. Number 20 on the list is COMMON SENSE.
Common sense is something that is acquired through life not by lectures or reading books, but by experience. It's the experience of life that teaches us that familiar form of knowledge that we call common sense. You can't get it in a classroom.
Perhaps that's why Liberals don't understand common sense. To them it's a bit of a mystery and therefore probably doesn't exist. In the mind of a Liberal, if it can't be taught at Harvard or Berkeley then it isn't worth knowing. And as far as I know, there are no courses at Harvard entitled "Common Sense 101". Although it wouldn't be a bad idea. This is not to say that the highly educated lack common sense. No. But I am saying that wisdom and education are two completely different things and are not interchangeable terms.
In today's political environment we talk about common sense all the time. Often you hear your neighbors complain that Washington just doesn't get it, or is out of touch, or doesn't understand the common American. What these people are saying is that the politicians in Washington lack common sense. And since many of those politicians are Liberals, and many of them are also highly educated, the complaints your neighbors have are legitimate. Let's take a few political topics as examples.
When it comes to the economy, Liberals say tax more and spend more. This is Keynesian economics at its worst. Increase the public sector and you grow the economy. Keynes is taught a lot in our major universities but many of those learning it have never actually met a payroll or balanced a checkbook. You see where I'm going? Common sense says the US economy is so massive that no amount of government spending can grow it. Common sense says that if you tax a business owner, or require him to pay for his employees health care, or impose a minimum wage on him, or tack on any other union-sponsored employee benefit, then the ones who get hurt the most are the consumer. Increase the cost of business for a business owner and he either cuts costs (starting with personnel), stops hiring, or raises the price of his goods and services. These are the things they are less likely to teach at Harvard because it contradicts Keynesian theory, and the Liberals miss out on some important knowledge. So it's just assumed that if you increase the cost of doing business the business owner is simply going to eat that cost and everyone wins. There's nothing sensical about that.
In regards to health care, let's talk about supply and demand. Common sense tells us that if you increase the demand for a service without increasing the supply, then you essentially have a shortage. The Liberals think this is silly. They believe that flooding the health care sector with some 30 million newly insured folks who are suddenly gifted with free health care will result in great health for all. So their bill does nothing to address the supply thing, and they dismiss those of us who talk of rationing as obstructionist and silly fear-mongerers.
Most recently there is the unemployment package currently being debated in Congress. President Obama demands the GOP pass additional unemployment benefits right away. The GOP demands that those benefits be paid for before we pass them. Common sense says that part of the reason why so many people are unemployed is because the economy is bad, and part of the reason the economy is bad is because businesses aren't confident about the future, primarily because of our growing deficits and massive debt. Therefore, adding on to the debt with unpaid unemployment benefits isn't doing much good for the unemployed. Not so in the mind of Liberals who call the GOP insensitive and greedy for not helping the jobless.
And then there's the Tea Party. This is a group of citizens who stand on a platform of common sense: balanced budget, reduced spending, living within our means, adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law. The problem is that we Tea Party folks are just average folks. We get up and go to work everyday. We pay bills and scratch to save money and prepare for our future. We don't have fancy diplomas and therefore - in the eyes of Liberals - we're just a bunch of dumb rubes who don't understand the complicated things like government. It doesn't matter that we have to adhere to a strict budget every day. If we don't have a Harvard diploma then we don't have credibility. Common sense just aint enough.
But in my opinion the biggest reason why Liberals reject common sense boils down to their positive attitude towards Socialism. The Libs grew up on college campuses, playing the Sitar, quoting Neitsche (sp?), and swapping chemically induced philosophies about how the world should be. Therein lies the appeal of Socialism. The notion that all people would work together - not for themselves as individuals - but for the benefit of the collective. This is the fast track to utopia, heaven on earth. This is how we arrive at the glorious moment of everlasting peace, harmony and an end to suffering. It's a beautiful thing, if only we could realize such a beautiful dream. They bemoan the fact that socialism has gotten a bad rap because of bad leadership, that so many brutal dictators have been associated with it and thus people are too quick to dismiss it as evil. If only a leader could emerge who was compassionate and sensitive, understanding and empathetic, while at the same time implement socialism, then we would all see the glory in such a system. Sounds good on paper.
But common sense tells us that people aren't going to behave that way. I'm not going to work my can off so my neighbor can sit on his. Eventually, I'm gonna realize that I can sit on my can and get just as much. And if enough of us do this, well, the system implodes. That darn practicality thing is such a buzz kill.
And common sense tells us that socialism hasn't been victimized by brutal dictators, but rather the brutal dictators are more of a product of socialism itself. Simply put, people aren't going to consent to such a life unless there's an iron fist and a thick boot imposing it.
Oh phooey, say the Liberals. What do you know? You've never read Marx, or Neitsche. You don't understand, such a simple minded folk.
So the next time you are engaged in a discussion with a Liberal ask yourself if there is any common sense behind his argument. You may be surprised at what you find.
Some of the smartest people I know barely made it out of high school. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met have a wall full of diplomas and a long line of initials behind their name. Number 20 on the list is COMMON SENSE.
Common sense is something that is acquired through life not by lectures or reading books, but by experience. It's the experience of life that teaches us that familiar form of knowledge that we call common sense. You can't get it in a classroom.
Perhaps that's why Liberals don't understand common sense. To them it's a bit of a mystery and therefore probably doesn't exist. In the mind of a Liberal, if it can't be taught at Harvard or Berkeley then it isn't worth knowing. And as far as I know, there are no courses at Harvard entitled "Common Sense 101". Although it wouldn't be a bad idea. This is not to say that the highly educated lack common sense. No. But I am saying that wisdom and education are two completely different things and are not interchangeable terms.
In today's political environment we talk about common sense all the time. Often you hear your neighbors complain that Washington just doesn't get it, or is out of touch, or doesn't understand the common American. What these people are saying is that the politicians in Washington lack common sense. And since many of those politicians are Liberals, and many of them are also highly educated, the complaints your neighbors have are legitimate. Let's take a few political topics as examples.
When it comes to the economy, Liberals say tax more and spend more. This is Keynesian economics at its worst. Increase the public sector and you grow the economy. Keynes is taught a lot in our major universities but many of those learning it have never actually met a payroll or balanced a checkbook. You see where I'm going? Common sense says the US economy is so massive that no amount of government spending can grow it. Common sense says that if you tax a business owner, or require him to pay for his employees health care, or impose a minimum wage on him, or tack on any other union-sponsored employee benefit, then the ones who get hurt the most are the consumer. Increase the cost of business for a business owner and he either cuts costs (starting with personnel), stops hiring, or raises the price of his goods and services. These are the things they are less likely to teach at Harvard because it contradicts Keynesian theory, and the Liberals miss out on some important knowledge. So it's just assumed that if you increase the cost of doing business the business owner is simply going to eat that cost and everyone wins. There's nothing sensical about that.
In regards to health care, let's talk about supply and demand. Common sense tells us that if you increase the demand for a service without increasing the supply, then you essentially have a shortage. The Liberals think this is silly. They believe that flooding the health care sector with some 30 million newly insured folks who are suddenly gifted with free health care will result in great health for all. So their bill does nothing to address the supply thing, and they dismiss those of us who talk of rationing as obstructionist and silly fear-mongerers.
Most recently there is the unemployment package currently being debated in Congress. President Obama demands the GOP pass additional unemployment benefits right away. The GOP demands that those benefits be paid for before we pass them. Common sense says that part of the reason why so many people are unemployed is because the economy is bad, and part of the reason the economy is bad is because businesses aren't confident about the future, primarily because of our growing deficits and massive debt. Therefore, adding on to the debt with unpaid unemployment benefits isn't doing much good for the unemployed. Not so in the mind of Liberals who call the GOP insensitive and greedy for not helping the jobless.
And then there's the Tea Party. This is a group of citizens who stand on a platform of common sense: balanced budget, reduced spending, living within our means, adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law. The problem is that we Tea Party folks are just average folks. We get up and go to work everyday. We pay bills and scratch to save money and prepare for our future. We don't have fancy diplomas and therefore - in the eyes of Liberals - we're just a bunch of dumb rubes who don't understand the complicated things like government. It doesn't matter that we have to adhere to a strict budget every day. If we don't have a Harvard diploma then we don't have credibility. Common sense just aint enough.
But in my opinion the biggest reason why Liberals reject common sense boils down to their positive attitude towards Socialism. The Libs grew up on college campuses, playing the Sitar, quoting Neitsche (sp?), and swapping chemically induced philosophies about how the world should be. Therein lies the appeal of Socialism. The notion that all people would work together - not for themselves as individuals - but for the benefit of the collective. This is the fast track to utopia, heaven on earth. This is how we arrive at the glorious moment of everlasting peace, harmony and an end to suffering. It's a beautiful thing, if only we could realize such a beautiful dream. They bemoan the fact that socialism has gotten a bad rap because of bad leadership, that so many brutal dictators have been associated with it and thus people are too quick to dismiss it as evil. If only a leader could emerge who was compassionate and sensitive, understanding and empathetic, while at the same time implement socialism, then we would all see the glory in such a system. Sounds good on paper.
But common sense tells us that people aren't going to behave that way. I'm not going to work my can off so my neighbor can sit on his. Eventually, I'm gonna realize that I can sit on my can and get just as much. And if enough of us do this, well, the system implodes. That darn practicality thing is such a buzz kill.
And common sense tells us that socialism hasn't been victimized by brutal dictators, but rather the brutal dictators are more of a product of socialism itself. Simply put, people aren't going to consent to such a life unless there's an iron fist and a thick boot imposing it.
Oh phooey, say the Liberals. What do you know? You've never read Marx, or Neitsche. You don't understand, such a simple minded folk.
So the next time you are engaged in a discussion with a Liberal ask yourself if there is any common sense behind his argument. You may be surprised at what you find.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
No big surprise
Remember a few months back when Bart Stupak made a last second announcement that he and the President had come to an agreement regarding the health care bill? Stupak and several other "conservative" democrats were holding out until the legislation included a direct ban on federal funding for abortion. The libs in charge were never going to agree to that, so this issue looked to be the deal killer for Obamacare. And then, a last minute "deal" was struck. President Obama made a cross-my-heart-pinky-swear (also known as an executive order) to Stupak that they wouldn't spend any taxpayer dollars on abortion. Stupak no doubt made Obama say the "stickle a needle in my eye" stipulation as well. No taxpayer dollars for abortion.
That was good enough for Stupak, and so he switched his vote with the foolish notion that Obama would stay true to his word. Guess what. He was wrong.
Today we learn that federal taxpayer dollars are indeed being earmarked for abortions. No big surprise. Of course, the administration is silent on the issue. No word from Robert Gibbs beyond the usual verbal pauses, no comment from Kathleen Sebelius, no word from the Chief of Staff. Nothing. Which essentially proves what we all knew from the beginning, and what Stupak should have known...that executive orders are not enforceable and are useless when it comes to legislation. Obama never intended to keep taxpayer dollars away from abortions, he just needed a good sell to get Stupak's vote, making Stupak arguably the biggest Congressional sucker in the modern political era.
And it also confirms two other hunches that this blogger had: Barack Obama is a liar, and Bart Stupak is a coward.
That was good enough for Stupak, and so he switched his vote with the foolish notion that Obama would stay true to his word. Guess what. He was wrong.
Today we learn that federal taxpayer dollars are indeed being earmarked for abortions. No big surprise. Of course, the administration is silent on the issue. No word from Robert Gibbs beyond the usual verbal pauses, no comment from Kathleen Sebelius, no word from the Chief of Staff. Nothing. Which essentially proves what we all knew from the beginning, and what Stupak should have known...that executive orders are not enforceable and are useless when it comes to legislation. Obama never intended to keep taxpayer dollars away from abortions, he just needed a good sell to get Stupak's vote, making Stupak arguably the biggest Congressional sucker in the modern political era.
And it also confirms two other hunches that this blogger had: Barack Obama is a liar, and Bart Stupak is a coward.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
NAACP
Ah, the NAACP. What was once a valiant organization with a noble cause has now degraded into nothing more than a bunch of political hacks and character assassins. To put it simply, the NAACP has lost all credibility. No one listens to them anymore except for the extreme Left who still believe the nonsense they spew. That's the primary reason why George Bush stopped going to their annual convention. They simply lost relevance.
And now today we hear about the NAACP taking several days to vote to condemn the Tea Party on grounds of racism. My point has been made for me. Racism is slowly transforming from a significant domestic issue to a political one. It is becoming a political club that one group uses to bash the other. It has become a means of slander, a means of discrediting those with whom you disagree. And, to be honest, those who use the club to bash have absolutely no interest in ending racism. No way. It's too powerful a weapon for them to do away with it.
There is no evidence - none - that the Tea Party is racist. I count myself among them and would not if I ever saw a racial component to their message. But that doesn't matter. The NAACP disagrees with the Tea Party - primarily because the Tea Party opposes big entitlements - and therefore the NAACP must destroy the Tea Party. Time to get out the club.
Homicide is the leading cause of death in black males under the age of 24. Nearly 90% of those homicides are committed by other blacks. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise. 70 plus percent of all black children are born out of wedlock. Black men are deserting their families, their children. Drug abuse remains a major problem in the black community, as do high school dropout rates, abortion, unemployment, diabetes, heart disease and AIDS. Yet, topping the agenda for the NAACP is the Tea Party!
The NAACP ignores the neo-black panthers. They said nothing about the black panthers obstructing a polling station. They said nothing about Harry Reid predicting an Obama election victory because "he doesn't speak with a negro dialect". Nothing.
They condemn Rand Paul for objecting to a small portion of the Civil Rights Act, calling him racist. Yet, they LOVE Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman who once hated blacks and actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
They opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. They opposed Alan Keyes for Senate. They mock Michael Steele. Association for advancement of colored people? More like advancement of liberal colored people.
It's a joke. Any black American citizen should see that. There are serious problems in the black community and yet the NAACP does nothing to solve them except, of course, to blame the white man. I think it's about time for us to recognize the NAACP as a political organization and nothing more. They are true to ideology which trumps all. Equality is only a part of the cause if it fits within their ideology. Racism is only a part of the cause if it involves their political opponents. They are a political lobby group. What would Dr. King think? I think he'd say it's time we ignored groups like this if we are to unite as a nation and achieve true equality, true equal rights and a true end to racism once and for all.
Racism will never die so long as minority lobbyist organizations refuse to let it die in order to advance their political agenda.
And now today we hear about the NAACP taking several days to vote to condemn the Tea Party on grounds of racism. My point has been made for me. Racism is slowly transforming from a significant domestic issue to a political one. It is becoming a political club that one group uses to bash the other. It has become a means of slander, a means of discrediting those with whom you disagree. And, to be honest, those who use the club to bash have absolutely no interest in ending racism. No way. It's too powerful a weapon for them to do away with it.
There is no evidence - none - that the Tea Party is racist. I count myself among them and would not if I ever saw a racial component to their message. But that doesn't matter. The NAACP disagrees with the Tea Party - primarily because the Tea Party opposes big entitlements - and therefore the NAACP must destroy the Tea Party. Time to get out the club.
Homicide is the leading cause of death in black males under the age of 24. Nearly 90% of those homicides are committed by other blacks. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise. 70 plus percent of all black children are born out of wedlock. Black men are deserting their families, their children. Drug abuse remains a major problem in the black community, as do high school dropout rates, abortion, unemployment, diabetes, heart disease and AIDS. Yet, topping the agenda for the NAACP is the Tea Party!
The NAACP ignores the neo-black panthers. They said nothing about the black panthers obstructing a polling station. They said nothing about Harry Reid predicting an Obama election victory because "he doesn't speak with a negro dialect". Nothing.
They condemn Rand Paul for objecting to a small portion of the Civil Rights Act, calling him racist. Yet, they LOVE Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman who once hated blacks and actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
They opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. They opposed Alan Keyes for Senate. They mock Michael Steele. Association for advancement of colored people? More like advancement of liberal colored people.
It's a joke. Any black American citizen should see that. There are serious problems in the black community and yet the NAACP does nothing to solve them except, of course, to blame the white man. I think it's about time for us to recognize the NAACP as a political organization and nothing more. They are true to ideology which trumps all. Equality is only a part of the cause if it fits within their ideology. Racism is only a part of the cause if it involves their political opponents. They are a political lobby group. What would Dr. King think? I think he'd say it's time we ignored groups like this if we are to unite as a nation and achieve true equality, true equal rights and a true end to racism once and for all.
Racism will never die so long as minority lobbyist organizations refuse to let it die in order to advance their political agenda.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Re-emergence of quotas
An interesting story has recently begun circulating in regards to the Dodd-Frank Financial regulatory bill. Before I get to it, a few comments of my own. First, the bill does not address derivatives. Anyone with any economic sense understands the key role derivatives played in the housing sector collapse of '08. This involves the packaging and reselling of mortgages to big companies who take on the risk. If the company is really big and takes on a lot of risk then you get an AIG-like scenario. Derivatives are ignored in the bill.
Second, there is absolutely zero reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. None. Nada. Zip. Basically these two companies just continue doing business as usual if this bill gets passed. Again, anyone with any economic sense understands that Fannie Mae, perhaps more than any other company, played a major role in the housing collapse. Yet they get a free pass.
However, what is included is a reintroduction of hiring quotas. According to sectio 342, any financial company doing business with the federal government will be REQUIRED to employ a certain percentage of minority and women employees and these requirements will be overseen and enforced by 20 new government agencies. Yes, private companies will be FORCED to hire people based purely on gender and race. Does this in any way conform to our belief in equal rights and equal protection? Of course not. But this President and this Congress sees it differently.
This is a bad bill. The GOP will stand against it and they, of course, will be attacked for it. They'll be accused of standing up for Wall Street, placating to greed, looking out for big business, etc. Typical politics. No one would dare suggest the GOP is standing up for equality. Hopefully, reason and truth will prevail. Hopefully this bill will be killed.
Second, there is absolutely zero reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. None. Nada. Zip. Basically these two companies just continue doing business as usual if this bill gets passed. Again, anyone with any economic sense understands that Fannie Mae, perhaps more than any other company, played a major role in the housing collapse. Yet they get a free pass.
However, what is included is a reintroduction of hiring quotas. According to sectio 342, any financial company doing business with the federal government will be REQUIRED to employ a certain percentage of minority and women employees and these requirements will be overseen and enforced by 20 new government agencies. Yes, private companies will be FORCED to hire people based purely on gender and race. Does this in any way conform to our belief in equal rights and equal protection? Of course not. But this President and this Congress sees it differently.
This is a bad bill. The GOP will stand against it and they, of course, will be attacked for it. They'll be accused of standing up for Wall Street, placating to greed, looking out for big business, etc. Typical politics. No one would dare suggest the GOP is standing up for equality. Hopefully, reason and truth will prevail. Hopefully this bill will be killed.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Holder strikes again...
In today's news: The Justice Dept is now looking into the Oakland police trial, investigating whether or not federal law may have been violated.
To be clear. The police officer in question has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces up to 5 years in prison, and yet many people in Oakland feel that verdict is so unacceptable that they must riot and loot the city.
So the Justice Dept has decided to take a look. Hmmm. Why? Why this case? There are cases of involuntary manslaughter all over the country. Could it be because of race? Rest assured, had this officer accidentally killed a white man the Justice dept would hardly be getting involved.
To be clear. The police officer in question has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces up to 5 years in prison, and yet many people in Oakland feel that verdict is so unacceptable that they must riot and loot the city.
So the Justice Dept has decided to take a look. Hmmm. Why? Why this case? There are cases of involuntary manslaughter all over the country. Could it be because of race? Rest assured, had this officer accidentally killed a white man the Justice dept would hardly be getting involved.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Holder The (Not So) Wise
Interesting news. Eric Holder has filed suit against the state of Arizona for its recent immigration law.
This is the same man who is defending the US government in the health care case. The same man who dropped charges on the Black Panthers who were caught on film blocking access to a polling station and intimidating would-be voters.
So, according to Holder, if a cop in Arizona were to stop someone for a traffic violation it would be unConstitutional for the cop to demand proof of immigration status, yet completely acceptable for that person to be forced to purchase health insurance. And if that person were blocking access to a polling station then he couldn't be touched at all, especially if he were black.
That's the logic and wisdom of our current attorney general...the man who announced that the Arizona law was unconstitutional while also admitting that he had never read it. He refused to utter the words Islamic extremism so as not to offend anyone. And he felt it was wise to move the KSM trial to NYC at taxpayer cost to show-off the glory of the American justice system while he also potentially damaged his case by announcing that he would achieve a conviction and a death sentence for the 9/11 murderer.
That's Holder the Not-so Wise. Anyone else have trouble sleeping at night knowing this buffoon is in charge of our justice department?
This is the same man who is defending the US government in the health care case. The same man who dropped charges on the Black Panthers who were caught on film blocking access to a polling station and intimidating would-be voters.
So, according to Holder, if a cop in Arizona were to stop someone for a traffic violation it would be unConstitutional for the cop to demand proof of immigration status, yet completely acceptable for that person to be forced to purchase health insurance. And if that person were blocking access to a polling station then he couldn't be touched at all, especially if he were black.
That's the logic and wisdom of our current attorney general...the man who announced that the Arizona law was unconstitutional while also admitting that he had never read it. He refused to utter the words Islamic extremism so as not to offend anyone. And he felt it was wise to move the KSM trial to NYC at taxpayer cost to show-off the glory of the American justice system while he also potentially damaged his case by announcing that he would achieve a conviction and a death sentence for the 9/11 murderer.
That's Holder the Not-so Wise. Anyone else have trouble sleeping at night knowing this buffoon is in charge of our justice department?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The beginning of the End
Many years from now, when historians write and speak about the collapse of America, they will mention several different things. Some may speak about the Progressive Era in the 20th century that started the proverbial snowball rolling downhill. They'll bring up things like the TR trustbusting, the New Deal, the Great Society programs of the 60s, the social engineering programs of the 1990s. Some may look at the recession of 08-09 as the trigger. Still others may simply look at the decline in morality, the erosion of personal responsibility, the overall dependence of the citizens on the state. But I believe most will view all these things as a growing powder keg, that exploded in March 2010. I believe most historians will look at the patient protection act (or whatever it's called) as the beginning of the end of the great American empire.
That makes me sad. Very, very sad. Posting this entry is truly a difficult thing to do.
We find ourselves in a moment in time where we are on the brink of economic turmoil. Our economy, our treasury is on life support. This law has pulled the plug.
This is a time where we face $50 trillion in unfunded obligations to medicare and social security, $12 trillion in debt to others, a steadily growing annual deficit and unprecedented, indeed inconceivable levels of government spending. And now Moody's has recently suggested that the US triple-A credit rating may soon be in jeopardy.
This is a time where we have to make some difficult choices as a society, and those choices are centered around how, where and to what extent should we reduce our spending. They involve the obvious necessity to grow the economy in the private sector by reducing taxes on individuals so money can be injected into the economy, and by freeing businesses and corporations from their tax burden so they can increase their payrolls. These are the things that must be done now. Our major priority is controlling our deficit and reducing our debt load. If we don't do these things, we face disastrous economic consequences.
Instead, today we pass a law that declares health care a human right, and guarantees insurance for all Americans, along with many illegal immigrants. It raises taxes on many Americans, and increases the burden on businesses thereby killing more jobs. It makes the health insurance industry an arm of the federal government and grants unprecedented control of our lives to Washington politicians, and it empowers the IRS to enforce an unprecedented mandate that forces ALL citizens to purchase a particular product. My god, what are we doing?
Some people will applaud the law. There will be smiles of jubilation. Those people have absolutely no clue. No matter how much we may want to help those who need medical care, the simple unavoidable truth is that we can't afford it. We're broke! Nothing changes that fact, not even the clever manipulation of numbers by some politicians.
Our debt is unsustainable. The obligations we have promised to medicare and social security are unsustainable. Yet, we top all of that off with arguably the largest entitlement program ever enacted. What are these people thinking?
In the 30s, the massive federal spending of the New Deal turned the recession of 1929 into what we now know as the Great Depression, and it lasted an entire decade. What will happen this time around?
This is the beginning of the end. America's default on her debt is inevitable. Its default on her obligations to social security and medicare are inevitable. Hyperinflation and rising interest rates are on the horizon, and so will the rapid devaluation of our once-powerful currency. We are poised to witness the greatest wipeout of wealth in human history, and today's events set those events into an irreversible motion. In short, all hope for a recovery, for a restoration of this country to its prior greatness, is now and forever gone. We will never recover from this.
Those who disagree will learn of it on their own accord. Those who agree must remember that God is always in charge no matter what.
And Mr. Stupak, to thine own self be true. Only you know the details of your vote. And that, sir, is now between you and the Almighty.
God help you. God help us all.
That makes me sad. Very, very sad. Posting this entry is truly a difficult thing to do.
We find ourselves in a moment in time where we are on the brink of economic turmoil. Our economy, our treasury is on life support. This law has pulled the plug.
This is a time where we face $50 trillion in unfunded obligations to medicare and social security, $12 trillion in debt to others, a steadily growing annual deficit and unprecedented, indeed inconceivable levels of government spending. And now Moody's has recently suggested that the US triple-A credit rating may soon be in jeopardy.
This is a time where we have to make some difficult choices as a society, and those choices are centered around how, where and to what extent should we reduce our spending. They involve the obvious necessity to grow the economy in the private sector by reducing taxes on individuals so money can be injected into the economy, and by freeing businesses and corporations from their tax burden so they can increase their payrolls. These are the things that must be done now. Our major priority is controlling our deficit and reducing our debt load. If we don't do these things, we face disastrous economic consequences.
Instead, today we pass a law that declares health care a human right, and guarantees insurance for all Americans, along with many illegal immigrants. It raises taxes on many Americans, and increases the burden on businesses thereby killing more jobs. It makes the health insurance industry an arm of the federal government and grants unprecedented control of our lives to Washington politicians, and it empowers the IRS to enforce an unprecedented mandate that forces ALL citizens to purchase a particular product. My god, what are we doing?
Some people will applaud the law. There will be smiles of jubilation. Those people have absolutely no clue. No matter how much we may want to help those who need medical care, the simple unavoidable truth is that we can't afford it. We're broke! Nothing changes that fact, not even the clever manipulation of numbers by some politicians.
Our debt is unsustainable. The obligations we have promised to medicare and social security are unsustainable. Yet, we top all of that off with arguably the largest entitlement program ever enacted. What are these people thinking?
In the 30s, the massive federal spending of the New Deal turned the recession of 1929 into what we now know as the Great Depression, and it lasted an entire decade. What will happen this time around?
This is the beginning of the end. America's default on her debt is inevitable. Its default on her obligations to social security and medicare are inevitable. Hyperinflation and rising interest rates are on the horizon, and so will the rapid devaluation of our once-powerful currency. We are poised to witness the greatest wipeout of wealth in human history, and today's events set those events into an irreversible motion. In short, all hope for a recovery, for a restoration of this country to its prior greatness, is now and forever gone. We will never recover from this.
Those who disagree will learn of it on their own accord. Those who agree must remember that God is always in charge no matter what.
And Mr. Stupak, to thine own self be true. Only you know the details of your vote. And that, sir, is now between you and the Almighty.
God help you. God help us all.
Friday, March 05, 2010
"There's not been the same push as there was in August to encourage members to do town halls," said Stephanie Lundberg, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
That's a Hoyer spokeswoman replying to a question about the spring recess. Specifically, the question was asked about town hall meetings and a scenario in which the health care debate continued to drag into the spring recess.
This of course contradicts the Dem-Obama talking point that the American people oppose the health care bill simply because they don't understand it, or don't realize just how good it is for them. They have to tell themselves that because to admit that the public overwhelmingly opposes the bill yet "we're gonna do it anyway" is nothing short of tyrannical.
Obama would never do anything tyrannical would he?
That's a Hoyer spokeswoman replying to a question about the spring recess. Specifically, the question was asked about town hall meetings and a scenario in which the health care debate continued to drag into the spring recess.
This of course contradicts the Dem-Obama talking point that the American people oppose the health care bill simply because they don't understand it, or don't realize just how good it is for them. They have to tell themselves that because to admit that the public overwhelmingly opposes the bill yet "we're gonna do it anyway" is nothing short of tyrannical.
Obama would never do anything tyrannical would he?
Thursday, March 04, 2010
President Obama has nominated the brother of an undecided House Democrat to the Appeals Court.
A new kind of politics?
Hope and Change?
Somebody flush a toilet, because that's the only sound effect that applies.
A new kind of politics?
Hope and Change?
Somebody flush a toilet, because that's the only sound effect that applies.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Defining the Drones
In regards to my last post:
Yes, my post was loaded the cynicism and negativity. That is a reflection not just of my own personal opinions, but of many across the country. Some may dismiss the views as simple partisanship or ideology. My response to that is to say that I am an independent, and my ideology is one of traditional conservativism, that is the very ideology upon which America was founded. I am not bitter about a liberal getting elected President. I remember the Clinton years well and hardly felt any real concern about the future of America. This is very different. And I am not a doom-and-gloom pessimist. I take things as they come and comment on them accordingly.
I am hardly one to worry or wring my hands about what the boobs in Washington do, because in previous years ultimately the will of the people prevailed, which is exactly why I voiced so much concern in the last post. If a particular administration pursues a particular agenda with the consent of the people, that's fine. But when our elected leaders ignore and in some ways deliberately subvert the will of the people, then it's a legitimate cause for alarm. Because then we no longer live in a Republic, but are instead subjected to the tyrannical rule of a few hundred individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. If there are some who dismiss this as alarmist or over-reacting, then I don't know what else to say except open your eyes and look carefully at what's going on.
As for my "drones" comment. It is my belief that a significant number of people in America are seeking to radically redesign this democracy into something the Founders never intended. A best guess is 20% of the population. What they want is "economic justice", income redistribution both domestically and internationally, maximum government control over industry and commerce, and limited if not subserviant American involvement in foreign affairs. In short, these people seek full-blown socialism. They have great resources and lots of money. Many of them are in influential positions in our education system, our legal system, our political system, and the media. To them, the State is the supreme power. We all exist for the State. Everything we do, everything we produce is for the benefit of the State.
It is a powerful force, and yet they are at best 20% of the population. Hardly enough to make significant changes. So they utilize misinformation and half-truths to rally others around their cause. Those who rally are generally ignorant of the truth and tend to accept what they're told at face value without verifying for themselves. In many cases, the mistruths are easy to accept because they would benefit in some way if the mistruth were indeed true. Others find the cause fulfilling where their lives are otherwise empty or superficial (see Hollywood). And still others simply yearn for an earthly utopia and see the capitalists, the conservatives, the Republicans and pretty much anyone else who believes in true liberty as an obstruction in their path. These are the people I refer to as "drones".
They are ignorant of the truth, or simply choose to ignore it for their own benefit. Arguing with them is fruitless. Often they resort to the irrelevant emotional argument: We have to help the poor, the elderly, the children, we have to protect the planet. People are suffering, we must do something. And they use the same emotional arguments to demonize the opposition. Conservatives oppose program Y, therefore they hate group Z (those who would benefit from program Y). Or the play victomology. Group X was wronged by group Y and the State must make it right. Or they play the entitlement game. YOU have been victimized by society, WE will make it right. Or they play the class warfare game, feeding into people's envy, regret, or personal shortcomings, allowing blame to be placed on others. Lastly, they resort to personal attacks (I've been called everything from racist to homophobe to xenophobe and everything in between). These tactics are very effective and thus recruiting drones is rather easy even when the facts aren't on their side. You can't argue against these tactics except to point out the facts, which I will no longer do. They count on the ignorance of others to fuel the cause. I will count on the reader to investigate for themselves. Self-Enlightenment will be my counter-argument.
So I've decided to quit arguing with them. My opinions are based on fact, reason and common sense and it is no longer my inclination to repeatedly point that out. If I encounter a drone, or a socialist attempting to recruit drones, I will simply ignore them and seek discussion with open-minded individuals who value liberty and seek the truth. Likewise, there are certain issues that I will no longer argue because, again, the facts are on my side. When these issues come up, it will be easy to recognize them because the drones will be utilizing their time-tested tactics. And so I lay these issues to rest. No longer will I engage in those conversations.
Are you one of these drones? Below is a list I've compiled of certain things that the socialists have manufactured to rally folks to their cause. The list is incomplete, and I will certainly add to it. But if you find yourself agreeing with a great number of these lies and mistruths, then I would recommend a little more research, and remind you that I will no longer discuss them on this site.
If you believe in the following, then there is concern that others are defining your opinions for their own personal gain or for the gain of the State:
Human activity is causing the earth's climate to change.
Those with money are "fortunate", while those with less are "less fortunate".
The government is a provider.
Equal rights and equal outcomes are one in the same.
President Geoge W. Bush created the Recession of '08-'09 with his fiscal policy.
War is never necessary.
The United States is inherently flawed and must be radically changed.
The United States is a greedy nation and has done little to ease global suffering.
Capitalism only benefits a select few.
Crime is the result of society's short-comings.
The United States is an imperialistic nation.
The government is noble.
The government is compassionate.
It is possible to for the government to spend its way to economic prosperity.
Healthcare is a right.
Education is a right.
Childcare is a right.
Retirement security is a right.
Home ownership is a right.
Employment is a right.
Imposing limits on wages and salaries is noble.
Requiring a minimum wage is good for the economy.
Labor Unions look out for the workers.
The Tea Parties are nothing but "astroturf" movements.
ACORN was victimized by a setup.
GOP obstructionists offer no real ideas of their own.
Tax cuts reduce federal revenue.
Women do not get equal pay for equal work.
The KSM trial in Manhattan is a legitimate display of a fair justice system.
The NEA looks out for the students.
The AMA looks out for the patients.
Educating our children is the responsibility of the federal government.
Taxing the rich only hurts the rich, not the poor.
Government revenues increase with more taxes.
Those are just a few. If you're unsure about any of these statements, or if you believe them outright, then it's time to do a little research on your own.
Yes, my post was loaded the cynicism and negativity. That is a reflection not just of my own personal opinions, but of many across the country. Some may dismiss the views as simple partisanship or ideology. My response to that is to say that I am an independent, and my ideology is one of traditional conservativism, that is the very ideology upon which America was founded. I am not bitter about a liberal getting elected President. I remember the Clinton years well and hardly felt any real concern about the future of America. This is very different. And I am not a doom-and-gloom pessimist. I take things as they come and comment on them accordingly.
I am hardly one to worry or wring my hands about what the boobs in Washington do, because in previous years ultimately the will of the people prevailed, which is exactly why I voiced so much concern in the last post. If a particular administration pursues a particular agenda with the consent of the people, that's fine. But when our elected leaders ignore and in some ways deliberately subvert the will of the people, then it's a legitimate cause for alarm. Because then we no longer live in a Republic, but are instead subjected to the tyrannical rule of a few hundred individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. If there are some who dismiss this as alarmist or over-reacting, then I don't know what else to say except open your eyes and look carefully at what's going on.
As for my "drones" comment. It is my belief that a significant number of people in America are seeking to radically redesign this democracy into something the Founders never intended. A best guess is 20% of the population. What they want is "economic justice", income redistribution both domestically and internationally, maximum government control over industry and commerce, and limited if not subserviant American involvement in foreign affairs. In short, these people seek full-blown socialism. They have great resources and lots of money. Many of them are in influential positions in our education system, our legal system, our political system, and the media. To them, the State is the supreme power. We all exist for the State. Everything we do, everything we produce is for the benefit of the State.
It is a powerful force, and yet they are at best 20% of the population. Hardly enough to make significant changes. So they utilize misinformation and half-truths to rally others around their cause. Those who rally are generally ignorant of the truth and tend to accept what they're told at face value without verifying for themselves. In many cases, the mistruths are easy to accept because they would benefit in some way if the mistruth were indeed true. Others find the cause fulfilling where their lives are otherwise empty or superficial (see Hollywood). And still others simply yearn for an earthly utopia and see the capitalists, the conservatives, the Republicans and pretty much anyone else who believes in true liberty as an obstruction in their path. These are the people I refer to as "drones".
They are ignorant of the truth, or simply choose to ignore it for their own benefit. Arguing with them is fruitless. Often they resort to the irrelevant emotional argument: We have to help the poor, the elderly, the children, we have to protect the planet. People are suffering, we must do something. And they use the same emotional arguments to demonize the opposition. Conservatives oppose program Y, therefore they hate group Z (those who would benefit from program Y). Or the play victomology. Group X was wronged by group Y and the State must make it right. Or they play the entitlement game. YOU have been victimized by society, WE will make it right. Or they play the class warfare game, feeding into people's envy, regret, or personal shortcomings, allowing blame to be placed on others. Lastly, they resort to personal attacks (I've been called everything from racist to homophobe to xenophobe and everything in between). These tactics are very effective and thus recruiting drones is rather easy even when the facts aren't on their side. You can't argue against these tactics except to point out the facts, which I will no longer do. They count on the ignorance of others to fuel the cause. I will count on the reader to investigate for themselves. Self-Enlightenment will be my counter-argument.
So I've decided to quit arguing with them. My opinions are based on fact, reason and common sense and it is no longer my inclination to repeatedly point that out. If I encounter a drone, or a socialist attempting to recruit drones, I will simply ignore them and seek discussion with open-minded individuals who value liberty and seek the truth. Likewise, there are certain issues that I will no longer argue because, again, the facts are on my side. When these issues come up, it will be easy to recognize them because the drones will be utilizing their time-tested tactics. And so I lay these issues to rest. No longer will I engage in those conversations.
Are you one of these drones? Below is a list I've compiled of certain things that the socialists have manufactured to rally folks to their cause. The list is incomplete, and I will certainly add to it. But if you find yourself agreeing with a great number of these lies and mistruths, then I would recommend a little more research, and remind you that I will no longer discuss them on this site.
If you believe in the following, then there is concern that others are defining your opinions for their own personal gain or for the gain of the State:
Human activity is causing the earth's climate to change.
Those with money are "fortunate", while those with less are "less fortunate".
The government is a provider.
Equal rights and equal outcomes are one in the same.
President Geoge W. Bush created the Recession of '08-'09 with his fiscal policy.
War is never necessary.
The United States is inherently flawed and must be radically changed.
The United States is a greedy nation and has done little to ease global suffering.
Capitalism only benefits a select few.
Crime is the result of society's short-comings.
The United States is an imperialistic nation.
The government is noble.
The government is compassionate.
It is possible to for the government to spend its way to economic prosperity.
Healthcare is a right.
Education is a right.
Childcare is a right.
Retirement security is a right.
Home ownership is a right.
Employment is a right.
Imposing limits on wages and salaries is noble.
Requiring a minimum wage is good for the economy.
Labor Unions look out for the workers.
The Tea Parties are nothing but "astroturf" movements.
ACORN was victimized by a setup.
GOP obstructionists offer no real ideas of their own.
Tax cuts reduce federal revenue.
Women do not get equal pay for equal work.
The KSM trial in Manhattan is a legitimate display of a fair justice system.
The NEA looks out for the students.
The AMA looks out for the patients.
Educating our children is the responsibility of the federal government.
Taxing the rich only hurts the rich, not the poor.
Government revenues increase with more taxes.
Those are just a few. If you're unsure about any of these statements, or if you believe them outright, then it's time to do a little research on your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)