Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
"Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." That was a famous quote by the pioneer of childhood indoctrination, Vladimir Lenin. Lenin knew that children were impressionable. That they have vulnerable minds that can be molded according to your political ideology. That's why he targeted the children. The survival of his beloved soviet state depended on the children being properly indoctrinated. No. 18 on my countdown of things Liberals don't believe is Education.
Education, as I define it, involves the teaching of fact. Fact is truth. There is no denying fact. There is no arguing it. Fact is fact and education is the teaching of fact. The three school subjects that deal predominantly with fact are Math, Science and English. 2+2 is 4. The earth's atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen. And a sentence requires a subject and a verb. These are facts. History also contains facts but you have to be careful here because history is something that is prone to opinion, which Liberals love to teach. I'm for teaching historical fact but strongly opposed to teaching opinion.
Liberals disagree. They see our education system as an opportunity to further their agenda. Young minds are ripe to be molded and so they've chosen our education system as ground zero for advancing the Liberal cause. And this is no doubt the source of the major problems that our education system faces. After all, it's hard for our kids to score well on standardized tests when they are being taught about American imperialism, the salvation of the New Deal, and the great philosophy of Chairman Mao. And when you have teachers scolding students for wearing their "Jesus goggles" then you can see which direction we're headed. The more time you spend furthering your politics, the less time you have to teach basic scientific, mathematical and historical fact.
It begins with teachers. Now, this is dangerous ground for a conservative because teachers are considered saintly in Liberal eyes. Criticizing teachers will immediately invite a skewering from the Left because teachers can do no wrong. The reality is that, like all other professions, there are good teachers and bad teachers. But try saying that to Liberal and prepare for a tongue-lashing. The same people who call for the lynching of Catholic priests who commit sex crimes within the church willingly turn away without a whimper when a teacher is caught doing the same thing. Teachers are saintly. They can do no wrong.
The problem is that the teachers unions have made it virtually impossible to weed out the bad teachers. Again, teachers can do no wrong. So the bad teachers are firmly entrenched in the education system and continue to teach children regardless how incompetent or ineffective they may be. Ask any administrator about the difficulty in firing a teacher and prepare yourself for a long story. If Liberals believed in education they would be in favor of getting rid of the bad teachers. But education and indoctrination are two very different things.
Then there's the immense power of the teachers unions. They have lots of money and they wield it effectively, almost all of it going to the coffers of the Left. In return, the Left looks after them. The longstanding American tradition has been to keep education local, funded locally, run by local officials. This trend was bucked when Jimmy Carter established the Dept of Education, and so began the federal gov't digging their grubby little hands into our education system. This was also about the time the teachers unions began to grow in power. The more power the feds have in education the easier it is to lobby and influence that power. Simply put, it's easy for a union to influence a few congressmen rather than have to influence multiple school districts that are funded and run independent of the feds.
The Left will say that money is the problem. We don't spend enough on education and we don't pay the saints who teach nearly enough. They ignore the fact that education spending has done nothing but increase over the past 2 decades. They ignore the fact that the US spends more per student than the nations whose children kick our butts on standardized tests. They ignore the fact that the more we spend on education, the poorer we perform. But then again, ignoring facts is a centerpiece in Liberal education.
Mention things like charter schools, private schools or school vouchers and the Liberal will give you another tongue-lashing. Again, they ignore the fact that these types of schools consistently outperform public schools despite having fewer resources and paying their teachers lower salaries. Seems to me that if Liberals wanted good education for our kids then they'd acknowledge these facts and do what they could to maximize the availability of these alternatives to the public system. But who cares about facts? The Liberals dig their heels in and demand more money for education while the teachers unions stand firmly behind them. And if you oppose more money, then you obviously don't care about the children.
Barack Obama believes in public education. One of his first actions as President was nullifying the D.C. voucher program. This program was enormously successful and very popular with many inner city parents. But education is a public matter. So the President killed the program, and then enrolled both of his children in a pricey, prominent local private school.
Common sense Americans see education as many things, one of those being a civil rights issue. John McCain called it the civil rights issue of our time during his 2008 campaign. There are many inner city students, many of them black, who are trapped in inner city schools simply because of their address or their zip code. These schools do nothing but fail. And by that I mean fail to teach. Of course, the students themselves pass, enough so that many kids graduate high school unable to spell their own name. These schools are riddled with crime, drugs and teenage pregnancy. Children who attend these schools aren't going to learn as much as they are going to survive. Learning math and science takes a backseat when your life is literally in danger. It's a shame. A travesty. No student should be forced into that kind of environment. Not in this country. Not ever.
That's why common sense Americans favor vouchers. Let the responsible inner city parents send their kids to their school of choice, where they can be safe, where they can learn, where they have a fighting chance to kill the vicious cycle of poverty by learning what they need to succeed in life and get out of the ghetto. No way, say the Liberals. Instead, they just want to dump more money into that failing inner city school. It's lack of funding that's the problem. And if you oppose this, then you don't care about the children, and you're probably a racist to boot.
In truth, the Liberals (and the teachers unions) know that once a voucher program kicks in then those failing schools will bleed students to more competent schools. The bad schools eventually collapse, leaving many teachers and administrators without a job. Even worse, vouchers would shift the power in our education system away from the government and the teachers unions and toward the parents. When the parents can take their child and their tax dollars out of a school, you'd better believe they will have more power. No way will the Liberal ever allow that.
Even more disastrous for the Liberal cause would be the likelihood that a voucher system would result in more success in our education system. More inner city students would thrive, would succeed in life, would escape the inner city and embark on illustrious careers. This is bad politics because people like that could become Republicans. No way will the Liberal ever allow that. Instead, it's best for those inner city kids to stay in the failing school, and stay in the ghetto where they belong, dependent on government aid (and the Democrat party).
Thus the focus in education is not education, but rather indoctrination. Keep the kids from learning fact, and instead teach them ideology. Keep them away from success and instead keep them dependent on the government. If they were to succeed they could potentially become free thinkers. That's a dangerous thing for the State. Lenin knew it, and so do Liberals.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
No. 19: Fairness
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
I remember growing up and playing many backyard baseball games. Despite their benign appearance, these games were often hotly contested. There are few things more competitive than preteen boys seeking neighborhood bragging rights. Despite the heated competition, the contests were remarkably civil. The rules were followed and there were few arguments. However, on occasion the issue of fairness would come up and it was usually out of frustration. The scene would play out something like this…the game is tied, it’s been a tough back-and-forth, both teams are playing hard. Suddenly one kid belts a homer over the fence to win the game. A kid on the other team, upset about losing, throws his glove to the ground and yells “that’s not fair, you cheated”. Of course we all knew that kid was full of it. The game was won fairly, there were no rules broken, he was just mad because he lost. Yet, that didn’t stop him from claiming injustice. Such is the perception in the mind of a child and a full-grown Liberal.
Sound familiar? Number 19 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe is Fairness.
When I talk about fairness in this post I am talking about it in its truest form. I clarify this because Liberals love to use fairness as a rallying cry for their platform. Fairness is a major motivator for them. They seek fairness. They impose laws to achieve fairness. They speak of fairness whenever they can. They use it to appeal to average voters because all common sense Americans are for fairness. The problem is they define fairness in a completely different manner. It has a different meaning to them. So when I say Liberals don’t believe in fairness I mean fairness as a typical common sense American would define it, not as a Liberal would define it.
Injustice is defined, in part, as the violation of the rights of others. Fairness is defined, in part, as being free from injustice. If the rights of others are violated it is unjust, and if injustice exists then it cannot be fair. Sounds simple enough. Well, not according to Liberals. Simplicity is not their forte. We’ll start with the tax system.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens. One person’s rights cannot be violated for the sake of another person’s rights, and all of our rights bare equal standing under the law regardless of who or what we are. So a common sense American would say that a fair tax system would be one in which all Americans paid the same percentage of their income to the government, or perhaps would be based on consumption rather than income. In such a scenario, I would pay something like 20% in federal income taxes, my neighbor would pay twenty percent, so would the guy down the street and the guy on the other side of town. Nothing would change that number. If my income went up, I would pay 20%. If my income went down, I would pay 20%. That’s fair.
Not so in the mind of Liberals. The Liberal says that everyone paying the same percentage is completely unfair, thus rewriting the definition of fairness altogether. In their minds if I make $1 million and my neighbor makes $10,000 then a fair tax system would be one structured so that after taxes we both end up with, say, fifty thousand bucks. That’s fair. Never mind all that injustice stuff. They understand that I have the right to pursue more income so long as I do it legally. And they understand that the Constitution doesn’t allow me to be singled out and taxed more severely simply because I am more successful in my pursuits and make more money than my neighbor. Singling me out based upon my success would violate my right to equal protection and thus would be unjust, and by definition unfair. Imposing higher percentage taxation on someone based upon success is discriminatory. So what? Say the Libs. Fairness in their eyes can only be defined by outcomes, not by the means in achieving those outcomes. It’s only fair if we all end up with equal amounts of stuff regardless of effort, talent or skill, so sayeth the social justice doctrine.
But the concept of fairness in Liberal minds goes way beyond taxation and redistribution of wealth. They’ve even titled one of their key pieces of legislation the Fairness Doctrine to echo their never ending pursuit of fairness. This law basically states that any political or news program must present both sides of a political argument so the people can hear the whole story. Equal time. That’s fair. And if you don’t comply then you can’t use the airwaves. You can be shut down. That’s fair.
The common sense American knows about freedom speech. We know we have the right to free speech, specifically the right to speak our political opinions without punitive government action. If we speak our political opinion and the government takes action to silence us then our rights have been violated. Violation of rights is unjust and thus, by definition, unfair. Hogwash, say the Liberals. Equal time is fair, even if you don’t want to hear the buffoon who lacks common sense, and even if we shut down the radio station for refusing to air that buffoon’s opinion. It’s fair. That’s why we call it the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a wonder they don’t call our graduated income tax the Fairness Tax.
Thomas Sowell said (loosely quoting) that few things have been as damaging as the word “fair”.
George Washington said that we are a nation of laws not of men. Ooh, the Liberals hate that.
We Americans know all about fairness. Our nation was founded on it. “All men are created equal…” were the words used to announce our new nation. We know fair when we see it. They can use the word all they want in attempts to deceive us, and they no doubt do so because they know how appealing fairness is to America. But don’t be deceived. There is nothing truly fair about the Liberal agenda, no matter how much they say so.
I remember growing up and playing many backyard baseball games. Despite their benign appearance, these games were often hotly contested. There are few things more competitive than preteen boys seeking neighborhood bragging rights. Despite the heated competition, the contests were remarkably civil. The rules were followed and there were few arguments. However, on occasion the issue of fairness would come up and it was usually out of frustration. The scene would play out something like this…the game is tied, it’s been a tough back-and-forth, both teams are playing hard. Suddenly one kid belts a homer over the fence to win the game. A kid on the other team, upset about losing, throws his glove to the ground and yells “that’s not fair, you cheated”. Of course we all knew that kid was full of it. The game was won fairly, there were no rules broken, he was just mad because he lost. Yet, that didn’t stop him from claiming injustice. Such is the perception in the mind of a child and a full-grown Liberal.
Sound familiar? Number 19 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe is Fairness.
When I talk about fairness in this post I am talking about it in its truest form. I clarify this because Liberals love to use fairness as a rallying cry for their platform. Fairness is a major motivator for them. They seek fairness. They impose laws to achieve fairness. They speak of fairness whenever they can. They use it to appeal to average voters because all common sense Americans are for fairness. The problem is they define fairness in a completely different manner. It has a different meaning to them. So when I say Liberals don’t believe in fairness I mean fairness as a typical common sense American would define it, not as a Liberal would define it.
Injustice is defined, in part, as the violation of the rights of others. Fairness is defined, in part, as being free from injustice. If the rights of others are violated it is unjust, and if injustice exists then it cannot be fair. Sounds simple enough. Well, not according to Liberals. Simplicity is not their forte. We’ll start with the tax system.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens. One person’s rights cannot be violated for the sake of another person’s rights, and all of our rights bare equal standing under the law regardless of who or what we are. So a common sense American would say that a fair tax system would be one in which all Americans paid the same percentage of their income to the government, or perhaps would be based on consumption rather than income. In such a scenario, I would pay something like 20% in federal income taxes, my neighbor would pay twenty percent, so would the guy down the street and the guy on the other side of town. Nothing would change that number. If my income went up, I would pay 20%. If my income went down, I would pay 20%. That’s fair.
Not so in the mind of Liberals. The Liberal says that everyone paying the same percentage is completely unfair, thus rewriting the definition of fairness altogether. In their minds if I make $1 million and my neighbor makes $10,000 then a fair tax system would be one structured so that after taxes we both end up with, say, fifty thousand bucks. That’s fair. Never mind all that injustice stuff. They understand that I have the right to pursue more income so long as I do it legally. And they understand that the Constitution doesn’t allow me to be singled out and taxed more severely simply because I am more successful in my pursuits and make more money than my neighbor. Singling me out based upon my success would violate my right to equal protection and thus would be unjust, and by definition unfair. Imposing higher percentage taxation on someone based upon success is discriminatory. So what? Say the Libs. Fairness in their eyes can only be defined by outcomes, not by the means in achieving those outcomes. It’s only fair if we all end up with equal amounts of stuff regardless of effort, talent or skill, so sayeth the social justice doctrine.
But the concept of fairness in Liberal minds goes way beyond taxation and redistribution of wealth. They’ve even titled one of their key pieces of legislation the Fairness Doctrine to echo their never ending pursuit of fairness. This law basically states that any political or news program must present both sides of a political argument so the people can hear the whole story. Equal time. That’s fair. And if you don’t comply then you can’t use the airwaves. You can be shut down. That’s fair.
The common sense American knows about freedom speech. We know we have the right to free speech, specifically the right to speak our political opinions without punitive government action. If we speak our political opinion and the government takes action to silence us then our rights have been violated. Violation of rights is unjust and thus, by definition, unfair. Hogwash, say the Liberals. Equal time is fair, even if you don’t want to hear the buffoon who lacks common sense, and even if we shut down the radio station for refusing to air that buffoon’s opinion. It’s fair. That’s why we call it the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a wonder they don’t call our graduated income tax the Fairness Tax.
Thomas Sowell said (loosely quoting) that few things have been as damaging as the word “fair”.
George Washington said that we are a nation of laws not of men. Ooh, the Liberals hate that.
We Americans know all about fairness. Our nation was founded on it. “All men are created equal…” were the words used to announce our new nation. We know fair when we see it. They can use the word all they want in attempts to deceive us, and they no doubt do so because they know how appealing fairness is to America. But don’t be deceived. There is nothing truly fair about the Liberal agenda, no matter how much they say so.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
No. 20: Common Sense
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
Some of the smartest people I know barely made it out of high school. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met have a wall full of diplomas and a long line of initials behind their name. Number 20 on the list is COMMON SENSE.
Common sense is something that is acquired through life not by lectures or reading books, but by experience. It's the experience of life that teaches us that familiar form of knowledge that we call common sense. You can't get it in a classroom.
Perhaps that's why Liberals don't understand common sense. To them it's a bit of a mystery and therefore probably doesn't exist. In the mind of a Liberal, if it can't be taught at Harvard or Berkeley then it isn't worth knowing. And as far as I know, there are no courses at Harvard entitled "Common Sense 101". Although it wouldn't be a bad idea. This is not to say that the highly educated lack common sense. No. But I am saying that wisdom and education are two completely different things and are not interchangeable terms.
In today's political environment we talk about common sense all the time. Often you hear your neighbors complain that Washington just doesn't get it, or is out of touch, or doesn't understand the common American. What these people are saying is that the politicians in Washington lack common sense. And since many of those politicians are Liberals, and many of them are also highly educated, the complaints your neighbors have are legitimate. Let's take a few political topics as examples.
When it comes to the economy, Liberals say tax more and spend more. This is Keynesian economics at its worst. Increase the public sector and you grow the economy. Keynes is taught a lot in our major universities but many of those learning it have never actually met a payroll or balanced a checkbook. You see where I'm going? Common sense says the US economy is so massive that no amount of government spending can grow it. Common sense says that if you tax a business owner, or require him to pay for his employees health care, or impose a minimum wage on him, or tack on any other union-sponsored employee benefit, then the ones who get hurt the most are the consumer. Increase the cost of business for a business owner and he either cuts costs (starting with personnel), stops hiring, or raises the price of his goods and services. These are the things they are less likely to teach at Harvard because it contradicts Keynesian theory, and the Liberals miss out on some important knowledge. So it's just assumed that if you increase the cost of doing business the business owner is simply going to eat that cost and everyone wins. There's nothing sensical about that.
In regards to health care, let's talk about supply and demand. Common sense tells us that if you increase the demand for a service without increasing the supply, then you essentially have a shortage. The Liberals think this is silly. They believe that flooding the health care sector with some 30 million newly insured folks who are suddenly gifted with free health care will result in great health for all. So their bill does nothing to address the supply thing, and they dismiss those of us who talk of rationing as obstructionist and silly fear-mongerers.
Most recently there is the unemployment package currently being debated in Congress. President Obama demands the GOP pass additional unemployment benefits right away. The GOP demands that those benefits be paid for before we pass them. Common sense says that part of the reason why so many people are unemployed is because the economy is bad, and part of the reason the economy is bad is because businesses aren't confident about the future, primarily because of our growing deficits and massive debt. Therefore, adding on to the debt with unpaid unemployment benefits isn't doing much good for the unemployed. Not so in the mind of Liberals who call the GOP insensitive and greedy for not helping the jobless.
And then there's the Tea Party. This is a group of citizens who stand on a platform of common sense: balanced budget, reduced spending, living within our means, adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law. The problem is that we Tea Party folks are just average folks. We get up and go to work everyday. We pay bills and scratch to save money and prepare for our future. We don't have fancy diplomas and therefore - in the eyes of Liberals - we're just a bunch of dumb rubes who don't understand the complicated things like government. It doesn't matter that we have to adhere to a strict budget every day. If we don't have a Harvard diploma then we don't have credibility. Common sense just aint enough.
But in my opinion the biggest reason why Liberals reject common sense boils down to their positive attitude towards Socialism. The Libs grew up on college campuses, playing the Sitar, quoting Neitsche (sp?), and swapping chemically induced philosophies about how the world should be. Therein lies the appeal of Socialism. The notion that all people would work together - not for themselves as individuals - but for the benefit of the collective. This is the fast track to utopia, heaven on earth. This is how we arrive at the glorious moment of everlasting peace, harmony and an end to suffering. It's a beautiful thing, if only we could realize such a beautiful dream. They bemoan the fact that socialism has gotten a bad rap because of bad leadership, that so many brutal dictators have been associated with it and thus people are too quick to dismiss it as evil. If only a leader could emerge who was compassionate and sensitive, understanding and empathetic, while at the same time implement socialism, then we would all see the glory in such a system. Sounds good on paper.
But common sense tells us that people aren't going to behave that way. I'm not going to work my can off so my neighbor can sit on his. Eventually, I'm gonna realize that I can sit on my can and get just as much. And if enough of us do this, well, the system implodes. That darn practicality thing is such a buzz kill.
And common sense tells us that socialism hasn't been victimized by brutal dictators, but rather the brutal dictators are more of a product of socialism itself. Simply put, people aren't going to consent to such a life unless there's an iron fist and a thick boot imposing it.
Oh phooey, say the Liberals. What do you know? You've never read Marx, or Neitsche. You don't understand, such a simple minded folk.
So the next time you are engaged in a discussion with a Liberal ask yourself if there is any common sense behind his argument. You may be surprised at what you find.
Some of the smartest people I know barely made it out of high school. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met have a wall full of diplomas and a long line of initials behind their name. Number 20 on the list is COMMON SENSE.
Common sense is something that is acquired through life not by lectures or reading books, but by experience. It's the experience of life that teaches us that familiar form of knowledge that we call common sense. You can't get it in a classroom.
Perhaps that's why Liberals don't understand common sense. To them it's a bit of a mystery and therefore probably doesn't exist. In the mind of a Liberal, if it can't be taught at Harvard or Berkeley then it isn't worth knowing. And as far as I know, there are no courses at Harvard entitled "Common Sense 101". Although it wouldn't be a bad idea. This is not to say that the highly educated lack common sense. No. But I am saying that wisdom and education are two completely different things and are not interchangeable terms.
In today's political environment we talk about common sense all the time. Often you hear your neighbors complain that Washington just doesn't get it, or is out of touch, or doesn't understand the common American. What these people are saying is that the politicians in Washington lack common sense. And since many of those politicians are Liberals, and many of them are also highly educated, the complaints your neighbors have are legitimate. Let's take a few political topics as examples.
When it comes to the economy, Liberals say tax more and spend more. This is Keynesian economics at its worst. Increase the public sector and you grow the economy. Keynes is taught a lot in our major universities but many of those learning it have never actually met a payroll or balanced a checkbook. You see where I'm going? Common sense says the US economy is so massive that no amount of government spending can grow it. Common sense says that if you tax a business owner, or require him to pay for his employees health care, or impose a minimum wage on him, or tack on any other union-sponsored employee benefit, then the ones who get hurt the most are the consumer. Increase the cost of business for a business owner and he either cuts costs (starting with personnel), stops hiring, or raises the price of his goods and services. These are the things they are less likely to teach at Harvard because it contradicts Keynesian theory, and the Liberals miss out on some important knowledge. So it's just assumed that if you increase the cost of doing business the business owner is simply going to eat that cost and everyone wins. There's nothing sensical about that.
In regards to health care, let's talk about supply and demand. Common sense tells us that if you increase the demand for a service without increasing the supply, then you essentially have a shortage. The Liberals think this is silly. They believe that flooding the health care sector with some 30 million newly insured folks who are suddenly gifted with free health care will result in great health for all. So their bill does nothing to address the supply thing, and they dismiss those of us who talk of rationing as obstructionist and silly fear-mongerers.
Most recently there is the unemployment package currently being debated in Congress. President Obama demands the GOP pass additional unemployment benefits right away. The GOP demands that those benefits be paid for before we pass them. Common sense says that part of the reason why so many people are unemployed is because the economy is bad, and part of the reason the economy is bad is because businesses aren't confident about the future, primarily because of our growing deficits and massive debt. Therefore, adding on to the debt with unpaid unemployment benefits isn't doing much good for the unemployed. Not so in the mind of Liberals who call the GOP insensitive and greedy for not helping the jobless.
And then there's the Tea Party. This is a group of citizens who stand on a platform of common sense: balanced budget, reduced spending, living within our means, adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law. The problem is that we Tea Party folks are just average folks. We get up and go to work everyday. We pay bills and scratch to save money and prepare for our future. We don't have fancy diplomas and therefore - in the eyes of Liberals - we're just a bunch of dumb rubes who don't understand the complicated things like government. It doesn't matter that we have to adhere to a strict budget every day. If we don't have a Harvard diploma then we don't have credibility. Common sense just aint enough.
But in my opinion the biggest reason why Liberals reject common sense boils down to their positive attitude towards Socialism. The Libs grew up on college campuses, playing the Sitar, quoting Neitsche (sp?), and swapping chemically induced philosophies about how the world should be. Therein lies the appeal of Socialism. The notion that all people would work together - not for themselves as individuals - but for the benefit of the collective. This is the fast track to utopia, heaven on earth. This is how we arrive at the glorious moment of everlasting peace, harmony and an end to suffering. It's a beautiful thing, if only we could realize such a beautiful dream. They bemoan the fact that socialism has gotten a bad rap because of bad leadership, that so many brutal dictators have been associated with it and thus people are too quick to dismiss it as evil. If only a leader could emerge who was compassionate and sensitive, understanding and empathetic, while at the same time implement socialism, then we would all see the glory in such a system. Sounds good on paper.
But common sense tells us that people aren't going to behave that way. I'm not going to work my can off so my neighbor can sit on his. Eventually, I'm gonna realize that I can sit on my can and get just as much. And if enough of us do this, well, the system implodes. That darn practicality thing is such a buzz kill.
And common sense tells us that socialism hasn't been victimized by brutal dictators, but rather the brutal dictators are more of a product of socialism itself. Simply put, people aren't going to consent to such a life unless there's an iron fist and a thick boot imposing it.
Oh phooey, say the Liberals. What do you know? You've never read Marx, or Neitsche. You don't understand, such a simple minded folk.
So the next time you are engaged in a discussion with a Liberal ask yourself if there is any common sense behind his argument. You may be surprised at what you find.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
No big surprise
Remember a few months back when Bart Stupak made a last second announcement that he and the President had come to an agreement regarding the health care bill? Stupak and several other "conservative" democrats were holding out until the legislation included a direct ban on federal funding for abortion. The libs in charge were never going to agree to that, so this issue looked to be the deal killer for Obamacare. And then, a last minute "deal" was struck. President Obama made a cross-my-heart-pinky-swear (also known as an executive order) to Stupak that they wouldn't spend any taxpayer dollars on abortion. Stupak no doubt made Obama say the "stickle a needle in my eye" stipulation as well. No taxpayer dollars for abortion.
That was good enough for Stupak, and so he switched his vote with the foolish notion that Obama would stay true to his word. Guess what. He was wrong.
Today we learn that federal taxpayer dollars are indeed being earmarked for abortions. No big surprise. Of course, the administration is silent on the issue. No word from Robert Gibbs beyond the usual verbal pauses, no comment from Kathleen Sebelius, no word from the Chief of Staff. Nothing. Which essentially proves what we all knew from the beginning, and what Stupak should have known...that executive orders are not enforceable and are useless when it comes to legislation. Obama never intended to keep taxpayer dollars away from abortions, he just needed a good sell to get Stupak's vote, making Stupak arguably the biggest Congressional sucker in the modern political era.
And it also confirms two other hunches that this blogger had: Barack Obama is a liar, and Bart Stupak is a coward.
That was good enough for Stupak, and so he switched his vote with the foolish notion that Obama would stay true to his word. Guess what. He was wrong.
Today we learn that federal taxpayer dollars are indeed being earmarked for abortions. No big surprise. Of course, the administration is silent on the issue. No word from Robert Gibbs beyond the usual verbal pauses, no comment from Kathleen Sebelius, no word from the Chief of Staff. Nothing. Which essentially proves what we all knew from the beginning, and what Stupak should have known...that executive orders are not enforceable and are useless when it comes to legislation. Obama never intended to keep taxpayer dollars away from abortions, he just needed a good sell to get Stupak's vote, making Stupak arguably the biggest Congressional sucker in the modern political era.
And it also confirms two other hunches that this blogger had: Barack Obama is a liar, and Bart Stupak is a coward.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
NAACP
Ah, the NAACP. What was once a valiant organization with a noble cause has now degraded into nothing more than a bunch of political hacks and character assassins. To put it simply, the NAACP has lost all credibility. No one listens to them anymore except for the extreme Left who still believe the nonsense they spew. That's the primary reason why George Bush stopped going to their annual convention. They simply lost relevance.
And now today we hear about the NAACP taking several days to vote to condemn the Tea Party on grounds of racism. My point has been made for me. Racism is slowly transforming from a significant domestic issue to a political one. It is becoming a political club that one group uses to bash the other. It has become a means of slander, a means of discrediting those with whom you disagree. And, to be honest, those who use the club to bash have absolutely no interest in ending racism. No way. It's too powerful a weapon for them to do away with it.
There is no evidence - none - that the Tea Party is racist. I count myself among them and would not if I ever saw a racial component to their message. But that doesn't matter. The NAACP disagrees with the Tea Party - primarily because the Tea Party opposes big entitlements - and therefore the NAACP must destroy the Tea Party. Time to get out the club.
Homicide is the leading cause of death in black males under the age of 24. Nearly 90% of those homicides are committed by other blacks. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise. 70 plus percent of all black children are born out of wedlock. Black men are deserting their families, their children. Drug abuse remains a major problem in the black community, as do high school dropout rates, abortion, unemployment, diabetes, heart disease and AIDS. Yet, topping the agenda for the NAACP is the Tea Party!
The NAACP ignores the neo-black panthers. They said nothing about the black panthers obstructing a polling station. They said nothing about Harry Reid predicting an Obama election victory because "he doesn't speak with a negro dialect". Nothing.
They condemn Rand Paul for objecting to a small portion of the Civil Rights Act, calling him racist. Yet, they LOVE Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman who once hated blacks and actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
They opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. They opposed Alan Keyes for Senate. They mock Michael Steele. Association for advancement of colored people? More like advancement of liberal colored people.
It's a joke. Any black American citizen should see that. There are serious problems in the black community and yet the NAACP does nothing to solve them except, of course, to blame the white man. I think it's about time for us to recognize the NAACP as a political organization and nothing more. They are true to ideology which trumps all. Equality is only a part of the cause if it fits within their ideology. Racism is only a part of the cause if it involves their political opponents. They are a political lobby group. What would Dr. King think? I think he'd say it's time we ignored groups like this if we are to unite as a nation and achieve true equality, true equal rights and a true end to racism once and for all.
Racism will never die so long as minority lobbyist organizations refuse to let it die in order to advance their political agenda.
And now today we hear about the NAACP taking several days to vote to condemn the Tea Party on grounds of racism. My point has been made for me. Racism is slowly transforming from a significant domestic issue to a political one. It is becoming a political club that one group uses to bash the other. It has become a means of slander, a means of discrediting those with whom you disagree. And, to be honest, those who use the club to bash have absolutely no interest in ending racism. No way. It's too powerful a weapon for them to do away with it.
There is no evidence - none - that the Tea Party is racist. I count myself among them and would not if I ever saw a racial component to their message. But that doesn't matter. The NAACP disagrees with the Tea Party - primarily because the Tea Party opposes big entitlements - and therefore the NAACP must destroy the Tea Party. Time to get out the club.
Homicide is the leading cause of death in black males under the age of 24. Nearly 90% of those homicides are committed by other blacks. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise. 70 plus percent of all black children are born out of wedlock. Black men are deserting their families, their children. Drug abuse remains a major problem in the black community, as do high school dropout rates, abortion, unemployment, diabetes, heart disease and AIDS. Yet, topping the agenda for the NAACP is the Tea Party!
The NAACP ignores the neo-black panthers. They said nothing about the black panthers obstructing a polling station. They said nothing about Harry Reid predicting an Obama election victory because "he doesn't speak with a negro dialect". Nothing.
They condemn Rand Paul for objecting to a small portion of the Civil Rights Act, calling him racist. Yet, they LOVE Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman who once hated blacks and actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
They opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. They opposed Alan Keyes for Senate. They mock Michael Steele. Association for advancement of colored people? More like advancement of liberal colored people.
It's a joke. Any black American citizen should see that. There are serious problems in the black community and yet the NAACP does nothing to solve them except, of course, to blame the white man. I think it's about time for us to recognize the NAACP as a political organization and nothing more. They are true to ideology which trumps all. Equality is only a part of the cause if it fits within their ideology. Racism is only a part of the cause if it involves their political opponents. They are a political lobby group. What would Dr. King think? I think he'd say it's time we ignored groups like this if we are to unite as a nation and achieve true equality, true equal rights and a true end to racism once and for all.
Racism will never die so long as minority lobbyist organizations refuse to let it die in order to advance their political agenda.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Re-emergence of quotas
An interesting story has recently begun circulating in regards to the Dodd-Frank Financial regulatory bill. Before I get to it, a few comments of my own. First, the bill does not address derivatives. Anyone with any economic sense understands the key role derivatives played in the housing sector collapse of '08. This involves the packaging and reselling of mortgages to big companies who take on the risk. If the company is really big and takes on a lot of risk then you get an AIG-like scenario. Derivatives are ignored in the bill.
Second, there is absolutely zero reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. None. Nada. Zip. Basically these two companies just continue doing business as usual if this bill gets passed. Again, anyone with any economic sense understands that Fannie Mae, perhaps more than any other company, played a major role in the housing collapse. Yet they get a free pass.
However, what is included is a reintroduction of hiring quotas. According to sectio 342, any financial company doing business with the federal government will be REQUIRED to employ a certain percentage of minority and women employees and these requirements will be overseen and enforced by 20 new government agencies. Yes, private companies will be FORCED to hire people based purely on gender and race. Does this in any way conform to our belief in equal rights and equal protection? Of course not. But this President and this Congress sees it differently.
This is a bad bill. The GOP will stand against it and they, of course, will be attacked for it. They'll be accused of standing up for Wall Street, placating to greed, looking out for big business, etc. Typical politics. No one would dare suggest the GOP is standing up for equality. Hopefully, reason and truth will prevail. Hopefully this bill will be killed.
Second, there is absolutely zero reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. None. Nada. Zip. Basically these two companies just continue doing business as usual if this bill gets passed. Again, anyone with any economic sense understands that Fannie Mae, perhaps more than any other company, played a major role in the housing collapse. Yet they get a free pass.
However, what is included is a reintroduction of hiring quotas. According to sectio 342, any financial company doing business with the federal government will be REQUIRED to employ a certain percentage of minority and women employees and these requirements will be overseen and enforced by 20 new government agencies. Yes, private companies will be FORCED to hire people based purely on gender and race. Does this in any way conform to our belief in equal rights and equal protection? Of course not. But this President and this Congress sees it differently.
This is a bad bill. The GOP will stand against it and they, of course, will be attacked for it. They'll be accused of standing up for Wall Street, placating to greed, looking out for big business, etc. Typical politics. No one would dare suggest the GOP is standing up for equality. Hopefully, reason and truth will prevail. Hopefully this bill will be killed.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Holder strikes again...
In today's news: The Justice Dept is now looking into the Oakland police trial, investigating whether or not federal law may have been violated.
To be clear. The police officer in question has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces up to 5 years in prison, and yet many people in Oakland feel that verdict is so unacceptable that they must riot and loot the city.
So the Justice Dept has decided to take a look. Hmmm. Why? Why this case? There are cases of involuntary manslaughter all over the country. Could it be because of race? Rest assured, had this officer accidentally killed a white man the Justice dept would hardly be getting involved.
To be clear. The police officer in question has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces up to 5 years in prison, and yet many people in Oakland feel that verdict is so unacceptable that they must riot and loot the city.
So the Justice Dept has decided to take a look. Hmmm. Why? Why this case? There are cases of involuntary manslaughter all over the country. Could it be because of race? Rest assured, had this officer accidentally killed a white man the Justice dept would hardly be getting involved.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Holder The (Not So) Wise
Interesting news. Eric Holder has filed suit against the state of Arizona for its recent immigration law.
This is the same man who is defending the US government in the health care case. The same man who dropped charges on the Black Panthers who were caught on film blocking access to a polling station and intimidating would-be voters.
So, according to Holder, if a cop in Arizona were to stop someone for a traffic violation it would be unConstitutional for the cop to demand proof of immigration status, yet completely acceptable for that person to be forced to purchase health insurance. And if that person were blocking access to a polling station then he couldn't be touched at all, especially if he were black.
That's the logic and wisdom of our current attorney general...the man who announced that the Arizona law was unconstitutional while also admitting that he had never read it. He refused to utter the words Islamic extremism so as not to offend anyone. And he felt it was wise to move the KSM trial to NYC at taxpayer cost to show-off the glory of the American justice system while he also potentially damaged his case by announcing that he would achieve a conviction and a death sentence for the 9/11 murderer.
That's Holder the Not-so Wise. Anyone else have trouble sleeping at night knowing this buffoon is in charge of our justice department?
This is the same man who is defending the US government in the health care case. The same man who dropped charges on the Black Panthers who were caught on film blocking access to a polling station and intimidating would-be voters.
So, according to Holder, if a cop in Arizona were to stop someone for a traffic violation it would be unConstitutional for the cop to demand proof of immigration status, yet completely acceptable for that person to be forced to purchase health insurance. And if that person were blocking access to a polling station then he couldn't be touched at all, especially if he were black.
That's the logic and wisdom of our current attorney general...the man who announced that the Arizona law was unconstitutional while also admitting that he had never read it. He refused to utter the words Islamic extremism so as not to offend anyone. And he felt it was wise to move the KSM trial to NYC at taxpayer cost to show-off the glory of the American justice system while he also potentially damaged his case by announcing that he would achieve a conviction and a death sentence for the 9/11 murderer.
That's Holder the Not-so Wise. Anyone else have trouble sleeping at night knowing this buffoon is in charge of our justice department?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The beginning of the End
Many years from now, when historians write and speak about the collapse of America, they will mention several different things. Some may speak about the Progressive Era in the 20th century that started the proverbial snowball rolling downhill. They'll bring up things like the TR trustbusting, the New Deal, the Great Society programs of the 60s, the social engineering programs of the 1990s. Some may look at the recession of 08-09 as the trigger. Still others may simply look at the decline in morality, the erosion of personal responsibility, the overall dependence of the citizens on the state. But I believe most will view all these things as a growing powder keg, that exploded in March 2010. I believe most historians will look at the patient protection act (or whatever it's called) as the beginning of the end of the great American empire.
That makes me sad. Very, very sad. Posting this entry is truly a difficult thing to do.
We find ourselves in a moment in time where we are on the brink of economic turmoil. Our economy, our treasury is on life support. This law has pulled the plug.
This is a time where we face $50 trillion in unfunded obligations to medicare and social security, $12 trillion in debt to others, a steadily growing annual deficit and unprecedented, indeed inconceivable levels of government spending. And now Moody's has recently suggested that the US triple-A credit rating may soon be in jeopardy.
This is a time where we have to make some difficult choices as a society, and those choices are centered around how, where and to what extent should we reduce our spending. They involve the obvious necessity to grow the economy in the private sector by reducing taxes on individuals so money can be injected into the economy, and by freeing businesses and corporations from their tax burden so they can increase their payrolls. These are the things that must be done now. Our major priority is controlling our deficit and reducing our debt load. If we don't do these things, we face disastrous economic consequences.
Instead, today we pass a law that declares health care a human right, and guarantees insurance for all Americans, along with many illegal immigrants. It raises taxes on many Americans, and increases the burden on businesses thereby killing more jobs. It makes the health insurance industry an arm of the federal government and grants unprecedented control of our lives to Washington politicians, and it empowers the IRS to enforce an unprecedented mandate that forces ALL citizens to purchase a particular product. My god, what are we doing?
Some people will applaud the law. There will be smiles of jubilation. Those people have absolutely no clue. No matter how much we may want to help those who need medical care, the simple unavoidable truth is that we can't afford it. We're broke! Nothing changes that fact, not even the clever manipulation of numbers by some politicians.
Our debt is unsustainable. The obligations we have promised to medicare and social security are unsustainable. Yet, we top all of that off with arguably the largest entitlement program ever enacted. What are these people thinking?
In the 30s, the massive federal spending of the New Deal turned the recession of 1929 into what we now know as the Great Depression, and it lasted an entire decade. What will happen this time around?
This is the beginning of the end. America's default on her debt is inevitable. Its default on her obligations to social security and medicare are inevitable. Hyperinflation and rising interest rates are on the horizon, and so will the rapid devaluation of our once-powerful currency. We are poised to witness the greatest wipeout of wealth in human history, and today's events set those events into an irreversible motion. In short, all hope for a recovery, for a restoration of this country to its prior greatness, is now and forever gone. We will never recover from this.
Those who disagree will learn of it on their own accord. Those who agree must remember that God is always in charge no matter what.
And Mr. Stupak, to thine own self be true. Only you know the details of your vote. And that, sir, is now between you and the Almighty.
God help you. God help us all.
That makes me sad. Very, very sad. Posting this entry is truly a difficult thing to do.
We find ourselves in a moment in time where we are on the brink of economic turmoil. Our economy, our treasury is on life support. This law has pulled the plug.
This is a time where we face $50 trillion in unfunded obligations to medicare and social security, $12 trillion in debt to others, a steadily growing annual deficit and unprecedented, indeed inconceivable levels of government spending. And now Moody's has recently suggested that the US triple-A credit rating may soon be in jeopardy.
This is a time where we have to make some difficult choices as a society, and those choices are centered around how, where and to what extent should we reduce our spending. They involve the obvious necessity to grow the economy in the private sector by reducing taxes on individuals so money can be injected into the economy, and by freeing businesses and corporations from their tax burden so they can increase their payrolls. These are the things that must be done now. Our major priority is controlling our deficit and reducing our debt load. If we don't do these things, we face disastrous economic consequences.
Instead, today we pass a law that declares health care a human right, and guarantees insurance for all Americans, along with many illegal immigrants. It raises taxes on many Americans, and increases the burden on businesses thereby killing more jobs. It makes the health insurance industry an arm of the federal government and grants unprecedented control of our lives to Washington politicians, and it empowers the IRS to enforce an unprecedented mandate that forces ALL citizens to purchase a particular product. My god, what are we doing?
Some people will applaud the law. There will be smiles of jubilation. Those people have absolutely no clue. No matter how much we may want to help those who need medical care, the simple unavoidable truth is that we can't afford it. We're broke! Nothing changes that fact, not even the clever manipulation of numbers by some politicians.
Our debt is unsustainable. The obligations we have promised to medicare and social security are unsustainable. Yet, we top all of that off with arguably the largest entitlement program ever enacted. What are these people thinking?
In the 30s, the massive federal spending of the New Deal turned the recession of 1929 into what we now know as the Great Depression, and it lasted an entire decade. What will happen this time around?
This is the beginning of the end. America's default on her debt is inevitable. Its default on her obligations to social security and medicare are inevitable. Hyperinflation and rising interest rates are on the horizon, and so will the rapid devaluation of our once-powerful currency. We are poised to witness the greatest wipeout of wealth in human history, and today's events set those events into an irreversible motion. In short, all hope for a recovery, for a restoration of this country to its prior greatness, is now and forever gone. We will never recover from this.
Those who disagree will learn of it on their own accord. Those who agree must remember that God is always in charge no matter what.
And Mr. Stupak, to thine own self be true. Only you know the details of your vote. And that, sir, is now between you and the Almighty.
God help you. God help us all.
Friday, March 05, 2010
"There's not been the same push as there was in August to encourage members to do town halls," said Stephanie Lundberg, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
That's a Hoyer spokeswoman replying to a question about the spring recess. Specifically, the question was asked about town hall meetings and a scenario in which the health care debate continued to drag into the spring recess.
This of course contradicts the Dem-Obama talking point that the American people oppose the health care bill simply because they don't understand it, or don't realize just how good it is for them. They have to tell themselves that because to admit that the public overwhelmingly opposes the bill yet "we're gonna do it anyway" is nothing short of tyrannical.
Obama would never do anything tyrannical would he?
That's a Hoyer spokeswoman replying to a question about the spring recess. Specifically, the question was asked about town hall meetings and a scenario in which the health care debate continued to drag into the spring recess.
This of course contradicts the Dem-Obama talking point that the American people oppose the health care bill simply because they don't understand it, or don't realize just how good it is for them. They have to tell themselves that because to admit that the public overwhelmingly opposes the bill yet "we're gonna do it anyway" is nothing short of tyrannical.
Obama would never do anything tyrannical would he?
Thursday, March 04, 2010
President Obama has nominated the brother of an undecided House Democrat to the Appeals Court.
A new kind of politics?
Hope and Change?
Somebody flush a toilet, because that's the only sound effect that applies.
A new kind of politics?
Hope and Change?
Somebody flush a toilet, because that's the only sound effect that applies.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Defining the Drones
In regards to my last post:
Yes, my post was loaded the cynicism and negativity. That is a reflection not just of my own personal opinions, but of many across the country. Some may dismiss the views as simple partisanship or ideology. My response to that is to say that I am an independent, and my ideology is one of traditional conservativism, that is the very ideology upon which America was founded. I am not bitter about a liberal getting elected President. I remember the Clinton years well and hardly felt any real concern about the future of America. This is very different. And I am not a doom-and-gloom pessimist. I take things as they come and comment on them accordingly.
I am hardly one to worry or wring my hands about what the boobs in Washington do, because in previous years ultimately the will of the people prevailed, which is exactly why I voiced so much concern in the last post. If a particular administration pursues a particular agenda with the consent of the people, that's fine. But when our elected leaders ignore and in some ways deliberately subvert the will of the people, then it's a legitimate cause for alarm. Because then we no longer live in a Republic, but are instead subjected to the tyrannical rule of a few hundred individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. If there are some who dismiss this as alarmist or over-reacting, then I don't know what else to say except open your eyes and look carefully at what's going on.
As for my "drones" comment. It is my belief that a significant number of people in America are seeking to radically redesign this democracy into something the Founders never intended. A best guess is 20% of the population. What they want is "economic justice", income redistribution both domestically and internationally, maximum government control over industry and commerce, and limited if not subserviant American involvement in foreign affairs. In short, these people seek full-blown socialism. They have great resources and lots of money. Many of them are in influential positions in our education system, our legal system, our political system, and the media. To them, the State is the supreme power. We all exist for the State. Everything we do, everything we produce is for the benefit of the State.
It is a powerful force, and yet they are at best 20% of the population. Hardly enough to make significant changes. So they utilize misinformation and half-truths to rally others around their cause. Those who rally are generally ignorant of the truth and tend to accept what they're told at face value without verifying for themselves. In many cases, the mistruths are easy to accept because they would benefit in some way if the mistruth were indeed true. Others find the cause fulfilling where their lives are otherwise empty or superficial (see Hollywood). And still others simply yearn for an earthly utopia and see the capitalists, the conservatives, the Republicans and pretty much anyone else who believes in true liberty as an obstruction in their path. These are the people I refer to as "drones".
They are ignorant of the truth, or simply choose to ignore it for their own benefit. Arguing with them is fruitless. Often they resort to the irrelevant emotional argument: We have to help the poor, the elderly, the children, we have to protect the planet. People are suffering, we must do something. And they use the same emotional arguments to demonize the opposition. Conservatives oppose program Y, therefore they hate group Z (those who would benefit from program Y). Or the play victomology. Group X was wronged by group Y and the State must make it right. Or they play the entitlement game. YOU have been victimized by society, WE will make it right. Or they play the class warfare game, feeding into people's envy, regret, or personal shortcomings, allowing blame to be placed on others. Lastly, they resort to personal attacks (I've been called everything from racist to homophobe to xenophobe and everything in between). These tactics are very effective and thus recruiting drones is rather easy even when the facts aren't on their side. You can't argue against these tactics except to point out the facts, which I will no longer do. They count on the ignorance of others to fuel the cause. I will count on the reader to investigate for themselves. Self-Enlightenment will be my counter-argument.
So I've decided to quit arguing with them. My opinions are based on fact, reason and common sense and it is no longer my inclination to repeatedly point that out. If I encounter a drone, or a socialist attempting to recruit drones, I will simply ignore them and seek discussion with open-minded individuals who value liberty and seek the truth. Likewise, there are certain issues that I will no longer argue because, again, the facts are on my side. When these issues come up, it will be easy to recognize them because the drones will be utilizing their time-tested tactics. And so I lay these issues to rest. No longer will I engage in those conversations.
Are you one of these drones? Below is a list I've compiled of certain things that the socialists have manufactured to rally folks to their cause. The list is incomplete, and I will certainly add to it. But if you find yourself agreeing with a great number of these lies and mistruths, then I would recommend a little more research, and remind you that I will no longer discuss them on this site.
If you believe in the following, then there is concern that others are defining your opinions for their own personal gain or for the gain of the State:
Human activity is causing the earth's climate to change.
Those with money are "fortunate", while those with less are "less fortunate".
The government is a provider.
Equal rights and equal outcomes are one in the same.
President Geoge W. Bush created the Recession of '08-'09 with his fiscal policy.
War is never necessary.
The United States is inherently flawed and must be radically changed.
The United States is a greedy nation and has done little to ease global suffering.
Capitalism only benefits a select few.
Crime is the result of society's short-comings.
The United States is an imperialistic nation.
The government is noble.
The government is compassionate.
It is possible to for the government to spend its way to economic prosperity.
Healthcare is a right.
Education is a right.
Childcare is a right.
Retirement security is a right.
Home ownership is a right.
Employment is a right.
Imposing limits on wages and salaries is noble.
Requiring a minimum wage is good for the economy.
Labor Unions look out for the workers.
The Tea Parties are nothing but "astroturf" movements.
ACORN was victimized by a setup.
GOP obstructionists offer no real ideas of their own.
Tax cuts reduce federal revenue.
Women do not get equal pay for equal work.
The KSM trial in Manhattan is a legitimate display of a fair justice system.
The NEA looks out for the students.
The AMA looks out for the patients.
Educating our children is the responsibility of the federal government.
Taxing the rich only hurts the rich, not the poor.
Government revenues increase with more taxes.
Those are just a few. If you're unsure about any of these statements, or if you believe them outright, then it's time to do a little research on your own.
Yes, my post was loaded the cynicism and negativity. That is a reflection not just of my own personal opinions, but of many across the country. Some may dismiss the views as simple partisanship or ideology. My response to that is to say that I am an independent, and my ideology is one of traditional conservativism, that is the very ideology upon which America was founded. I am not bitter about a liberal getting elected President. I remember the Clinton years well and hardly felt any real concern about the future of America. This is very different. And I am not a doom-and-gloom pessimist. I take things as they come and comment on them accordingly.
I am hardly one to worry or wring my hands about what the boobs in Washington do, because in previous years ultimately the will of the people prevailed, which is exactly why I voiced so much concern in the last post. If a particular administration pursues a particular agenda with the consent of the people, that's fine. But when our elected leaders ignore and in some ways deliberately subvert the will of the people, then it's a legitimate cause for alarm. Because then we no longer live in a Republic, but are instead subjected to the tyrannical rule of a few hundred individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. If there are some who dismiss this as alarmist or over-reacting, then I don't know what else to say except open your eyes and look carefully at what's going on.
As for my "drones" comment. It is my belief that a significant number of people in America are seeking to radically redesign this democracy into something the Founders never intended. A best guess is 20% of the population. What they want is "economic justice", income redistribution both domestically and internationally, maximum government control over industry and commerce, and limited if not subserviant American involvement in foreign affairs. In short, these people seek full-blown socialism. They have great resources and lots of money. Many of them are in influential positions in our education system, our legal system, our political system, and the media. To them, the State is the supreme power. We all exist for the State. Everything we do, everything we produce is for the benefit of the State.
It is a powerful force, and yet they are at best 20% of the population. Hardly enough to make significant changes. So they utilize misinformation and half-truths to rally others around their cause. Those who rally are generally ignorant of the truth and tend to accept what they're told at face value without verifying for themselves. In many cases, the mistruths are easy to accept because they would benefit in some way if the mistruth were indeed true. Others find the cause fulfilling where their lives are otherwise empty or superficial (see Hollywood). And still others simply yearn for an earthly utopia and see the capitalists, the conservatives, the Republicans and pretty much anyone else who believes in true liberty as an obstruction in their path. These are the people I refer to as "drones".
They are ignorant of the truth, or simply choose to ignore it for their own benefit. Arguing with them is fruitless. Often they resort to the irrelevant emotional argument: We have to help the poor, the elderly, the children, we have to protect the planet. People are suffering, we must do something. And they use the same emotional arguments to demonize the opposition. Conservatives oppose program Y, therefore they hate group Z (those who would benefit from program Y). Or the play victomology. Group X was wronged by group Y and the State must make it right. Or they play the entitlement game. YOU have been victimized by society, WE will make it right. Or they play the class warfare game, feeding into people's envy, regret, or personal shortcomings, allowing blame to be placed on others. Lastly, they resort to personal attacks (I've been called everything from racist to homophobe to xenophobe and everything in between). These tactics are very effective and thus recruiting drones is rather easy even when the facts aren't on their side. You can't argue against these tactics except to point out the facts, which I will no longer do. They count on the ignorance of others to fuel the cause. I will count on the reader to investigate for themselves. Self-Enlightenment will be my counter-argument.
So I've decided to quit arguing with them. My opinions are based on fact, reason and common sense and it is no longer my inclination to repeatedly point that out. If I encounter a drone, or a socialist attempting to recruit drones, I will simply ignore them and seek discussion with open-minded individuals who value liberty and seek the truth. Likewise, there are certain issues that I will no longer argue because, again, the facts are on my side. When these issues come up, it will be easy to recognize them because the drones will be utilizing their time-tested tactics. And so I lay these issues to rest. No longer will I engage in those conversations.
Are you one of these drones? Below is a list I've compiled of certain things that the socialists have manufactured to rally folks to their cause. The list is incomplete, and I will certainly add to it. But if you find yourself agreeing with a great number of these lies and mistruths, then I would recommend a little more research, and remind you that I will no longer discuss them on this site.
If you believe in the following, then there is concern that others are defining your opinions for their own personal gain or for the gain of the State:
Human activity is causing the earth's climate to change.
Those with money are "fortunate", while those with less are "less fortunate".
The government is a provider.
Equal rights and equal outcomes are one in the same.
President Geoge W. Bush created the Recession of '08-'09 with his fiscal policy.
War is never necessary.
The United States is inherently flawed and must be radically changed.
The United States is a greedy nation and has done little to ease global suffering.
Capitalism only benefits a select few.
Crime is the result of society's short-comings.
The United States is an imperialistic nation.
The government is noble.
The government is compassionate.
It is possible to for the government to spend its way to economic prosperity.
Healthcare is a right.
Education is a right.
Childcare is a right.
Retirement security is a right.
Home ownership is a right.
Employment is a right.
Imposing limits on wages and salaries is noble.
Requiring a minimum wage is good for the economy.
Labor Unions look out for the workers.
The Tea Parties are nothing but "astroturf" movements.
ACORN was victimized by a setup.
GOP obstructionists offer no real ideas of their own.
Tax cuts reduce federal revenue.
Women do not get equal pay for equal work.
The KSM trial in Manhattan is a legitimate display of a fair justice system.
The NEA looks out for the students.
The AMA looks out for the patients.
Educating our children is the responsibility of the federal government.
Taxing the rich only hurts the rich, not the poor.
Government revenues increase with more taxes.
Those are just a few. If you're unsure about any of these statements, or if you believe them outright, then it's time to do a little research on your own.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What's the point?
So, it has been a while since I last posted and yes the frequency of the posts on this site have dropped off a bit. The simple explanation is that if I posted every day as before this site would essentially become a great mass of negativity. That's because if I commented on current events on a daily basis, there would be very little positive to say. And I'm afraid if I wrote negative stuff on a daily basis it would start to affect me personally. So I'm just kicking back and watching.
And there's one other reason. I'm finding that it does very little good to argue sane points against an insane ideology. I'm beginning to understand that the people who hold liberal viewpoints have become immune to common sense, rational thought, fundamental logic and little things called facts. Ideology is all that matters to them, damn the truth. How do you argue against that? Well, you can't.
It's like having an alcoholic cousin. We all have one. You can reason with him, tell him how destructive alcohol is, plead with him to stop, etc, etc. But the truth is eventually it all becomes futile and the only thing you can do is step back let him hit rock bottom and discover the truths you've been preaching on his own. I guess that's the attitude I'm adopting with the neo-socialist ideology. These people are either power hungry politicians who want to rule the people or they are ignorant drones who vote for the power hungry politicians. It's fruitless to try to reason with them. So perhaps it's best if we just hit rock bottom and let the drones learn some tough life lessons.
Case in point: Health Care.
Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that will completely dismantle the world's greatest health care system. Afterward, they will stand in front of the cameras with big smiles, slobbering over and congratulating each other on the "historic" legislation. Oh yeah, it will be historic alright. History books will mention this one by name because America will never be the same afterward. The Left is ecstatic. The drones are pleased. All I can say is that what happens after this becomes law will be well-deserved. You are the fools who put these fools into office, so now you will reap the consequences.
By the time Mr. Obama prepares for a re-election bid our health care system will be a complete disaster. It may very well be the deciding factor in whether or not he even tries for re-election, if hyperinflation or a double-dip recession doesn't wipe out his prospects first. All doctors know this. As do most hospital administrators and other health care professionals. The shame of it all is that many Americans have no idea. The drones are clueless to what's about to be forced upon them by a deaf, cynical Congressional majority who has no regard for the will and well-being of the people. That makes me a little sad.
As for me and my family, I've already begun taking action to protect our health. We will be fine. But there are so many who are about to be blind-sided by this monstrosity of a law. There is a part of me that wants to take pity on them, but then I am reminded that I tried so many times. We all tried. My alcoholic cousin wouldn't listen, and neither would the drones. So rock bottom is a necessity. I'm thinking it's probably the only way to get the point across.
Remember, this is what you voted for. It's not the government's fault. It's not the "rich" folks' fault. You have no one to blame but yourselves. I won't say "I told you so". It won't be necessary. But I will be there ready to rebuild once our democracy crashes under the weight of our laziness, greed, lack of responsibility, and sense of entitlement. Until that moment arrives, I'm afraid this country is facing some tough times.
And there's one other reason. I'm finding that it does very little good to argue sane points against an insane ideology. I'm beginning to understand that the people who hold liberal viewpoints have become immune to common sense, rational thought, fundamental logic and little things called facts. Ideology is all that matters to them, damn the truth. How do you argue against that? Well, you can't.
It's like having an alcoholic cousin. We all have one. You can reason with him, tell him how destructive alcohol is, plead with him to stop, etc, etc. But the truth is eventually it all becomes futile and the only thing you can do is step back let him hit rock bottom and discover the truths you've been preaching on his own. I guess that's the attitude I'm adopting with the neo-socialist ideology. These people are either power hungry politicians who want to rule the people or they are ignorant drones who vote for the power hungry politicians. It's fruitless to try to reason with them. So perhaps it's best if we just hit rock bottom and let the drones learn some tough life lessons.
Case in point: Health Care.
Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that will completely dismantle the world's greatest health care system. Afterward, they will stand in front of the cameras with big smiles, slobbering over and congratulating each other on the "historic" legislation. Oh yeah, it will be historic alright. History books will mention this one by name because America will never be the same afterward. The Left is ecstatic. The drones are pleased. All I can say is that what happens after this becomes law will be well-deserved. You are the fools who put these fools into office, so now you will reap the consequences.
By the time Mr. Obama prepares for a re-election bid our health care system will be a complete disaster. It may very well be the deciding factor in whether or not he even tries for re-election, if hyperinflation or a double-dip recession doesn't wipe out his prospects first. All doctors know this. As do most hospital administrators and other health care professionals. The shame of it all is that many Americans have no idea. The drones are clueless to what's about to be forced upon them by a deaf, cynical Congressional majority who has no regard for the will and well-being of the people. That makes me a little sad.
As for me and my family, I've already begun taking action to protect our health. We will be fine. But there are so many who are about to be blind-sided by this monstrosity of a law. There is a part of me that wants to take pity on them, but then I am reminded that I tried so many times. We all tried. My alcoholic cousin wouldn't listen, and neither would the drones. So rock bottom is a necessity. I'm thinking it's probably the only way to get the point across.
Remember, this is what you voted for. It's not the government's fault. It's not the "rich" folks' fault. You have no one to blame but yourselves. I won't say "I told you so". It won't be necessary. But I will be there ready to rebuild once our democracy crashes under the weight of our laziness, greed, lack of responsibility, and sense of entitlement. Until that moment arrives, I'm afraid this country is facing some tough times.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Senate healthcare...a man-caused disaster
While scanning news sources I came across this article in the New York Post and had to link to it because nothing summarizes the Senate health care bill better. Below I have included the highlights of the article and the bill as it relates to deficit spending and massive growth of the national debt. But before I do, let me say that if you believe that Congress is doing all of this because they want to improve health care for people, provide for those who can’t help themselves and reduce health care costs, then you shouldn’t bother reading any further. You are what I call a “drone”, blinded by allegiance to ideology and completely unable to make an independent objective analysis of what’s happening in Washington. For those who are skeptical of D.C., read on.
First, the CBO has announced that the Senate health care bill fails to reduce healthcare costs, which is an improvement over the House bill that the CBO says will increase healthcare costs. For that reason alone, both bills should be canned. But it gets worse, much worse.
Soon-to-be-former senator Harry Reid says the Senate bill will cost $850 billion over ten years and that this will be budget neutral via higher taxes and cuts in Medicare. That’s a convenient and blatantly dishonest description, but Harry is rarely accused of having integrity. According to the Post, Harry has used a smoke-and-mirrors game to come up with a ten-year “budget neutral” bill. The trick is that the actual entitlement program doesn’t kick in until 2014. The first ten years therefore includes five years of no entitlement program, no massive spending. During that first five years, the tax hikes and medicare cuts will be enacted. So we begin paying before anything actually happens. 99% of the costs of the bill won’t kick in until after 2014.
So, the CBO calculated the “true” cost of the bill. That is, the first ten years of the actual healthcare entitlement (2014-2023). And, surprise, they found that the bill will cost an obscene $1.8 trillion – double what Harry is telling us. But there’s more.
During that same ten years, the Post reports that there will be $900 billion in tax increases.
Again, before any of this happens, before anyone actually gets healthcare, we will start paying right away. For starters, the Senate proposes to divert $800 billion for Medicare to help fund this monstrosity. Half of that amount will come from cuts in physician reimbursement. Beginning in 2011, Medicare will cut pay to physicians by 23%. Logically, this will lead to a mass “drop” of Medicare, as in doctors will stop taking patients who are covered by Medicare alone. Medicare will effectively become another Medicaid, where doctors who see those patients do so at a net loss. There is only so much room for those types of patients in any medical practice. Similar scenarios will develop in hospitals and nursing homes. Access to care for seniors on Medicare will vanish, until 2014 when they can all enroll in the government option. Yet, the CBO didn’t take this “unintended consequence” into account when determining its $1.8 trillion price tag. So the actual cost will be hard to imagine.
The rest of the money comes from tax increases, lots of them. There will be taxes on food, taxes on cosmetic surgery, taxes on private insurance policies. But the big one will be an increase in payroll taxes. This will come at a time when unemployment has eclipsed 10%. We cross our fingers and hope businesses will start hiring again, and then we slap those businesses with more payroll taxes that will only discourage hiring.
Already have health insurance? Get ready to pay more for it, a lot more. The Senate bill clearly bans insurance companies from disqualifying people with pre-existing conditions, or due to increased age. It also says that the insurance companies can’t charge these people more for insurance. They must charge all customers the same. Therefore, private insurance policies will increase in price dramatically. Those of us who have insurance will pay more for it in order to make up for those people whose insurance costs more to provide. That’s on top of the taxes that will be assessed on our private policies.
Get insurance from your employer? Don’t count on it. Employers will be slapped with more payroll taxes and will be required to provide health insurance (that will be costing more) for their employees or pay a fine to the federal government. Problem is, the fine is a lot cheaper than providing insurance. So smaller companies will dump their insurance plans and simply pay the fine, telling employees they have the option to enroll in the government program. This will further bloat the government program, another unintended consequence not factored in by the CBO.
And remember, the government option isn’t available until 2014. So, there is a very real possibility that for the next 5 years the number of uninsured will skyrocket and once the government opens its clinic doors it will be flooded by people seeking care. $1.8 trillion won’t begin to cover the cost.
If passed, this bill will be an economic disaster, one that ruins the best healthcare system and the strongest economy in the world all with one swoop. But Harry tells us it can work while Obama eagerly waits to sign any bill that hits his desk no matter how destructive. And the drones applaud because even though we destroy the economy and the healthcare sector, we will finally give healthcare to people who never earned it.
First, the CBO has announced that the Senate health care bill fails to reduce healthcare costs, which is an improvement over the House bill that the CBO says will increase healthcare costs. For that reason alone, both bills should be canned. But it gets worse, much worse.
Soon-to-be-former senator Harry Reid says the Senate bill will cost $850 billion over ten years and that this will be budget neutral via higher taxes and cuts in Medicare. That’s a convenient and blatantly dishonest description, but Harry is rarely accused of having integrity. According to the Post, Harry has used a smoke-and-mirrors game to come up with a ten-year “budget neutral” bill. The trick is that the actual entitlement program doesn’t kick in until 2014. The first ten years therefore includes five years of no entitlement program, no massive spending. During that first five years, the tax hikes and medicare cuts will be enacted. So we begin paying before anything actually happens. 99% of the costs of the bill won’t kick in until after 2014.
So, the CBO calculated the “true” cost of the bill. That is, the first ten years of the actual healthcare entitlement (2014-2023). And, surprise, they found that the bill will cost an obscene $1.8 trillion – double what Harry is telling us. But there’s more.
During that same ten years, the Post reports that there will be $900 billion in tax increases.
Again, before any of this happens, before anyone actually gets healthcare, we will start paying right away. For starters, the Senate proposes to divert $800 billion for Medicare to help fund this monstrosity. Half of that amount will come from cuts in physician reimbursement. Beginning in 2011, Medicare will cut pay to physicians by 23%. Logically, this will lead to a mass “drop” of Medicare, as in doctors will stop taking patients who are covered by Medicare alone. Medicare will effectively become another Medicaid, where doctors who see those patients do so at a net loss. There is only so much room for those types of patients in any medical practice. Similar scenarios will develop in hospitals and nursing homes. Access to care for seniors on Medicare will vanish, until 2014 when they can all enroll in the government option. Yet, the CBO didn’t take this “unintended consequence” into account when determining its $1.8 trillion price tag. So the actual cost will be hard to imagine.
The rest of the money comes from tax increases, lots of them. There will be taxes on food, taxes on cosmetic surgery, taxes on private insurance policies. But the big one will be an increase in payroll taxes. This will come at a time when unemployment has eclipsed 10%. We cross our fingers and hope businesses will start hiring again, and then we slap those businesses with more payroll taxes that will only discourage hiring.
Already have health insurance? Get ready to pay more for it, a lot more. The Senate bill clearly bans insurance companies from disqualifying people with pre-existing conditions, or due to increased age. It also says that the insurance companies can’t charge these people more for insurance. They must charge all customers the same. Therefore, private insurance policies will increase in price dramatically. Those of us who have insurance will pay more for it in order to make up for those people whose insurance costs more to provide. That’s on top of the taxes that will be assessed on our private policies.
Get insurance from your employer? Don’t count on it. Employers will be slapped with more payroll taxes and will be required to provide health insurance (that will be costing more) for their employees or pay a fine to the federal government. Problem is, the fine is a lot cheaper than providing insurance. So smaller companies will dump their insurance plans and simply pay the fine, telling employees they have the option to enroll in the government program. This will further bloat the government program, another unintended consequence not factored in by the CBO.
And remember, the government option isn’t available until 2014. So, there is a very real possibility that for the next 5 years the number of uninsured will skyrocket and once the government opens its clinic doors it will be flooded by people seeking care. $1.8 trillion won’t begin to cover the cost.
If passed, this bill will be an economic disaster, one that ruins the best healthcare system and the strongest economy in the world all with one swoop. But Harry tells us it can work while Obama eagerly waits to sign any bill that hits his desk no matter how destructive. And the drones applaud because even though we destroy the economy and the healthcare sector, we will finally give healthcare to people who never earned it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Fort Hood terrorist attack
How things have changed. I just saw a recent study on the three major news networks and it showed that the majority of the stories on the Fort Hood attack never mentioned the words "terror" or "Muslim". That's precisely why I don't watch the network news.
First, let's call it what it is. This was a calculated attack. An act of war. An act of Jihad. The man involved wasn't insane. He was an Islamic fundamentalist. He was a Jihadist who bought into the extremist notion that non-believers are the enemy, that anyone who opposes the extremist ideology should be killed. He didn't suffer from any disease. He didn't "just snap". He was well aware of what he was doing and he was doing it for a cause. Why some people have difficulty admitting that is beyond me.
This was the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Fourteen people were murdered in the name of Islamic fundamentalism because they were non-believers, because they were part of the "great satan".
Today, Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder. And as the father of one of the victims said...that's a good start. Hopefully, more charges will come. Now, we have learned that he has been wiring money to Pakistan. Once the FBI discovers that these wires were going to fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I expect him to be charged with treason. I would also like a 14th count of murder given the fact that one of the casualties was 2 months pregnant.
I could get into the questions of why this guy slipped through the cracks, but that is something that will be debated and discussed for a long time. Basically, my own military experience taught me that much of the military has inexplicably become political. The Pentagon is way too close to D.C. Political correctness has infected it as it has infected much of our society, even to the point where it has become dangerous. I know why Hasan was never investigated, nor identified as a potential threat. I saw the politics during my own time in the service. I'd be willing to bet that there were several people on the low end of the chain-of-command who sounded the alert, only to be squashed by their superiors. Anyone with recent military service will agree with me for they certainly saw it as well. There is no greater evidence of it than that seen in the Army Chief-of-Staff's statement about the attack, that it would be a greater tragedy if the Army lost its diversity.
A greater tragedy? Good grief.
This guy was in contact with Al Qaeda recruiters. He repeatedly denounced the US activity in the Middle East. He burst into repeated religious rants while counseling returning troops. He gave a medical lecture about the need to behead infidels, which included the statement that "we love death more than you love life". His business card included "Soldier of Allah". He cried Allahu Akbar while murdering the troops. He wired money to Pakistan even though his family was originally from Jordan. Yet, we want to focus on PTSD and bullying as an etiology for his action. This is what they do in Europe, afraid to acknowledge the problem. And that is why the problem over there has grown.
I also would like to see an end to the obligatory disclaimer that everyone inserts during their commentary. We've all heard it. "Not all Muslims are terrorists" or "there are many Muslims who serve with honor" or "Islam is a religion of peace". No kidding! Is this really necessary? Does this help? Are we so afraid of being painted with the bigot brush that we feel we have to issue this statement anytime we talk about terrorism? Give it a rest.
So the investigation will go on. Congress will probably have hearings. The pundits will discuss it for weeks. But I think plenty of damage has already been done. When the enemy is capable of infiltrating our own military and executing a deadly attack on defenseless troops, the majority of the media and many American citizens along with the Presidential administration lacks the courage to call it a terrorist attack by an Islamic fundamentalist. There is little that can demoralize our military more. If we lack the courage to name it, how on earth can we have the courage to confront and defeat it?
First, let's call it what it is. This was a calculated attack. An act of war. An act of Jihad. The man involved wasn't insane. He was an Islamic fundamentalist. He was a Jihadist who bought into the extremist notion that non-believers are the enemy, that anyone who opposes the extremist ideology should be killed. He didn't suffer from any disease. He didn't "just snap". He was well aware of what he was doing and he was doing it for a cause. Why some people have difficulty admitting that is beyond me.
This was the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Fourteen people were murdered in the name of Islamic fundamentalism because they were non-believers, because they were part of the "great satan".
Today, Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder. And as the father of one of the victims said...that's a good start. Hopefully, more charges will come. Now, we have learned that he has been wiring money to Pakistan. Once the FBI discovers that these wires were going to fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I expect him to be charged with treason. I would also like a 14th count of murder given the fact that one of the casualties was 2 months pregnant.
I could get into the questions of why this guy slipped through the cracks, but that is something that will be debated and discussed for a long time. Basically, my own military experience taught me that much of the military has inexplicably become political. The Pentagon is way too close to D.C. Political correctness has infected it as it has infected much of our society, even to the point where it has become dangerous. I know why Hasan was never investigated, nor identified as a potential threat. I saw the politics during my own time in the service. I'd be willing to bet that there were several people on the low end of the chain-of-command who sounded the alert, only to be squashed by their superiors. Anyone with recent military service will agree with me for they certainly saw it as well. There is no greater evidence of it than that seen in the Army Chief-of-Staff's statement about the attack, that it would be a greater tragedy if the Army lost its diversity.
A greater tragedy? Good grief.
This guy was in contact with Al Qaeda recruiters. He repeatedly denounced the US activity in the Middle East. He burst into repeated religious rants while counseling returning troops. He gave a medical lecture about the need to behead infidels, which included the statement that "we love death more than you love life". His business card included "Soldier of Allah". He cried Allahu Akbar while murdering the troops. He wired money to Pakistan even though his family was originally from Jordan. Yet, we want to focus on PTSD and bullying as an etiology for his action. This is what they do in Europe, afraid to acknowledge the problem. And that is why the problem over there has grown.
I also would like to see an end to the obligatory disclaimer that everyone inserts during their commentary. We've all heard it. "Not all Muslims are terrorists" or "there are many Muslims who serve with honor" or "Islam is a religion of peace". No kidding! Is this really necessary? Does this help? Are we so afraid of being painted with the bigot brush that we feel we have to issue this statement anytime we talk about terrorism? Give it a rest.
So the investigation will go on. Congress will probably have hearings. The pundits will discuss it for weeks. But I think plenty of damage has already been done. When the enemy is capable of infiltrating our own military and executing a deadly attack on defenseless troops, the majority of the media and many American citizens along with the Presidential administration lacks the courage to call it a terrorist attack by an Islamic fundamentalist. There is little that can demoralize our military more. If we lack the courage to name it, how on earth can we have the courage to confront and defeat it?
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Governor's races and NY 23
So here are my thoughts on yesterday's elections:
The independents have swung. The dems have dominated the last two elections the same way the GOP dominated those previous...by convincing the independents. I think these elections were a referendum on the economy, and the economy is not good. Not only that, but I think the independents made a statement that taxing and spending isn't the way to fix the economy. In Virginia, there was a 25 point swing - one quarter of the electorate. In New Jersey it was 20 points. And the exit polls showed overwhelming swing in independents from dem to GOP. McDonnell even won the more liberal areas of the state. If unemployment is still bad in a year (which I think it will be) and the economy is still lagging (ditto) then I think the independents will continue to reject the dems.
The Bush effect is dead. Bush is gone, and so is the dem's favorite scapegoat. Corzine repeatedly tried to hang George W. Bush around his opponent's neck and it didn't work. I wonder if President Obama took note of this?
The GOP must work with, not against, its base. I'm tired of hearing about the right wing base hurting the GOP. Scozzafava was selected by a group of career politicians without any input from the voters. As a result, the conservatives of NY 23 got a liberal candidate who was Left of even the democrat, thus clearing the way for a third party candidate that effectively split the vote. The conservatives simply didn't have a candidate. Had there been a primary, or even some opinion polls done, this could have been avoided. Hoffman lost by 3-4 pts, while DeDe carried about 5-6 pts even after she dropped out. If Hoffman had an R instead of an I beside his name maybe the outcome would be different. Who knows? At any rate, the base clearly rejected the liberal candidate because it was liberalism that damaged the party prior to 2006. Michael Steele and the GOP leaders have to wise up to the obvious. The GOP lost in '06 and '08 because they strayed from conservative ideals, NOT because they embraced them. The GOP leaders in NY 23 repeated that mistake and paid a big price, allowing a moderate dem to win the election.
Social issues aren't as important in a campaign. Deeds attacked McDonnell for being anti-abortion, and his close affiliation with the religious right. It didn't work. Hoffman ran on social issues rather than fiscal issues, and it failed. Yet, gay marriage loses on a ballot initiative. This is fascinating. Perhaps I've missed something here. I believe that most Americans share in relatively conservative social issues, but maybe they don't want them involved in politics. Maybe that's because many people adhere to the most basic of conservative principles, that we dictate the rules to the government, not vice versa, regardless of the issue. Perhaps conservatives don't want government involvement in social issues on either side of the aisle. I'm okay with that. Personally, I say let gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc be decided by individual states. The Left would never allow that. So while it's important to conservatives to have conservative values, those candidates shouldn't flaunt them, at least not as much as they flaunt their fiscal conservatism. McDonnell and Cristie ran on fiscal conservatism and won. Hoffman ran on social conservatism and lost. Again, I'm fine with that. I'll agree to keep the social issues up to the people if the Left will stipulate.
Once again, the people reject gay marriage. This time in blue-state Maine. We'll see how long it takes the Left to involve the courts. To reinforce the point above, does anyone believe that Maine would have elected a conservative candidate who ran on a platform of anti-gay marriage? Nope.
The Tea Parties were more than astroturf. Just ask John Corzine and Creigh Deeds. The tea parties were all about government restraint, and I think they were loud and clear yesterday. It will be interesting to see if the politicians continue to dismiss this movement or choose to actually listen to the fiscal concerns of the citizens.
There IS a litmus test for GOP candidates. I could vote for a pro-gun control candidate. Or a pro-gay marriage candidate. Or a pro-abortion candidate. But I would NEVER vote for a big government, big spending, high taxing candidate. Never. Both parties need to take this to heart because I am most definitely not alone. Social issues are important, and I would be encouraged to know that the candidate I support feels as I do on these issues. But the primary issue in today's politics revolves around the degree of government involvement in people's lives. Yesterday, the people rejected a long-reaching government. I think they did the same in '06 and '08 based on campaign rhetoric. There is no reason to think the same won't happen next year.
It's time to hold the Washington elites accountable. It's disturbing when a GOP candidate withdraws from an election and endorses a democrat candidate. That has a certain "good-ole-boy-network" odor to it. I get the feeling that many politicians, regardless of party, are just milking this thing for all it's worth. They say one thing in front of the camera, and behind closed doors pat each other on the back and laugh about the great con they're pulling on the common folk. Washington just seems like an ancient, exclusive country club that doesn't like the idea of newcomers intruding on their gig. See Sarah Palin, Ross Perot, Doug Hoffman, Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader for examples. The elites have a stranglehold on power and will resist any "we-the-people" revolt.
So, today I will write a check to the Chris Simcox campaign for Senate. He is running against John McCain in Arizona and I hope he wins. McCain is a fine and decent man, but I think he's lost touch with the common American. I encourage my fellow grassroots conservatives to do the same. If we can't form a third party, then let's redefine the GOP as a party of low taxes, limited government, free market solutions, energy independence, personal responsibility and strong national defense.
The social issues can be decided by the people. If government is involved, then the 6 principles above should govern any conservative party. I believe Chris Simcox adheres to those where John McCain has fallen short in the past.
The independents have swung. The dems have dominated the last two elections the same way the GOP dominated those previous...by convincing the independents. I think these elections were a referendum on the economy, and the economy is not good. Not only that, but I think the independents made a statement that taxing and spending isn't the way to fix the economy. In Virginia, there was a 25 point swing - one quarter of the electorate. In New Jersey it was 20 points. And the exit polls showed overwhelming swing in independents from dem to GOP. McDonnell even won the more liberal areas of the state. If unemployment is still bad in a year (which I think it will be) and the economy is still lagging (ditto) then I think the independents will continue to reject the dems.
The Bush effect is dead. Bush is gone, and so is the dem's favorite scapegoat. Corzine repeatedly tried to hang George W. Bush around his opponent's neck and it didn't work. I wonder if President Obama took note of this?
The GOP must work with, not against, its base. I'm tired of hearing about the right wing base hurting the GOP. Scozzafava was selected by a group of career politicians without any input from the voters. As a result, the conservatives of NY 23 got a liberal candidate who was Left of even the democrat, thus clearing the way for a third party candidate that effectively split the vote. The conservatives simply didn't have a candidate. Had there been a primary, or even some opinion polls done, this could have been avoided. Hoffman lost by 3-4 pts, while DeDe carried about 5-6 pts even after she dropped out. If Hoffman had an R instead of an I beside his name maybe the outcome would be different. Who knows? At any rate, the base clearly rejected the liberal candidate because it was liberalism that damaged the party prior to 2006. Michael Steele and the GOP leaders have to wise up to the obvious. The GOP lost in '06 and '08 because they strayed from conservative ideals, NOT because they embraced them. The GOP leaders in NY 23 repeated that mistake and paid a big price, allowing a moderate dem to win the election.
Social issues aren't as important in a campaign. Deeds attacked McDonnell for being anti-abortion, and his close affiliation with the religious right. It didn't work. Hoffman ran on social issues rather than fiscal issues, and it failed. Yet, gay marriage loses on a ballot initiative. This is fascinating. Perhaps I've missed something here. I believe that most Americans share in relatively conservative social issues, but maybe they don't want them involved in politics. Maybe that's because many people adhere to the most basic of conservative principles, that we dictate the rules to the government, not vice versa, regardless of the issue. Perhaps conservatives don't want government involvement in social issues on either side of the aisle. I'm okay with that. Personally, I say let gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc be decided by individual states. The Left would never allow that. So while it's important to conservatives to have conservative values, those candidates shouldn't flaunt them, at least not as much as they flaunt their fiscal conservatism. McDonnell and Cristie ran on fiscal conservatism and won. Hoffman ran on social conservatism and lost. Again, I'm fine with that. I'll agree to keep the social issues up to the people if the Left will stipulate.
Once again, the people reject gay marriage. This time in blue-state Maine. We'll see how long it takes the Left to involve the courts. To reinforce the point above, does anyone believe that Maine would have elected a conservative candidate who ran on a platform of anti-gay marriage? Nope.
The Tea Parties were more than astroturf. Just ask John Corzine and Creigh Deeds. The tea parties were all about government restraint, and I think they were loud and clear yesterday. It will be interesting to see if the politicians continue to dismiss this movement or choose to actually listen to the fiscal concerns of the citizens.
There IS a litmus test for GOP candidates. I could vote for a pro-gun control candidate. Or a pro-gay marriage candidate. Or a pro-abortion candidate. But I would NEVER vote for a big government, big spending, high taxing candidate. Never. Both parties need to take this to heart because I am most definitely not alone. Social issues are important, and I would be encouraged to know that the candidate I support feels as I do on these issues. But the primary issue in today's politics revolves around the degree of government involvement in people's lives. Yesterday, the people rejected a long-reaching government. I think they did the same in '06 and '08 based on campaign rhetoric. There is no reason to think the same won't happen next year.
It's time to hold the Washington elites accountable. It's disturbing when a GOP candidate withdraws from an election and endorses a democrat candidate. That has a certain "good-ole-boy-network" odor to it. I get the feeling that many politicians, regardless of party, are just milking this thing for all it's worth. They say one thing in front of the camera, and behind closed doors pat each other on the back and laugh about the great con they're pulling on the common folk. Washington just seems like an ancient, exclusive country club that doesn't like the idea of newcomers intruding on their gig. See Sarah Palin, Ross Perot, Doug Hoffman, Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader for examples. The elites have a stranglehold on power and will resist any "we-the-people" revolt.
So, today I will write a check to the Chris Simcox campaign for Senate. He is running against John McCain in Arizona and I hope he wins. McCain is a fine and decent man, but I think he's lost touch with the common American. I encourage my fellow grassroots conservatives to do the same. If we can't form a third party, then let's redefine the GOP as a party of low taxes, limited government, free market solutions, energy independence, personal responsibility and strong national defense.
The social issues can be decided by the people. If government is involved, then the 6 principles above should govern any conservative party. I believe Chris Simcox adheres to those where John McCain has fallen short in the past.
Monday, November 02, 2009
The dying GOP
I am amused at the parade of pundits who continue to insist the Republican party is on a nosedive because of a stubborn unwillingness to become more inclusive. Recent events in upstate New York have given these pundits more ammunition.
In that traditionally conservative district, the grand party got together in a smoke-filled room and nominated a committed liberal to run for Congress. Dede Scazzafava is a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Republican who supported Obama’s stimulus package back in February. Needless to say, when she was placed on the ballot, support for her was a bit subdued. The people in the district were once again placed in a position to choose between two liberals, one with an R beside her name, the other with a D.
Then there was Doug Hoffman, a member of the Conservative party, who is running as a true conservative, something the GOP used to stand for. He acquired some key endorsements from leaders of the conservative movement and suddenly his poll numbers surpassed those of Scazzafava, thus overcoming the old “third party can’t win” jinx. With dwindling support, the Republican bowed out and it now looks like a true conservative will win the election.
The liberal pundits love it. They see this as evidence that there is an internal war in the GOP. They criticize the party for not being more inclusive, not having a big tent. They criticize the party for “allowing” the conservative voices to have too much power. Basically, they criticize the GOP for not being more like the Democrats. In essence, the pundits want a two-party system consisting of an extremist liberal party and a moderate liberal party. There’s only one problem…voters.
Inside the beltway, GOP leaders drink the media kool-aid. They agree that the GOP needs to act more like Democrats. That’s why Gingrich, Michael Steele and John Boehner stood beside their liberal nominee. These guys, along with many others in DC, still haven’t gotten the message, and I think his endorsement of the liberal candidate will deal a crushing blow to any hopes he had of running for President in 2012, we’ll see.
The majority of Americans would consider themselves conservative over liberal, especially when it comes to fiscal policy. And the backlash over the ballooning federal deficit is further evidence of this. The pundits dismiss the backlash as Astroturf, and apparently the GOP leaders agree. Well, here are some numbers to munch on from an April 2009 CBS poll:
74% of Americans believe the government isn’t doing enough to control illegal immigration
51% feel that illegal immigrants should either be deported or placed in a guest worker program
63% feel that illegal immigration is too costly for the nation
52% favor building a border fence
76% oppose driver’s licenses for illegals
55% feel illegals should be turned over to the feds when arrested
72% disapprove of hiring quotas
68% feel that the poor have become too dependent on government assistance
67% feel that minorities are responsible for their own circumstances
51% are pro-life
79% are worried about harming the financial future of their children
53% support the death penalty
63% support immersion in English for illegals
33% support bilingual education
52% favor school vouchers
59% favor nuclear energy
74% favor offshore drilling
59% favor ANWR drilling
51% oppose cap-and-trade
77% feel the 2nd amendment protects gun ownership
57% feel that stricter gun laws would increase violent crimes
63% aren’t confident that Medicare will be available when they retire
61% feel the same about social security
52% oppose legalizing marijuana
56% believe social security is in crisis or serious trouble
36% believe health care is the government’s responsibility
Support for the Republican party is hemorrhaging. Leaders of the party seem to think it’s because they aren’t Democrat-enough. This is classic beltway thinking. They have no clue and refuse to acknowledge what the voters are clearly saying. The voters demand fiscal responsibility, plain and clear, and are more apt to have conservative values than liberal. That’s why the GOP was beat in 2006 and 2008, that’s why a “change” campaign won the White House, that’s why the tea party movement sprung up, that’s why Obama’s approval rating is dropping, and that’s why people refused to support yet another big-spending Republican who thought just having an R beside her name was enough to win the conservative vote. Well, no more!
The GOP is poised to become obsolete and if they choose to listen to the media pundits instead of the voters that’s exactly what will happen. I know many people who have abandoned that party, and not one of them says it’s because the party wasn’t inclusive enough. The GOP is losing support because they are too much like the Democrats, and until they start to bring some contrast to the progressives, that support will continue to erode.
In that traditionally conservative district, the grand party got together in a smoke-filled room and nominated a committed liberal to run for Congress. Dede Scazzafava is a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Republican who supported Obama’s stimulus package back in February. Needless to say, when she was placed on the ballot, support for her was a bit subdued. The people in the district were once again placed in a position to choose between two liberals, one with an R beside her name, the other with a D.
Then there was Doug Hoffman, a member of the Conservative party, who is running as a true conservative, something the GOP used to stand for. He acquired some key endorsements from leaders of the conservative movement and suddenly his poll numbers surpassed those of Scazzafava, thus overcoming the old “third party can’t win” jinx. With dwindling support, the Republican bowed out and it now looks like a true conservative will win the election.
The liberal pundits love it. They see this as evidence that there is an internal war in the GOP. They criticize the party for not being more inclusive, not having a big tent. They criticize the party for “allowing” the conservative voices to have too much power. Basically, they criticize the GOP for not being more like the Democrats. In essence, the pundits want a two-party system consisting of an extremist liberal party and a moderate liberal party. There’s only one problem…voters.
Inside the beltway, GOP leaders drink the media kool-aid. They agree that the GOP needs to act more like Democrats. That’s why Gingrich, Michael Steele and John Boehner stood beside their liberal nominee. These guys, along with many others in DC, still haven’t gotten the message, and I think his endorsement of the liberal candidate will deal a crushing blow to any hopes he had of running for President in 2012, we’ll see.
The majority of Americans would consider themselves conservative over liberal, especially when it comes to fiscal policy. And the backlash over the ballooning federal deficit is further evidence of this. The pundits dismiss the backlash as Astroturf, and apparently the GOP leaders agree. Well, here are some numbers to munch on from an April 2009 CBS poll:
74% of Americans believe the government isn’t doing enough to control illegal immigration
51% feel that illegal immigrants should either be deported or placed in a guest worker program
63% feel that illegal immigration is too costly for the nation
52% favor building a border fence
76% oppose driver’s licenses for illegals
55% feel illegals should be turned over to the feds when arrested
72% disapprove of hiring quotas
68% feel that the poor have become too dependent on government assistance
67% feel that minorities are responsible for their own circumstances
51% are pro-life
79% are worried about harming the financial future of their children
53% support the death penalty
63% support immersion in English for illegals
33% support bilingual education
52% favor school vouchers
59% favor nuclear energy
74% favor offshore drilling
59% favor ANWR drilling
51% oppose cap-and-trade
77% feel the 2nd amendment protects gun ownership
57% feel that stricter gun laws would increase violent crimes
63% aren’t confident that Medicare will be available when they retire
61% feel the same about social security
52% oppose legalizing marijuana
56% believe social security is in crisis or serious trouble
36% believe health care is the government’s responsibility
Support for the Republican party is hemorrhaging. Leaders of the party seem to think it’s because they aren’t Democrat-enough. This is classic beltway thinking. They have no clue and refuse to acknowledge what the voters are clearly saying. The voters demand fiscal responsibility, plain and clear, and are more apt to have conservative values than liberal. That’s why the GOP was beat in 2006 and 2008, that’s why a “change” campaign won the White House, that’s why the tea party movement sprung up, that’s why Obama’s approval rating is dropping, and that’s why people refused to support yet another big-spending Republican who thought just having an R beside her name was enough to win the conservative vote. Well, no more!
The GOP is poised to become obsolete and if they choose to listen to the media pundits instead of the voters that’s exactly what will happen. I know many people who have abandoned that party, and not one of them says it’s because the party wasn’t inclusive enough. The GOP is losing support because they are too much like the Democrats, and until they start to bring some contrast to the progressives, that support will continue to erode.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Afghanistan
Today the leaders of NATO endorsed the US strategy of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Similar endorsements have come from key members of the UN.
Two months ago, General McChrystal presented his request for 40,000 additional troops to implement the counter-insurgency strategy that has now been endorsed by these leaders. As of this post, President Obama has yet to commit to that strategy.
However, Rahm has gone on the talk-shows and blasted - who else - the Bush administration for not having an effective strategy in Afghanistan, thus leaving Obama to "start from scratch". We now know that as early as March of this year, President Obama presented his strategy on Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, it mirrored Bush's strategy of a surge-like counter-insurgency. Obama appointed McChrystal to execute the plan. McChrystal established his command and soon after delivered his assessment that implementing the strategy originally designed by the Bush administration, adopted by the Obama administration, and now endorsed by our European allies, would require 40,000 troops. All of a sudden, Obama isn't sure.
McChrystal is waiting. Our dedicated troops are waiting. Obama believes the decision should be put off until the next Afghan election (or, more likely, the gubernatorial elections in NJ and Virgina).
McChrystal has made it clear what he needs. Even the Europeans agree. Obama isn't sure. This is our commander-in-chief. And each day he delays, military morale plummets.
Obama has one of two options: 1) send the troops McChrystal has requested, 2) pack up and get out of Afghanistan. My fear is that it will be somewhere in between, ie 10-20,000 troops. Folks, this is exactly how Vietnam escalated.
If Obama fails to meet his General's request, then I think both McChrystal and Petraeus should resign. And I think they will.
God bless our troops who are fighting and dying while their commander-in-chief deliberates on whether or not to give them what they need to win.
Two months ago, General McChrystal presented his request for 40,000 additional troops to implement the counter-insurgency strategy that has now been endorsed by these leaders. As of this post, President Obama has yet to commit to that strategy.
However, Rahm has gone on the talk-shows and blasted - who else - the Bush administration for not having an effective strategy in Afghanistan, thus leaving Obama to "start from scratch". We now know that as early as March of this year, President Obama presented his strategy on Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, it mirrored Bush's strategy of a surge-like counter-insurgency. Obama appointed McChrystal to execute the plan. McChrystal established his command and soon after delivered his assessment that implementing the strategy originally designed by the Bush administration, adopted by the Obama administration, and now endorsed by our European allies, would require 40,000 troops. All of a sudden, Obama isn't sure.
McChrystal is waiting. Our dedicated troops are waiting. Obama believes the decision should be put off until the next Afghan election (or, more likely, the gubernatorial elections in NJ and Virgina).
McChrystal has made it clear what he needs. Even the Europeans agree. Obama isn't sure. This is our commander-in-chief. And each day he delays, military morale plummets.
Obama has one of two options: 1) send the troops McChrystal has requested, 2) pack up and get out of Afghanistan. My fear is that it will be somewhere in between, ie 10-20,000 troops. Folks, this is exactly how Vietnam escalated.
If Obama fails to meet his General's request, then I think both McChrystal and Petraeus should resign. And I think they will.
God bless our troops who are fighting and dying while their commander-in-chief deliberates on whether or not to give them what they need to win.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Why Doctors are Worried
I link to this column by Dr Marc Siegel. It's a great contrast to the bogus politics of the AMA and Obama's phony "white coat" gathering on the White House lawn. Dr. Siegel does a great job at voicing the opinion of the majority of doctors in this country who know what Obama's health care reform will do to our patients. Enjoy.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/doctors-heath-care-reform-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/doctors-heath-care-reform-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)