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.
"In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create the issues or the problems" - Saul Alinsky
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall" - Che Guevara
"Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism" - Karl Marx
Common sense Americans understand that utopia on earth is a fantasy, a myth. This understanding may be based on religious beliefs for some, and for others it is based on, well, common sense. Whatever the basis, those of us anchored in reality understand the reality of the world. Heaven on earth cannot be engineered by man.
The Liberal rejects this. The Liberal believes in a man-made utopia and aggressively pursues it. How is their utopia defined? Well, you can reference many different Liberal thinkers. John Lennon said "Imagine no possessions". Karl Marx described the absence of opposition to socialism. Barack Obama said "spread the wealth". I could cite other examples but the basic formula is there...social justice. That is the root of the Liberal utopia, first crafted by Karl Marx and championed by many who came after him. In a word, utopia is socialism.
But the Liberal understands that socialism is not attractive to the common sense American. We are a nation that is built on the traditions of self-reliance, hard work, and overcoming adversity. We are not a nation of handouts. We are generous to those in need, but we abhore laziness and sloth. And common sense Americans understand that a socialist system breeds laziness, that social justice rewards looters, those who take from the ones who work hard for a living. Because of this, Americans reject Karl Marx and his socialist theory.
This poses a problem for the Liberal, and therefore a strategy has developed. The Liberal knows that in an ordered society, a society in which Americans are content, the common sense folks will always reject socialism. But take away that order, create chaos, and you create an environment that is ripe for breeding collectivism. The Liberal understands that humans will never surrender their basic rights unless life has become miserable. When fear rules the day, liberty is often the first to be sacrificed. Therefore, the Liberal seeks to destroy the ordered society and replace it with fear and chaos, the objective being a slow transition to collectivism and, ultimately, utopia.
It is no coincidence that all well-known Liberal thinkers share the common theme of revolution. Whether it's Joseph Stalin or Vlad Lenin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Fidel Castro, or Alinsky, Louis Farrakhan, Che Guevara, Malcolm X, even the lesser known liberal thinkers like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. They all speak of revolution.
Revolution (defined partly as) - a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Revolution is an idea readily embraced by all who hold Liberal ideals.
Saul Alinsky spoke of it in "Rules for Radicals" and his tactics have been adopted by the radicals worldwide. This past weekend in the UK you see this on display. Radicals smashing windows, vandalizing buildings, threatening violence. You saw it in Wisconsin with radicals obstructing the democratic process and threatening the lives of several GOP lawmakers.
George Soros produces revolution by attacking the US currency, taking extreme measures to devalue the dollar and create economic chaos. Just as Lenin said, "the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency". This is revolution.
Recently, a story broke (ignored by the MSM) about an SEIU big-wig plotting the economic destruction of America. Stephen Lerner was caught on tape encouraging his followers to stop paying their mortgages with the intent to ultimately crash the US stock market.
In Greece, protests erupted the moment the government began cutting public benefits. Those protests transformed into riots; eventually fires and destruction spread throughout Greek cities. Similar protests have been seen in France and Portugal as well as the UK.
The point is this: Create chaos, create suffering, create fear, and the masses will surrender their liberty. This is how revolution is achieved. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
You can see it in the Liberal assault on the family. His hatred of religion. His rejection of motherhood. His economic policies that create fiscal deterioration. His efforts in bypassing the democratic process through the judiciary. His overall lack of morality. His class warfare and use of envy as a weapon, organizing the non-producers to oppose and rebel against those who produce. All of these things lead to social chaos and it is this that feeds the Liberal cause.
Order is a product of a civil society. A civil society will always be one of basic conservative principles and will always reject collectivism. So the Liberal understands that the civil society must be destroyed and this is best done by attacking conservative principles and eliminating order.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Order must be destroyed for collectivism to emerge.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
No. 12: Global Warming
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 am not a climatologist. I know nothing about meteorology, geology or astronomy. Ask me when the last ice age occured and I'll have to do an internet search to answer. So I readily admit that I don't have the scientific expertise to debate the global warming theorists from a scientific perspective.
But, I am a common sense American. I tend to see things in simple terms. Keeping it simple adds clarity and understanding and is the easiest way to solve problems. So like other common sense Americans I see the global warming theory and apply what we call the "whiff" test. If it doesn't smell right then it probably came from the malodorous end of a male bovine.
The theorists tell me that the earth is warming because of the horrible things we humans are doing. But I know for a fact that over the past decade global temperatures have actually declined. They don't comment on that fact but instead tell me that just about any natural phenomena can be attributed to our horrible behavior, and they use the occurrence of these events to strengthen their argument.
If a terrible hurrican strikes New Orleans, it's due to global warming.
If there is a brush fire in California, it's due to global warming.
If there is a dust storm in Oklahoma, or a drought in Texas, it's all global warming.
If Buffalo gets buried in snow, or Florida gets drenched in rain, it's global warming.
If it's hot outside it's global warming. But if it's too cold then we must also blame global warming. If there is starvation in the world, horrible tsunamis, catastrophic earthquakes, dead birds, dead fish, a bear attack in Alaska, too few deer, too many frogs...it is ALL due to global warming.
Hmmm. I scratch my head a bit.
What's really interesting about all of this isn't the theory itself. There can be some validity to what these people are saying. No, what bothers me is the solution and those who offer it. Driven mainly by the UN the focus on solving this global crisis seems to be targeted towards the US. Basically, we burn too many fossil fuels and therefore we're the reason why the planet is dying.
"What about China and India," a common sense American might ask.
Well, they are basically ignored. There is no international pressure on those two countries - both of which produce very large amounts of greenhouse gases - to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. Instead, it's all about America. And that's when I start to get skeptical.
"OK, so we need to build more nuclear plants. Switching from coal power to nuclear power will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," says the common sense American.
No. That's not acceptable. Nuclear is too dangerous, meltdowns and such. Not an option.
"OK, so lets build a bunch of windmills."
No. They kill birds and they are an eyesore. We can't have the beautiful countryside marred by these ugly things.
"So what do you want us to do."
For starters, we need to burn corn alcohol instead of oil. Yes, it is a less efficient fuel. Yes, when you account for the production process AND the lack of efficiency you find that using corn alcohol actually produces a net INCREASE in greenhouse gases. Yes, corn is food and perhaps could be put to better use by feeding those mouths who starve because of global warming. Nevermind all of that. We need to just burn more corn alcohol and less oil.
Hmmm. The common sense American scratches his head some more.
But that's not all. And here we get to the chewy center of what global warming is all about. They tell us that the only way...the ONLY WAY we can save the planet is if America reduces its consumption of resources. We must slow our economy down. We must regress. We must contract. We must get smaller.
Hmmm. The skepticism builds.
But not only that. They also tell us that we should pay those countries who don't produce so much pollution in order to offset the "cost" of the damage we are doing to the planet.
Hmmm. So those who produce must pay those who don't produce to balance the inequality and bring justice to the planet. Does anyone else hear the voice of Karl Marx?
Here's the deal, folks. Global warming is a fantasy. It's a cooked-up theory without any solid scientific evidence. Liberals don't actually believe that we humans are killing the planet by burning coal and oil. If they did, then they would support more nuclear energy. They would support more wind farms. And, most importantly, they would live their lives accordingly. Anyone remember the last time Al Gore did something that would be considered "green"? Do you see any of those green Hollywood celebrities using clothe diapers, or living in solar powered homes, or using geothermal heating/cooling?
No, they don't actually believe this stuff. What they do believe is social justice. They believe in the redistribution of wealth. They believe in "from those who are most able to those who are most in need". And they've taken those beliefs global. So global warming is nothing more than Marxism on an international level. And how do you convince the "rich" nations to redistribute their wealth to the nations "in need"? Well, you cook up a theory about how progress kills the planet and you tell them that their children and grandchildren will suffer immensely if something isn't done right away.
Common sense Americans see this nonsense for what it is. In a word, it stinks. Perhaps we'd be more accepting of the theory if the environmentalists supported nuclear energy. Or if Al Gore rode his bicycle to his $10,000 a plate dinners. Or if we stopped focusing on food for energy and actually used it for food. Or if the UN would chastise China and India like they do America. But that's not how it is.
So, common sense Americans don't buy the kooky theories. Neither do the Liberals for that matter, but the theory serves their political purposes so they trumpet it as if it were gospel.
I am not a climatologist. I know nothing about meteorology, geology or astronomy. Ask me when the last ice age occured and I'll have to do an internet search to answer. So I readily admit that I don't have the scientific expertise to debate the global warming theorists from a scientific perspective.
But, I am a common sense American. I tend to see things in simple terms. Keeping it simple adds clarity and understanding and is the easiest way to solve problems. So like other common sense Americans I see the global warming theory and apply what we call the "whiff" test. If it doesn't smell right then it probably came from the malodorous end of a male bovine.
The theorists tell me that the earth is warming because of the horrible things we humans are doing. But I know for a fact that over the past decade global temperatures have actually declined. They don't comment on that fact but instead tell me that just about any natural phenomena can be attributed to our horrible behavior, and they use the occurrence of these events to strengthen their argument.
If a terrible hurrican strikes New Orleans, it's due to global warming.
If there is a brush fire in California, it's due to global warming.
If there is a dust storm in Oklahoma, or a drought in Texas, it's all global warming.
If Buffalo gets buried in snow, or Florida gets drenched in rain, it's global warming.
If it's hot outside it's global warming. But if it's too cold then we must also blame global warming. If there is starvation in the world, horrible tsunamis, catastrophic earthquakes, dead birds, dead fish, a bear attack in Alaska, too few deer, too many frogs...it is ALL due to global warming.
Hmmm. I scratch my head a bit.
What's really interesting about all of this isn't the theory itself. There can be some validity to what these people are saying. No, what bothers me is the solution and those who offer it. Driven mainly by the UN the focus on solving this global crisis seems to be targeted towards the US. Basically, we burn too many fossil fuels and therefore we're the reason why the planet is dying.
"What about China and India," a common sense American might ask.
Well, they are basically ignored. There is no international pressure on those two countries - both of which produce very large amounts of greenhouse gases - to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. Instead, it's all about America. And that's when I start to get skeptical.
"OK, so we need to build more nuclear plants. Switching from coal power to nuclear power will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," says the common sense American.
No. That's not acceptable. Nuclear is too dangerous, meltdowns and such. Not an option.
"OK, so lets build a bunch of windmills."
No. They kill birds and they are an eyesore. We can't have the beautiful countryside marred by these ugly things.
"So what do you want us to do."
For starters, we need to burn corn alcohol instead of oil. Yes, it is a less efficient fuel. Yes, when you account for the production process AND the lack of efficiency you find that using corn alcohol actually produces a net INCREASE in greenhouse gases. Yes, corn is food and perhaps could be put to better use by feeding those mouths who starve because of global warming. Nevermind all of that. We need to just burn more corn alcohol and less oil.
Hmmm. The common sense American scratches his head some more.
But that's not all. And here we get to the chewy center of what global warming is all about. They tell us that the only way...the ONLY WAY we can save the planet is if America reduces its consumption of resources. We must slow our economy down. We must regress. We must contract. We must get smaller.
Hmmm. The skepticism builds.
But not only that. They also tell us that we should pay those countries who don't produce so much pollution in order to offset the "cost" of the damage we are doing to the planet.
Hmmm. So those who produce must pay those who don't produce to balance the inequality and bring justice to the planet. Does anyone else hear the voice of Karl Marx?
Here's the deal, folks. Global warming is a fantasy. It's a cooked-up theory without any solid scientific evidence. Liberals don't actually believe that we humans are killing the planet by burning coal and oil. If they did, then they would support more nuclear energy. They would support more wind farms. And, most importantly, they would live their lives accordingly. Anyone remember the last time Al Gore did something that would be considered "green"? Do you see any of those green Hollywood celebrities using clothe diapers, or living in solar powered homes, or using geothermal heating/cooling?
No, they don't actually believe this stuff. What they do believe is social justice. They believe in the redistribution of wealth. They believe in "from those who are most able to those who are most in need". And they've taken those beliefs global. So global warming is nothing more than Marxism on an international level. And how do you convince the "rich" nations to redistribute their wealth to the nations "in need"? Well, you cook up a theory about how progress kills the planet and you tell them that their children and grandchildren will suffer immensely if something isn't done right away.
Common sense Americans see this nonsense for what it is. In a word, it stinks. Perhaps we'd be more accepting of the theory if the environmentalists supported nuclear energy. Or if Al Gore rode his bicycle to his $10,000 a plate dinners. Or if we stopped focusing on food for energy and actually used it for food. Or if the UN would chastise China and India like they do America. But that's not how it is.
So, common sense Americans don't buy the kooky theories. Neither do the Liberals for that matter, but the theory serves their political purposes so they trumpet it as if it were gospel.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Libya
Anytime a President makes a decision to kill terrorists I will support it. In my opinion, killing terrorists should be a foreign policy priority for anyone who occupies the Oval Office. In fact, I would support making it a part of the Oath of Office. Killing terrorists makes the world a better place, a safer place. And it makes our country safer. So when President Obama first decided to commit American military forces to the conflict in Libya I felt the need to support him.
But there are many things about this that bother me.
1) There was no plan. The community organizer seemed to be bullied into this by the French and the British. It is obvious that he didn't want to do it and that shows in the fact that he has no real plan for executing a mission that doesn't seem to be defined. That's not the way to start a military campaign.
2) There is no objective. What the community organizer so obviously doesn't understand is that whenever the military is sent into battle they MUST be given a clear, definitive objective. A task must be carried out. You have the tools, the training, the leadership, now go do it. But in this case there is no objective. We don't know why we're there and what we're supposed to be doing.
3) References to "humanitarian". I've said this many times, American forces ARE NOT humanitarian forces. They are trained to kill and destroy. When you blur those skills with "humanitarian"-type stuff that's when problems arise. The United States has no business sending our forces into humanitarian problems. When you do that you risk losing A LOT of support on the homefront.
4) No congressional involvement. Anytime a military action is carried out then it's imperative that Congress is in the loop. They represent the people. They appropriate the funds. They must know what's going on. The community organizer failed at this.
5) No target on Qaddafi. If Obama had come out and said that Qaddafi is the target then I would be on board. In short, we owe him one. He is responsible for Lockerbie and there are many Americans who still mourn their dead loved ones who were murdered at the hands of this monster. He should've been eliminated a long time ago. But Obama has made it clear that eliminating Qaddafi is not the objective.
6) No leadership. I've never seen a US President so hesitant to be a world leader. He is passing that role to others like a hot potato and I'm not sure what to think about it. But it just doesn't seem right.
7) Who are we helping? There are some indications that the rebels engaged in combat with Qaddafi may be sympathetic to al qaeda, and in fact may be supported by al qaeda. That's a key piece of intelligence don't you think? Seems to me that if we're going to fight a "humanitarian" mission to protect people in the Middle East we should at least ensure that those we protect are supportive of democratic ideals and NOT friends of the extremists who seek to destroy us.
So, American forces are in harms way and I support their efforts. I hope this ends well and everyone returns home safely. Meanwhile, my lack of confidence in Obama's command ability has been validated.
Most US presidents would commit to battle with a plan, an objective, the support of congress, a clear definition of the enemy and the resolve to lead a coalition of democracies. Obama failed in all of these. At the very least he should have gone on television and talked to the American people. He should've told us what we're doing, why it must be done, who we're helping and why they must be helped. He should've made his case. But he didn't
The community organizer has proven himself unfit to command. As each day goes by it becomes more clear that this gamble by the American voter has been a colossal failure, the worst this side of Jimmy Carter.
It's bad enough that he's running our economy into the ground and has all but ruined the world's best health care system. Now, he's putting American pilots in harm's way for no clear reason.
November 2012 can't come soon enough.
But there are many things about this that bother me.
1) There was no plan. The community organizer seemed to be bullied into this by the French and the British. It is obvious that he didn't want to do it and that shows in the fact that he has no real plan for executing a mission that doesn't seem to be defined. That's not the way to start a military campaign.
2) There is no objective. What the community organizer so obviously doesn't understand is that whenever the military is sent into battle they MUST be given a clear, definitive objective. A task must be carried out. You have the tools, the training, the leadership, now go do it. But in this case there is no objective. We don't know why we're there and what we're supposed to be doing.
3) References to "humanitarian". I've said this many times, American forces ARE NOT humanitarian forces. They are trained to kill and destroy. When you blur those skills with "humanitarian"-type stuff that's when problems arise. The United States has no business sending our forces into humanitarian problems. When you do that you risk losing A LOT of support on the homefront.
4) No congressional involvement. Anytime a military action is carried out then it's imperative that Congress is in the loop. They represent the people. They appropriate the funds. They must know what's going on. The community organizer failed at this.
5) No target on Qaddafi. If Obama had come out and said that Qaddafi is the target then I would be on board. In short, we owe him one. He is responsible for Lockerbie and there are many Americans who still mourn their dead loved ones who were murdered at the hands of this monster. He should've been eliminated a long time ago. But Obama has made it clear that eliminating Qaddafi is not the objective.
6) No leadership. I've never seen a US President so hesitant to be a world leader. He is passing that role to others like a hot potato and I'm not sure what to think about it. But it just doesn't seem right.
7) Who are we helping? There are some indications that the rebels engaged in combat with Qaddafi may be sympathetic to al qaeda, and in fact may be supported by al qaeda. That's a key piece of intelligence don't you think? Seems to me that if we're going to fight a "humanitarian" mission to protect people in the Middle East we should at least ensure that those we protect are supportive of democratic ideals and NOT friends of the extremists who seek to destroy us.
So, American forces are in harms way and I support their efforts. I hope this ends well and everyone returns home safely. Meanwhile, my lack of confidence in Obama's command ability has been validated.
Most US presidents would commit to battle with a plan, an objective, the support of congress, a clear definition of the enemy and the resolve to lead a coalition of democracies. Obama failed in all of these. At the very least he should have gone on television and talked to the American people. He should've told us what we're doing, why it must be done, who we're helping and why they must be helped. He should've made his case. But he didn't
The community organizer has proven himself unfit to command. As each day goes by it becomes more clear that this gamble by the American voter has been a colossal failure, the worst this side of Jimmy Carter.
It's bad enough that he's running our economy into the ground and has all but ruined the world's best health care system. Now, he's putting American pilots in harm's way for no clear reason.
November 2012 can't come soon enough.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Tax day approaches
Tax day is just around the corner so I figured it's time for my obligatory post about it. For half of all Americans, this is a day when our private property is seized by a bloated, incompetent, ineffective, inefficient federal government whose main purpose nowadays seems to be focused on taking that property and distributing it to the other 50% of the population as a legal means of bribery. All of this, of course, is done because that half of the population has the ability to vote. This is how the game is played. Getting elected and re-elected is what it's all about for our politicians and they all know that taking from an ever-shrinking portion of the population and giving to an ever-growing population is the perfect recipe for retaining power in Washington.
Therefore, my Constitutional right to private property is trampled about this time every year in order to fulfill some other person's non-Constitutional "right" to medical care, or retirement income, or child care, or food stamps, or education, or employment, or housing, etc. I just completed my tax returns for the year and I must say when I see how much of my labor and productivity goes to fund this nonsense it makes me physically ill.
So, the obvious question comes to mind: What do I get out of this? What am I buying for the money that I send to Washington? Whatever it is, it is way overpriced and I'm certain I could purchase it elsewhere without forking over a third of my total income. I mean, I understand that freedom isn't free and that it's important to fund our military. The defense budget represents about 18% of all federal expenditures and I'm more than happy to pay my share to fund it. Also, I'm fine with forking over a much smaller portion to fund our court system, justice department, homeland security, and to maintain our currency. But add it up and you're still well short of half the federal budget. The rest? Well, it mainly goes to subsidies, handouts as they are more commonly called. And that's when I wonder just what it is that I get in return? I think the answer is obvious. I get squat.
That brings me to the next question. Since I don't actually get any good or service for approximately half the money that I send to Washington; and since there are many US citizens who DO get something for my money; then what is it those people owe me in return?
Follow me, here. Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, states clearly that all men are created equal. Therefore, I am equal in the eyes of the government to my neighbor who pays no taxes and yet draws money from the government in the form of some sort of handout. I have done nothing in the course of my lifetime to incur a debt to my neighbor, so legally I owe him nothing. Yet, I am legally forced to surrender a portion of my earnings to him nonetheless. Again, we are equal and I owe him nothing, but still my money is taken (without my consent) and given to him. Doesn't he then owe me something in return?
If you say no, then you are saying that I am somehow indebted to that person - which I am not - OR that his rights as a citizen supersede my rights, thus we are not "created equal". Either answer will make you look like a fool or worse.
So back to my original question: What do these people owe me? I admit it would be nice for someone who is latched on to the government teet to come over and help me clean my house, or cut my grass, or fold my laundry, or repaint my bathroom. At least then the government could justify the robbery that they commit every April, perhaps even to the point that it wouldn't be considered robbery at all but a very expensive lawn and laundry service. But we all know that won't happen.
So I guess I'll just have to settle for a simple thank you. Thank you for working hard, Mr. Taxpayer, so I don't have to, so I can have a free education, or drop my kid off at daycare every day, or have my prescription Viagra filled every month. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure that I can have this cushy government job with 30 hour work weeks, one month of paid vacation a year and gold-plated health plans. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure NPR stays on the air, broadcasting progressive propaganda that you don't even agree with. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for funding our crappy schools so I can pull down my six figure salary and complain about not having enough money to "teach the children". Thank you, Mr Taxpayer, for the cowboy poetry, the turtle crossings, the oyster bed studies, the $200 screwdrivers, the reproductive counseling, the blasphemic art, the swine flatus investigations, the multi-million dollar airports that no one uses, the bridges to nowhere, the private congressional jets. Thank you for it all, Mr. Taxpayer. Without you none of it would be possible.
Something like that.
Well, I'm waiting...
Therefore, my Constitutional right to private property is trampled about this time every year in order to fulfill some other person's non-Constitutional "right" to medical care, or retirement income, or child care, or food stamps, or education, or employment, or housing, etc. I just completed my tax returns for the year and I must say when I see how much of my labor and productivity goes to fund this nonsense it makes me physically ill.
So, the obvious question comes to mind: What do I get out of this? What am I buying for the money that I send to Washington? Whatever it is, it is way overpriced and I'm certain I could purchase it elsewhere without forking over a third of my total income. I mean, I understand that freedom isn't free and that it's important to fund our military. The defense budget represents about 18% of all federal expenditures and I'm more than happy to pay my share to fund it. Also, I'm fine with forking over a much smaller portion to fund our court system, justice department, homeland security, and to maintain our currency. But add it up and you're still well short of half the federal budget. The rest? Well, it mainly goes to subsidies, handouts as they are more commonly called. And that's when I wonder just what it is that I get in return? I think the answer is obvious. I get squat.
That brings me to the next question. Since I don't actually get any good or service for approximately half the money that I send to Washington; and since there are many US citizens who DO get something for my money; then what is it those people owe me in return?
Follow me, here. Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, states clearly that all men are created equal. Therefore, I am equal in the eyes of the government to my neighbor who pays no taxes and yet draws money from the government in the form of some sort of handout. I have done nothing in the course of my lifetime to incur a debt to my neighbor, so legally I owe him nothing. Yet, I am legally forced to surrender a portion of my earnings to him nonetheless. Again, we are equal and I owe him nothing, but still my money is taken (without my consent) and given to him. Doesn't he then owe me something in return?
If you say no, then you are saying that I am somehow indebted to that person - which I am not - OR that his rights as a citizen supersede my rights, thus we are not "created equal". Either answer will make you look like a fool or worse.
So back to my original question: What do these people owe me? I admit it would be nice for someone who is latched on to the government teet to come over and help me clean my house, or cut my grass, or fold my laundry, or repaint my bathroom. At least then the government could justify the robbery that they commit every April, perhaps even to the point that it wouldn't be considered robbery at all but a very expensive lawn and laundry service. But we all know that won't happen.
So I guess I'll just have to settle for a simple thank you. Thank you for working hard, Mr. Taxpayer, so I don't have to, so I can have a free education, or drop my kid off at daycare every day, or have my prescription Viagra filled every month. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure that I can have this cushy government job with 30 hour work weeks, one month of paid vacation a year and gold-plated health plans. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure NPR stays on the air, broadcasting progressive propaganda that you don't even agree with. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for funding our crappy schools so I can pull down my six figure salary and complain about not having enough money to "teach the children". Thank you, Mr Taxpayer, for the cowboy poetry, the turtle crossings, the oyster bed studies, the $200 screwdrivers, the reproductive counseling, the blasphemic art, the swine flatus investigations, the multi-million dollar airports that no one uses, the bridges to nowhere, the private congressional jets. Thank you for it all, Mr. Taxpayer. Without you none of it would be possible.
Something like that.
Well, I'm waiting...
Friday, March 18, 2011
Unions and the Courts
Well, we only thought it was over. Last week, Wisconin Governor Scott Walker and his legislative allies were unsuccesful in their attempts to get the Democrat senators back into session, so they split the controversial bill into two parts and passed the non-budgetary portion without the presence of the Democrats. This portion was the part of the bill that limited the bullying (ie, collective bargaining) tactics of the unions.
Apparently, there was some procedural issue with the vote that allowed the Dems to challenge the law in court, and so they have. The result: an injunction against the law that was recently issued. And now, some thoughts from WEP:
First, I just wanted to point out that the protests at the Wisconsin capitol have been ongoing. For three...four...five weeks and counting the public union workers have been demonstrating against the state government. The interesting thing is that the Wisconsin government hasn't really noticed. These people have been out of work for quite some time and the state of Wisconsin hasn't missed a beat. So why do these people still have a job? Obviously, the service they provide isn't THAT crucial since they can skip work for weeks and hardly anyone notices. No drop off in production. No services disrupted. No portion of the government is shut down. Seems like a perfect opportunity to trim the state payroll a bit.
When the bill was split and passed, the union protestors went berserk. They decried the action as "undemocratic", "unAmerica", "unfair". They used terms like "assault on democracy", etc, etc. Pretty much any hyperbolic description that could portray the GOP legislators and governor as anti-public fascists was tossed around. But when the Democrat senators fled the state during the debate of the issue no one had a problem with it. And in the course of the union protests, there were numerous arrests of unruly demonstrators. Many people attempted to block the entrance of the capitol to prevent the legislators from entering. There were death threats made against some of the legislators. Apparently, this behavior exemplifies the unions' idea of democracy. Thuggery and bully tactics. Death threats. Using force to prevent elected representatives from voting on behalf of the people. Fleeing when the time comes to vote. This is democracy in the eyes of our union workers.
And in a separate display of their view of democracy, the Wisconsin Bolsheviks have decided to pursue recall votes for the governor and multiple legislators. Again, they are fine with elected representatives going AWOL, abandoning their post during the legislative session. That's okay. But pass a law they don't agree with, and they mobilize to subvert the will of the people.
That's democracy in the eyes of union.
When President Obama and the DC Dems decided to pass a bill that deconstructs our entire health care system, all without ANY GOP input, without a single GOP vote, without abiding by the rules of the senate, and with a procedural gimmick that bypassed built-in senate rules meant to prevent one party from imposing its will against the will of people...when all of this was done there was not a whimper from these public sector unions. No court challenges. No protests. No talk of "recall" or any opposing action. For the unions, it's all about their political interest.
And where is the mainstream media? You know, the ones who refer to the tea party as "teabaggers", accuse them of racism, of trying to interfere with the democratic process? Did any of these people have a problem with the union thugs blockading the Wisconsin capitol, threatening harm on state legislators?
Nope.
Bottom line, the public sector unions are bad for America. There is nothing American about them. They are a microcosm of the communist party and they do nothing beneficial for our economic system and our way of governance. The sooner they are pushed from power the better.
If I were Scott Walker, in light of the recent injunction, I would immediately pink slip however many government workers were necessary to help balance the budget. Let the court system run its course. Whatever. Meanwhile, there are budget issues that need to be addressed and we don't have time to wait. And if the union refuses to confront them then other measures are necessary.
But it looks like this issue will have to be settled in the courts. So much for the will of the people.
Apparently, there was some procedural issue with the vote that allowed the Dems to challenge the law in court, and so they have. The result: an injunction against the law that was recently issued. And now, some thoughts from WEP:
First, I just wanted to point out that the protests at the Wisconsin capitol have been ongoing. For three...four...five weeks and counting the public union workers have been demonstrating against the state government. The interesting thing is that the Wisconsin government hasn't really noticed. These people have been out of work for quite some time and the state of Wisconsin hasn't missed a beat. So why do these people still have a job? Obviously, the service they provide isn't THAT crucial since they can skip work for weeks and hardly anyone notices. No drop off in production. No services disrupted. No portion of the government is shut down. Seems like a perfect opportunity to trim the state payroll a bit.
When the bill was split and passed, the union protestors went berserk. They decried the action as "undemocratic", "unAmerica", "unfair". They used terms like "assault on democracy", etc, etc. Pretty much any hyperbolic description that could portray the GOP legislators and governor as anti-public fascists was tossed around. But when the Democrat senators fled the state during the debate of the issue no one had a problem with it. And in the course of the union protests, there were numerous arrests of unruly demonstrators. Many people attempted to block the entrance of the capitol to prevent the legislators from entering. There were death threats made against some of the legislators. Apparently, this behavior exemplifies the unions' idea of democracy. Thuggery and bully tactics. Death threats. Using force to prevent elected representatives from voting on behalf of the people. Fleeing when the time comes to vote. This is democracy in the eyes of our union workers.
And in a separate display of their view of democracy, the Wisconsin Bolsheviks have decided to pursue recall votes for the governor and multiple legislators. Again, they are fine with elected representatives going AWOL, abandoning their post during the legislative session. That's okay. But pass a law they don't agree with, and they mobilize to subvert the will of the people.
That's democracy in the eyes of union.
When President Obama and the DC Dems decided to pass a bill that deconstructs our entire health care system, all without ANY GOP input, without a single GOP vote, without abiding by the rules of the senate, and with a procedural gimmick that bypassed built-in senate rules meant to prevent one party from imposing its will against the will of people...when all of this was done there was not a whimper from these public sector unions. No court challenges. No protests. No talk of "recall" or any opposing action. For the unions, it's all about their political interest.
And where is the mainstream media? You know, the ones who refer to the tea party as "teabaggers", accuse them of racism, of trying to interfere with the democratic process? Did any of these people have a problem with the union thugs blockading the Wisconsin capitol, threatening harm on state legislators?
Nope.
Bottom line, the public sector unions are bad for America. There is nothing American about them. They are a microcosm of the communist party and they do nothing beneficial for our economic system and our way of governance. The sooner they are pushed from power the better.
If I were Scott Walker, in light of the recent injunction, I would immediately pink slip however many government workers were necessary to help balance the budget. Let the court system run its course. Whatever. Meanwhile, there are budget issues that need to be addressed and we don't have time to wait. And if the union refuses to confront them then other measures are necessary.
But it looks like this issue will have to be settled in the courts. So much for the will of the people.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
A bad sign for our economic future
Since late 2008 I've been expressing my concern over the rising debt crisis that this country faces. These concerns began with the Bush administration and the TARP bailouts and continued with Obama's economic stimulus package, GM/Chrysler bailouts and Obamacare. Our debt has skyrocketed and the deficit spending seems to be never ending.
My hope was that the new GOP House would begin the process of stopping the bleeding. That they would first find a way to stop the deficit spending and then formulate a sound plan on how to begin repaying our debt. Something like this would signal to the rest of the world that the dollar remains a sound investment and that their money would be safe with us. That was my hope.
Well, last week, that hope took a hard body blow. The GOP house proposed a budget that included $60 billion in budget cuts. Sounds like a lot of money, but lets add some perspective. The Federal Government overspent a deficit level of $226 billion in FEBRUARY ALONE...just last month. That's one month, $226 billion in deficit spending. And the new GOP house proposes a mere $60 billion in ANNUAL budget cuts. Obviously, this is unacceptable.
Even worse, that proposal was quickly shot down by the Democrat-led senate because it was considered too severe and too drastic in budget cutting.
So, it is now clear that despite the election results we continue to send people to Washington who lack the courage to do what must be done to protect our credit and save the dollar (and given the response in Wisconsin when the Governor attempts some modest proposal to reduce spending you can hardly blame them). There are exceptions - Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann to name a few - but for the most part the politicians continue to behave like politicians and have essentially sent the world a message that in America it's business as usual. Our borrow/spend mentality continues, and we will do nothing to modify this behavior no matter how dire the economic forecasts become.
Unfortunately, those forecasts are soon to become very dire indeed. I believe the course has been set and our economy is headed for some very difficult times. I believe we are in for an inflationary period like never period. I believe the dollar is on danger of a massive collapse, followed by the stock market. The effects will be severe and they will be global. I don't know when this will happen but given the cowardice we see in Washington I don't see how it couldn't happen.
Hopefully I am wrong.
My hope was that the new GOP House would begin the process of stopping the bleeding. That they would first find a way to stop the deficit spending and then formulate a sound plan on how to begin repaying our debt. Something like this would signal to the rest of the world that the dollar remains a sound investment and that their money would be safe with us. That was my hope.
Well, last week, that hope took a hard body blow. The GOP house proposed a budget that included $60 billion in budget cuts. Sounds like a lot of money, but lets add some perspective. The Federal Government overspent a deficit level of $226 billion in FEBRUARY ALONE...just last month. That's one month, $226 billion in deficit spending. And the new GOP house proposes a mere $60 billion in ANNUAL budget cuts. Obviously, this is unacceptable.
Even worse, that proposal was quickly shot down by the Democrat-led senate because it was considered too severe and too drastic in budget cutting.
So, it is now clear that despite the election results we continue to send people to Washington who lack the courage to do what must be done to protect our credit and save the dollar (and given the response in Wisconsin when the Governor attempts some modest proposal to reduce spending you can hardly blame them). There are exceptions - Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann to name a few - but for the most part the politicians continue to behave like politicians and have essentially sent the world a message that in America it's business as usual. Our borrow/spend mentality continues, and we will do nothing to modify this behavior no matter how dire the economic forecasts become.
Unfortunately, those forecasts are soon to become very dire indeed. I believe the course has been set and our economy is headed for some very difficult times. I believe we are in for an inflationary period like never period. I believe the dollar is on danger of a massive collapse, followed by the stock market. The effects will be severe and they will be global. I don't know when this will happen but given the cowardice we see in Washington I don't see how it couldn't happen.
Hopefully I am wrong.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
I support Representative King
I support what Representative Peter King is doing. Why? Because I think investigating the threat of Jihad within the American Muslim community is a worthy investigation. I don't know if Jihad is a problem among American Muslims, but I would like to know, and wanting to know that doesn't make me a racist or an "Islamophobe".
I think asking if mainstream mosques support Jihad and support Sharia law is a question worth asking. Because I think the answers to these questions will benefit us all. If Mr. King discovers that Jihad is indeed a major focus in the mainstream American Muslim community then we have done much for our national defense. If he discovers the opposite, then we have done much to heal our divisions and diminish the suspicion - warranted or not - that many Americans carry toward Muslims. So I think he is doing the right thing.
But some people feel otherwise, and the old tactics of the Left once again emerge. King is being attacked and demonized for this. He has been likened to McCarthy, called racist, Islamophobe and of course compared to Hitler (isn't that their favorite comparison?). If you listen to the Left, you would think King is preparing to gather all Muslims into detention facilities like FDR did with the Japanese. The sensationalism has really gotten out of hand.
Have you ever noticed that this is the same basic tactic the Left always uses? No matter the issue, large or small; state, local or federal; the Left always seems to be a one trick pony. They divide us into groups, pigeon hole us according to what serves their purpose best, and then pit us against one another based on those divisions, feeding off the chaos that ensues and advancing their own political causes as a result.
If it's not rich vs. poor; working class vs. wealthy class; Muslim vs. Christian; it's Gay vs. Straight, White vs. Black, Old vs. Young, Insured vs. Uninsured. This is all they have. They can't argue their issue based on the merits of their position because usually their position has no merits. It's hard to argue that public unions deserve the right to contribute millions to elect politicians that will turn around and vote to give the unions more millions in taxpayer dollars. You can't argue for that, so they make it a rich vs. poor thing, a wealthy vs. "the working man" issue because that's all they CAN do. You can't argue the rationality in asking the questions that Mr. King is asking, so they make it a racial matter, an "anti-Muslim" matter, a Muslim vs. non Muslim matter. Their hope is to shame the rational thinkers and common sense Americans into seeing things their way. It's the only trick in their bag of tricks and unfortunately sometimes it works. Sometimes we are guilted into losing our common sense and rational thinking. Guilted and shamed into basically thinking like a Liberal. Hopefully, those days are soon over. More and more of our political leaders are beginning to display courage against these attacks and refuse to be shamed by the nonsensical.
No, King feels these questions are important to answer and so he is determined to answer them. I think we all - Muslim or non Muslim - will benefit from it.
I think asking if mainstream mosques support Jihad and support Sharia law is a question worth asking. Because I think the answers to these questions will benefit us all. If Mr. King discovers that Jihad is indeed a major focus in the mainstream American Muslim community then we have done much for our national defense. If he discovers the opposite, then we have done much to heal our divisions and diminish the suspicion - warranted or not - that many Americans carry toward Muslims. So I think he is doing the right thing.
But some people feel otherwise, and the old tactics of the Left once again emerge. King is being attacked and demonized for this. He has been likened to McCarthy, called racist, Islamophobe and of course compared to Hitler (isn't that their favorite comparison?). If you listen to the Left, you would think King is preparing to gather all Muslims into detention facilities like FDR did with the Japanese. The sensationalism has really gotten out of hand.
Have you ever noticed that this is the same basic tactic the Left always uses? No matter the issue, large or small; state, local or federal; the Left always seems to be a one trick pony. They divide us into groups, pigeon hole us according to what serves their purpose best, and then pit us against one another based on those divisions, feeding off the chaos that ensues and advancing their own political causes as a result.
If it's not rich vs. poor; working class vs. wealthy class; Muslim vs. Christian; it's Gay vs. Straight, White vs. Black, Old vs. Young, Insured vs. Uninsured. This is all they have. They can't argue their issue based on the merits of their position because usually their position has no merits. It's hard to argue that public unions deserve the right to contribute millions to elect politicians that will turn around and vote to give the unions more millions in taxpayer dollars. You can't argue for that, so they make it a rich vs. poor thing, a wealthy vs. "the working man" issue because that's all they CAN do. You can't argue the rationality in asking the questions that Mr. King is asking, so they make it a racial matter, an "anti-Muslim" matter, a Muslim vs. non Muslim matter. Their hope is to shame the rational thinkers and common sense Americans into seeing things their way. It's the only trick in their bag of tricks and unfortunately sometimes it works. Sometimes we are guilted into losing our common sense and rational thinking. Guilted and shamed into basically thinking like a Liberal. Hopefully, those days are soon over. More and more of our political leaders are beginning to display courage against these attacks and refuse to be shamed by the nonsensical.
No, King feels these questions are important to answer and so he is determined to answer them. I think we all - Muslim or non Muslim - will benefit from it.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Why is "union-buster" a bad word?
I've heard it many times. Union leaders, political opponents, journalists all attempting to label Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker a "union buster". President Obama himself called the law in question an "attack on unions". And Walker always acts to deflect these charges as if union-busting is a bad thing, a political taboo.
Why?
First, let me differentiate my opinions about private sector unions and public sector unions. To be clear, I don't agree with unionized labor at all. At best it is inefficient and incompetent - my own experience with union made goods will testify to that. At worst it is thuggery in the workplace. I don't think unionized labor has a place in a free market society because it's bad for competition. But if the private sector workers want to unionize then so be it. They have that right. Eventually, this is a self-defeating strategy. If a group of workers repeatedly pursue demands that raise the price of goods and services then the employer is ultimately robbed of their ability to compete effectively in the open market. Sooner or later the company dies (see GM and Chrysler) and everyone loses. At least, that's how it's supposed to work, until a deranged group of lawmakers use public money to bail out such companies, then EVERYONE truly loses, even those of us who have nothing to do with that company.
But public sector unions are different. The public workers are paid by the government, and thus the taxpayers. So when they unionize and flex their muscle to demand more pay, more benefits, more time off, etc, then it's the taxpayer that they are sticking it to. There is no market to balance things out, no competition to drive us out of business, so we have to pay more to the union thugs and we have no say in the matter. There is no end to their demands because the public checking account by way of borrowing is neverending, so they can drive up the cost of labor as high as they want without repurcussion. This is - in a word - WRONG! The idea of public workers unionizing to stick it to the taxpayers is such a repulsive thing that even FDR opposed public unions. FDR of all people.
Governor Walker is asking for several things in his bill. One is that public workers pay into their own retirement and health care funds. This goes into the "DUH" category. Anyone who opposes this is either a fool or a unionized public worker, or both.
He also wants taxpayers to have the power to vote - by referendum - on any public sector pay raise that exceeds the rate of inflation, thus shifting the negotiating power from the unions to those who actually foot the bill. Can you imagine a scenario where the public gets to decide on pay raises, and those decisions are based on the QUALITY of work that the public workers do? Can you imagine a system where public workers are actually held accountable for what they do? The unions hate that.
Another of Walker's proposals is to allow workers to choose whether or not they join the union. As it is now, public workers don't have a choice. Their dues are automatically deducted from their pay and given to the unions. The result is that public unions have become very wealthy and very powerful politically. In the 2008 election, no other single group donated more money to political campaigns than the public sector unions. All funded by our tax dollars.
So Walker would give workers the ability to choose to join in order to offset the added costs of contributing to pensions and health care funds. Naturally, this would weaken the unions because many people would opt out. That's bad for political clout and one of the reasons for such vocal opposition.
Finally, Walker would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions. Most union members will say this is what they oppose about the law. I say they are lying, or at least not being completely honest. They want to maintain leverage at the negotiating table, and I ask..."leverage against whom?" Do they have the right to drive up taxpayer costs by making their labor more expensive, and to do so without any voter say in the matter? Absolutely not. So this collective bargaining stuff is a bunch of garbage. You want collective bargaining, then get a private sector job and stick it to some schmuck corporate executive. What you call collective bargaining, I call extortion.
After all, why are unions necessary? Ask a unionized worker this and they'll say they must be united to protect themselves against the establishment, against corporate greed, against bosses and executives who wish to exploit their labor for capital gain. Fair enough. But, then, why must public workers be unionized? Aren't we the boss? And therefore are we, the taxpayers, the ones they seek to protect themselves against? Whatever happened to the idea that "we the people" make the rules around here and all must abide by them?
Isn't the Left that says education is a RIGHT? If it's a right then why are teachers allowed to impose their own costs on providing that right without repurcussion?
Isn't it the Left that says government can be trusted more so than the private sector? If this is true, then why are public unions even necessary? Why indeed. Obviously, Scott Walker has asked this question himself and come to the same conclusion, that public unions aren't necessary, that they serve a purpose meant to stiff the taxpayers and drive up costs for public services that WE THE PEOPLE will have to fund with no choice in the matter and no bargaining power whatsoever. That's not right and so he seeks to stop it. Union busting? I hope so. And I wish Walker would just come out and say it.
Why?
First, let me differentiate my opinions about private sector unions and public sector unions. To be clear, I don't agree with unionized labor at all. At best it is inefficient and incompetent - my own experience with union made goods will testify to that. At worst it is thuggery in the workplace. I don't think unionized labor has a place in a free market society because it's bad for competition. But if the private sector workers want to unionize then so be it. They have that right. Eventually, this is a self-defeating strategy. If a group of workers repeatedly pursue demands that raise the price of goods and services then the employer is ultimately robbed of their ability to compete effectively in the open market. Sooner or later the company dies (see GM and Chrysler) and everyone loses. At least, that's how it's supposed to work, until a deranged group of lawmakers use public money to bail out such companies, then EVERYONE truly loses, even those of us who have nothing to do with that company.
But public sector unions are different. The public workers are paid by the government, and thus the taxpayers. So when they unionize and flex their muscle to demand more pay, more benefits, more time off, etc, then it's the taxpayer that they are sticking it to. There is no market to balance things out, no competition to drive us out of business, so we have to pay more to the union thugs and we have no say in the matter. There is no end to their demands because the public checking account by way of borrowing is neverending, so they can drive up the cost of labor as high as they want without repurcussion. This is - in a word - WRONG! The idea of public workers unionizing to stick it to the taxpayers is such a repulsive thing that even FDR opposed public unions. FDR of all people.
Governor Walker is asking for several things in his bill. One is that public workers pay into their own retirement and health care funds. This goes into the "DUH" category. Anyone who opposes this is either a fool or a unionized public worker, or both.
He also wants taxpayers to have the power to vote - by referendum - on any public sector pay raise that exceeds the rate of inflation, thus shifting the negotiating power from the unions to those who actually foot the bill. Can you imagine a scenario where the public gets to decide on pay raises, and those decisions are based on the QUALITY of work that the public workers do? Can you imagine a system where public workers are actually held accountable for what they do? The unions hate that.
Another of Walker's proposals is to allow workers to choose whether or not they join the union. As it is now, public workers don't have a choice. Their dues are automatically deducted from their pay and given to the unions. The result is that public unions have become very wealthy and very powerful politically. In the 2008 election, no other single group donated more money to political campaigns than the public sector unions. All funded by our tax dollars.
So Walker would give workers the ability to choose to join in order to offset the added costs of contributing to pensions and health care funds. Naturally, this would weaken the unions because many people would opt out. That's bad for political clout and one of the reasons for such vocal opposition.
Finally, Walker would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions. Most union members will say this is what they oppose about the law. I say they are lying, or at least not being completely honest. They want to maintain leverage at the negotiating table, and I ask..."leverage against whom?" Do they have the right to drive up taxpayer costs by making their labor more expensive, and to do so without any voter say in the matter? Absolutely not. So this collective bargaining stuff is a bunch of garbage. You want collective bargaining, then get a private sector job and stick it to some schmuck corporate executive. What you call collective bargaining, I call extortion.
After all, why are unions necessary? Ask a unionized worker this and they'll say they must be united to protect themselves against the establishment, against corporate greed, against bosses and executives who wish to exploit their labor for capital gain. Fair enough. But, then, why must public workers be unionized? Aren't we the boss? And therefore are we, the taxpayers, the ones they seek to protect themselves against? Whatever happened to the idea that "we the people" make the rules around here and all must abide by them?
Isn't the Left that says education is a RIGHT? If it's a right then why are teachers allowed to impose their own costs on providing that right without repurcussion?
Isn't it the Left that says government can be trusted more so than the private sector? If this is true, then why are public unions even necessary? Why indeed. Obviously, Scott Walker has asked this question himself and come to the same conclusion, that public unions aren't necessary, that they serve a purpose meant to stiff the taxpayers and drive up costs for public services that WE THE PEOPLE will have to fund with no choice in the matter and no bargaining power whatsoever. That's not right and so he seeks to stop it. Union busting? I hope so. And I wish Walker would just come out and say it.
Monday, February 28, 2011
No. 13: Choice
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.
One could argue that the strongest reason for the colonist rebellion against the English crown in 1770 was the right to choose. Above all else, Americans rejected the notion that one's destiny is predetermined, that your surname had more influence over your future than your own actions, that those of "status" could decide for you things that you should be deciding for yourself. Yes, we opposed taxation without representation. We opposed religious persecution. We opposed authoritarian rule. But the right to choose our own paths was arguably a more powerful motivator than all of these things.
Unfortunately, Liberals don't like the idea of individual choice. I could fill many pages of examples of this, but in the interest of space I'll keep it limited. Let's start with education.
I've posted on this topic before so I'll hit the high notes. Common sense Americans feel that parents and students should have a right to choose which school their children attend, and how they are educated. Liberals disagree. Liberals so adamantly oppose school choice that few topics will unite them more strongly in opposition. Mention vouchers and prepare to be attacked from multiple fronts. They believe there is no choice when it comes to education. They believe that all students should be educated in the public sector without exception; and the particular public school you attend is determined by your address. Don't like it? Too bad. Does your address belong to a subpar school with lazy teachers, filled with gang violence, teenage pregnancy and drug abuse? Too bad. You have no choice in the matter. We could get into all the reasons why this is so, but that's another post. The bottom line is that when it comes to education you will have no luck finding a Liberal who supports the notion of choice.
And what about the workers? You know, the people the Liberals love to "fight for"? Common sense Americans believe that whether or not a worker joins a union is an individual choice and is strictly up to the worker. Liberals disagree. In fact, this very month, the Left has held rallies and marches all across the Great Lakes region in part because the Governors in those states are proposing laws that would allow public workers choice in joining a union. That's simply unacceptable in the eyes of the Left. And so they march, and they protest, and they carry signs comparing those Governors to Hitler and Mussolini.
Let's not forget card check. This is a law, supported by President Obama, that would end private ballots when workers vote to unionize. Naturally, such a law would open the door to the union thugs who could witness any ballot cast by a worker and easily bully that worker into voting their way. Remember, the same Liberals who argued in Florida in 2000 that a voter's "intent" was enough to count a vote now believe that it's okay to hold a public vote when deciding to unionize. Is this consistent with the notion of individual choice?
Healthcare is no different. President Obama's pride and joy is his healthcare law, which is the first of many steps in eliminating one's choice in healthcare options. In an ideal Liberal world, healthcare decisions would be made by politicians and bureaucrats, not doctors and patients. If they had their way, the government would tell you which doctor to see and how often, and which medical conditions would be covered, which drugs could be taken. It's the pinnacle of government power, and they won't stop pursuing it until the common sense Americans stop them. President Obama himself is on record saying that ultimately a single payer system is the goal. Choice? I don't think so.
The current tax system allows little choice. This may sound odd because isn't it obvious that we don't have a choice when it comes to taxes? Of course we don't, but just because it's true doesn't mean it's right. Ask a common sense American if citizens should choose to pay taxes and I think many of them would say yes. That's why many of us support the Fair Tax, or the consumption tax. Basically, if we want fair taxation while granting all citizens individual choice in paying taxes then a national sales tax is the only way to do so. But mention this idea and you're a radical, a kook, an anti-government teabagger. Liberals certainly don't want Americans to choose whether or not they fund the excess and binge of the federal government.
Gay marriage? Liberals oppose the voters' right to choose whether or not it is legalized.
Prayer in school? Liberals oppose allowing students to choose whether or not prayer is held in the public arena, supporting instead a complete ban on religion in the public sector.
Talk radio? Liberals oppose your choosing whether you listen to political talk shows on TV or radio.
Energy? If Liberals have it their way you will not be able to choose simple things like how warm or cool you keep your home. "Smart" grids will become the norm.
Safe cars? Liberals imposed the CAFE standards that forced automakers to create death traps...lightweight cars that offer little protection in an accident. Want to purchase a safe automobile? Not in this country.
Abortion? Oops. Funny how this is the one topic that bucks the trend. If it's educating your children, or taking care of your health, or listening to the radio, the Liberals stand firmly against your right to choose. But you want to kill an unborn child? Well, in that case, they all of a sudden believe you have the right to make such a choice. Perplexing if not sinister.
But let's cut to the chase. What choice are the Liberals ultimately after? They push government entitlements and support the welfare state despite our dire economic condition. They serve up the government handouts as if the treasury is bottomless. Why? Look at it this way, if you depend on the government for food, for education, for healthcare, for childcare, for retirement, for security, for housing, for employment, and for a myriad of other necessities that you are unwilling to supply yourself then who are you going to vote for? Obviously, the person who is willing to continue giving you those handouts has essentially bought your vote and, in my opinion, disenfranchised you as a human being. So, the ultimate restriction of choice is in voting.
Do Liberals want you, as a citizen, to be self-reliant, liberated and completely free of government handouts? Well, that wouldn't serve their party very well now would it?
One could argue that the strongest reason for the colonist rebellion against the English crown in 1770 was the right to choose. Above all else, Americans rejected the notion that one's destiny is predetermined, that your surname had more influence over your future than your own actions, that those of "status" could decide for you things that you should be deciding for yourself. Yes, we opposed taxation without representation. We opposed religious persecution. We opposed authoritarian rule. But the right to choose our own paths was arguably a more powerful motivator than all of these things.
Unfortunately, Liberals don't like the idea of individual choice. I could fill many pages of examples of this, but in the interest of space I'll keep it limited. Let's start with education.
I've posted on this topic before so I'll hit the high notes. Common sense Americans feel that parents and students should have a right to choose which school their children attend, and how they are educated. Liberals disagree. Liberals so adamantly oppose school choice that few topics will unite them more strongly in opposition. Mention vouchers and prepare to be attacked from multiple fronts. They believe there is no choice when it comes to education. They believe that all students should be educated in the public sector without exception; and the particular public school you attend is determined by your address. Don't like it? Too bad. Does your address belong to a subpar school with lazy teachers, filled with gang violence, teenage pregnancy and drug abuse? Too bad. You have no choice in the matter. We could get into all the reasons why this is so, but that's another post. The bottom line is that when it comes to education you will have no luck finding a Liberal who supports the notion of choice.
And what about the workers? You know, the people the Liberals love to "fight for"? Common sense Americans believe that whether or not a worker joins a union is an individual choice and is strictly up to the worker. Liberals disagree. In fact, this very month, the Left has held rallies and marches all across the Great Lakes region in part because the Governors in those states are proposing laws that would allow public workers choice in joining a union. That's simply unacceptable in the eyes of the Left. And so they march, and they protest, and they carry signs comparing those Governors to Hitler and Mussolini.
Let's not forget card check. This is a law, supported by President Obama, that would end private ballots when workers vote to unionize. Naturally, such a law would open the door to the union thugs who could witness any ballot cast by a worker and easily bully that worker into voting their way. Remember, the same Liberals who argued in Florida in 2000 that a voter's "intent" was enough to count a vote now believe that it's okay to hold a public vote when deciding to unionize. Is this consistent with the notion of individual choice?
Healthcare is no different. President Obama's pride and joy is his healthcare law, which is the first of many steps in eliminating one's choice in healthcare options. In an ideal Liberal world, healthcare decisions would be made by politicians and bureaucrats, not doctors and patients. If they had their way, the government would tell you which doctor to see and how often, and which medical conditions would be covered, which drugs could be taken. It's the pinnacle of government power, and they won't stop pursuing it until the common sense Americans stop them. President Obama himself is on record saying that ultimately a single payer system is the goal. Choice? I don't think so.
The current tax system allows little choice. This may sound odd because isn't it obvious that we don't have a choice when it comes to taxes? Of course we don't, but just because it's true doesn't mean it's right. Ask a common sense American if citizens should choose to pay taxes and I think many of them would say yes. That's why many of us support the Fair Tax, or the consumption tax. Basically, if we want fair taxation while granting all citizens individual choice in paying taxes then a national sales tax is the only way to do so. But mention this idea and you're a radical, a kook, an anti-government teabagger. Liberals certainly don't want Americans to choose whether or not they fund the excess and binge of the federal government.
Gay marriage? Liberals oppose the voters' right to choose whether or not it is legalized.
Prayer in school? Liberals oppose allowing students to choose whether or not prayer is held in the public arena, supporting instead a complete ban on religion in the public sector.
Talk radio? Liberals oppose your choosing whether you listen to political talk shows on TV or radio.
Energy? If Liberals have it their way you will not be able to choose simple things like how warm or cool you keep your home. "Smart" grids will become the norm.
Safe cars? Liberals imposed the CAFE standards that forced automakers to create death traps...lightweight cars that offer little protection in an accident. Want to purchase a safe automobile? Not in this country.
Abortion? Oops. Funny how this is the one topic that bucks the trend. If it's educating your children, or taking care of your health, or listening to the radio, the Liberals stand firmly against your right to choose. But you want to kill an unborn child? Well, in that case, they all of a sudden believe you have the right to make such a choice. Perplexing if not sinister.
But let's cut to the chase. What choice are the Liberals ultimately after? They push government entitlements and support the welfare state despite our dire economic condition. They serve up the government handouts as if the treasury is bottomless. Why? Look at it this way, if you depend on the government for food, for education, for healthcare, for childcare, for retirement, for security, for housing, for employment, and for a myriad of other necessities that you are unwilling to supply yourself then who are you going to vote for? Obviously, the person who is willing to continue giving you those handouts has essentially bought your vote and, in my opinion, disenfranchised you as a human being. So, the ultimate restriction of choice is in voting.
Do Liberals want you, as a citizen, to be self-reliant, liberated and completely free of government handouts? Well, that wouldn't serve their party very well now would it?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Update: Wisconsin
As first reported tonight by Bill O'Reilly, a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 48% of likely voters support the Governor of Wisconsin and his efforts, while 38% oppose. In addition, 56% of independent voters side with the Governor.
This is telling and further evidence of the depth of the Tea Party movement, which I believe is the most powerful political force in America today. Politicians will ignore numbers like these at their own political peril. My advice to Republicans is that they should be as vocal as possible in support of the Governor's actions.
This is telling and further evidence of the depth of the Tea Party movement, which I believe is the most powerful political force in America today. Politicians will ignore numbers like these at their own political peril. My advice to Republicans is that they should be as vocal as possible in support of the Governor's actions.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wisconsin in Turmoil
Facing a massive budget deficit and the undeniable necessity to cut taxpayer costs, the Governor of Wisconsin has at last stepped forward and - with the help of conservative legislators - put forth a plan to trim costs. What he is doing takes courage. When Evil Prospers applauds these measures and encourages the Governor to stand firm and do the people's business, no matter the threats and bully tactics that are being directed his way.
The main target of his cuts are the public sector unions, a glutton of taxpayer dollars for decades. Actions like this have been needed long before now and it's refreshing to see a group of politicians finally step forward with tangible action to shrink the bloated bureaucracy that has crippled the taxpayers for years.
In response, the public sector workers - namely teachers - have shut down the school system, abandoned their students and gathered in massive protest at the state capitol. Their battle cry is "Freedom! Democracy! Unions!". Well, I guess two out of three aint bad, with a nod to Meatloaf. These people don't believe in freedom in any way, nor do they support democracy, but they very much believe in unions and they are showing it.
Freedom? Does freedom mean coercing students to join your protest? Packing the capitol building with hopes of disrupting the process? Does freedom mean demanding more from taxpayers while giving them mediocre schools and education in return?
Democracy? The Governor and legislature were elected by the people and are therefore in office to do the people's business. You can protest all you want, but seeking to shut down the democratic process and silence your opponents by shouting them down is NOT democracy, nor does it represent freedom. And in yet another nod to tyranny, the democrat senators of Wisconsin have reverted to fugitive tactics and fled the state in order to avoid a vote and, yes, shut down the democratic process. They will not vote unless the law is changed, unless the Governor bends to will of the "workers", whether or not such action is supported by the majority of voters.
This is the union's idea of freedom. This is the democrat party's idea of democracy. Submit to our will or we will cripple the system. Damn the voters. Freedom! Democracy! Unions! Che Guevara would be proud, as would Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.
And just what is it that has the American Soviets so upset? The Governor is ending their collective bargaining (read: bullying) power, so that children in the public education system can no longer be held hostage by threat of teacher strikes and holdouts. He is requiring public workers to contribute to their own retirement plan (like the rest of us must do); he is requiring them to contribute to their health care plan (like the rest of us must do) and he is requiring ANY pay raise that exceeds the inflation rate to be approved by voter referendum. Imagine that, the people who foot the bill being given a little say-so in how much they have to pay! These measures will save the state a lot of money and go a long way to bridging the massive budget gap the people of Wisconsin face.
Unacceptable, say the Soviets. They want that budget gap closed by tax hikes, namely by hikes on those of us who are already asphyxiated by taxation so they can continue to draw their cush retirements, golden-plated health care benefits, ironclad job security, all while herding our kids through crappy, drug-infested schools and graduating them with barely enough ability to read and write, yet plenty of knowledge about Marxism and a "workers of the world unite" mentality.
I say it's about time something like this was done and I give the lawmakers of Wisconsin a standing ovation, and follow that by asking why is Texas not doing the same? I guess I'll be contacting my state senator soon. Until then, stand firm Governor! Let them protest. Let them threaten. Let them fight all they want, but whatever you don't let them intimidate you. We - the people of America - have had it with these bully tactics of the public service unions and we'll be bullied no more. Their days of gluttony on the backs of people like me are over. God bless you all, and be strong!!
The main target of his cuts are the public sector unions, a glutton of taxpayer dollars for decades. Actions like this have been needed long before now and it's refreshing to see a group of politicians finally step forward with tangible action to shrink the bloated bureaucracy that has crippled the taxpayers for years.
In response, the public sector workers - namely teachers - have shut down the school system, abandoned their students and gathered in massive protest at the state capitol. Their battle cry is "Freedom! Democracy! Unions!". Well, I guess two out of three aint bad, with a nod to Meatloaf. These people don't believe in freedom in any way, nor do they support democracy, but they very much believe in unions and they are showing it.
Freedom? Does freedom mean coercing students to join your protest? Packing the capitol building with hopes of disrupting the process? Does freedom mean demanding more from taxpayers while giving them mediocre schools and education in return?
Democracy? The Governor and legislature were elected by the people and are therefore in office to do the people's business. You can protest all you want, but seeking to shut down the democratic process and silence your opponents by shouting them down is NOT democracy, nor does it represent freedom. And in yet another nod to tyranny, the democrat senators of Wisconsin have reverted to fugitive tactics and fled the state in order to avoid a vote and, yes, shut down the democratic process. They will not vote unless the law is changed, unless the Governor bends to will of the "workers", whether or not such action is supported by the majority of voters.
This is the union's idea of freedom. This is the democrat party's idea of democracy. Submit to our will or we will cripple the system. Damn the voters. Freedom! Democracy! Unions! Che Guevara would be proud, as would Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.
And just what is it that has the American Soviets so upset? The Governor is ending their collective bargaining (read: bullying) power, so that children in the public education system can no longer be held hostage by threat of teacher strikes and holdouts. He is requiring public workers to contribute to their own retirement plan (like the rest of us must do); he is requiring them to contribute to their health care plan (like the rest of us must do) and he is requiring ANY pay raise that exceeds the inflation rate to be approved by voter referendum. Imagine that, the people who foot the bill being given a little say-so in how much they have to pay! These measures will save the state a lot of money and go a long way to bridging the massive budget gap the people of Wisconsin face.
Unacceptable, say the Soviets. They want that budget gap closed by tax hikes, namely by hikes on those of us who are already asphyxiated by taxation so they can continue to draw their cush retirements, golden-plated health care benefits, ironclad job security, all while herding our kids through crappy, drug-infested schools and graduating them with barely enough ability to read and write, yet plenty of knowledge about Marxism and a "workers of the world unite" mentality.
I say it's about time something like this was done and I give the lawmakers of Wisconsin a standing ovation, and follow that by asking why is Texas not doing the same? I guess I'll be contacting my state senator soon. Until then, stand firm Governor! Let them protest. Let them threaten. Let them fight all they want, but whatever you don't let them intimidate you. We - the people of America - have had it with these bully tactics of the public service unions and we'll be bullied no more. Their days of gluttony on the backs of people like me are over. God bless you all, and be strong!!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
No. 14: The US Military
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.
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)