Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
A Looming Victory For Republicans and Conservatives
After the hugely disappointing loss to Obama for the White House on November 6, Republicans and conservatives got news today which shows that capturing the presidency isn't the be-all-and-end-all of political power in the United States.
Today, Michigan's Republican-dominated House of Representatives approved bills that will make that state the 24th right-to-work state in the country. Republican Governor Rick Snyder is poised to sign the bills into law within a few days, but union protestors are out in force trying to stop him, so it's not a done deal, yet. However, the shrillness, meanness, and irrationality of the protestors--they compared right-to-work supporters to Nazis and Japanese militarists--reveal desperation induced by impending defeat. So, yes, I think Republicans and conservatives can go ahead and celebrate.
The results of the presidential election caused much angst among conservatives and Republicans. Lost in the grieving was the reality that the GOP controls not only the majority of the nation's governorships but also the majority of the state legislators. That is power. And Republicans in Michigan have used that power to give freedom of choice to the workers of that state.
Celebrate good times! Come on!
Today, Michigan's Republican-dominated House of Representatives approved bills that will make that state the 24th right-to-work state in the country. Republican Governor Rick Snyder is poised to sign the bills into law within a few days, but union protestors are out in force trying to stop him, so it's not a done deal, yet. However, the shrillness, meanness, and irrationality of the protestors--they compared right-to-work supporters to Nazis and Japanese militarists--reveal desperation induced by impending defeat. So, yes, I think Republicans and conservatives can go ahead and celebrate.
The results of the presidential election caused much angst among conservatives and Republicans. Lost in the grieving was the reality that the GOP controls not only the majority of the nation's governorships but also the majority of the state legislators. That is power. And Republicans in Michigan have used that power to give freedom of choice to the workers of that state.
Celebrate good times! Come on!
Sunday, November 18, 2012
America: Not Worth An Iron Dome
Iron Dome.
Remember that name. That's the moniker of Israel's missile defense system that has shot down most of the rockets Hamas terrorists have been raining down on the Jewish state in recent days. The system was designed to intercept and destroy short range rockets and artillery shells. The Israelis recognized the need for a missile shield during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when Hezboallah fired more than 4000 rockets into northern Israel. With US financial backing, the Iron Dome defense system was developed and first deployed in in March of 2011. Since then it has shot down over 400 rockets, sparing Israeli civilians much suffering and death. Clearly, a missile defense system can work. But our newly reelected president doesn't believe America deserves one.
If you recall, in 2009 Obama cancelled plans to deploy an interceptor site and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic that would've protected America and its allies against a primarily Iranian missile threat. Obama cancelled the site and radar--and put America and it's allies at risk--in order to appease the Russians. The president thought it more important to "restart" our relationship with Moscow than do everything possible to protect the US. He also apparently thought that being liked by the Russians was more valuable than the goodwill America would've garnered from the Poles, Czechs, and other Europeans who would've been protected by the shield. So now, three years later, America (and her allies) have no defense against missiles from Iran or anyone else. Yet, Iron Dome shows that a missile shield can work. Yes, ID is designed for short-range projectiles, but it still shows that an anti-missile defense system can work. But America doesn't have one because it would make the Russians mad. So thinks Barak Obama.
I guess the people who reelected him forgot about that.
Remember that name. That's the moniker of Israel's missile defense system that has shot down most of the rockets Hamas terrorists have been raining down on the Jewish state in recent days. The system was designed to intercept and destroy short range rockets and artillery shells. The Israelis recognized the need for a missile shield during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when Hezboallah fired more than 4000 rockets into northern Israel. With US financial backing, the Iron Dome defense system was developed and first deployed in in March of 2011. Since then it has shot down over 400 rockets, sparing Israeli civilians much suffering and death. Clearly, a missile defense system can work. But our newly reelected president doesn't believe America deserves one.
If you recall, in 2009 Obama cancelled plans to deploy an interceptor site and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic that would've protected America and its allies against a primarily Iranian missile threat. Obama cancelled the site and radar--and put America and it's allies at risk--in order to appease the Russians. The president thought it more important to "restart" our relationship with Moscow than do everything possible to protect the US. He also apparently thought that being liked by the Russians was more valuable than the goodwill America would've garnered from the Poles, Czechs, and other Europeans who would've been protected by the shield. So now, three years later, America (and her allies) have no defense against missiles from Iran or anyone else. Yet, Iron Dome shows that a missile shield can work. Yes, ID is designed for short-range projectiles, but it still shows that an anti-missile defense system can work. But America doesn't have one because it would make the Russians mad. So thinks Barak Obama.
I guess the people who reelected him forgot about that.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
The Election
I'll admit it. I'm a coward. I'm not watching the election returns because it's too nerve wracking. The stakes in this election are higher than for any other presidential election in my life. And not only the presidency but the stakes for Congress are high as well. For the first time in my life I'm actually fearful of the outcome of a presidential election. When Obama ran in 2008 I was apprehensive about a victory for him because I knew he was way more radical than he was letting on. Still, I didn't know precisely how he'd govern so I wasn't scared of the idea of an Obama presidency. Now I know what Obama in power looks like, and that's why I'm scared, not just apprehensive, this time around. Four more years of Obama can damage this country almost beyond repair. I really believe that and that's why I'm too nervous to watch the returns. I will find out tomorrow who won tonight. I will listen to talk radio on the way to work and I will learn if sanity resides in the White House or if the lunatics are still in charge of the asylum.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Day 31
This started on October 1st but I just heard about it yesterday. And what is "it"? As of October 1st Medicare will fine hospitals for readmitting too many patients within 30 days. Yes, you read that right. If you've been discharged from the hospital but suffer a relapse or complications, your hospital will be penalized if it readmits you within a month. Up to 2200 facilities could be hit with fines as high as $125,000. This is one of Obamacare's cost-cutting measures. Some consumer advocates support this "reform" but critics say it could compromise health care for the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill because they are the people most likely to be readmitted.
This isn't how Obamacare was sold to us. During the contentious fight to pass the legislation, Americans were told that it would insure the uninsured, improve health care, reduce costs, and even create jobs. Now we see that Obamacare extends government control over how hospitals handle their patients. And this control has the potential to harm the most vulnerable among us, the very people liberals claim to care about the most.
This provision of the Affordable Care Act has only been in effect for a few weeks. It remains to be seen how it will play out. For now, Medicare is fining hospitals for readmissions on just three medical conditions: heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia, but that could change in the future. The whole thing is frightening. What if you develop complications after treatment and need to go back to the hospital? Would you have to keep a record of how many days it had been since your discharge? What if only 30 days had passed? Would you have to wait until day 31 to be readmitted? That could be one day too late. Welcome to government health care, America.
This isn't how Obamacare was sold to us. During the contentious fight to pass the legislation, Americans were told that it would insure the uninsured, improve health care, reduce costs, and even create jobs. Now we see that Obamacare extends government control over how hospitals handle their patients. And this control has the potential to harm the most vulnerable among us, the very people liberals claim to care about the most.
This provision of the Affordable Care Act has only been in effect for a few weeks. It remains to be seen how it will play out. For now, Medicare is fining hospitals for readmissions on just three medical conditions: heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia, but that could change in the future. The whole thing is frightening. What if you develop complications after treatment and need to go back to the hospital? Would you have to keep a record of how many days it had been since your discharge? What if only 30 days had passed? Would you have to wait until day 31 to be readmitted? That could be one day too late. Welcome to government health care, America.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
And The Winner Was...
...Romney!
It's been declared for almost a week now that Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate which took place last Wednesday night. I can't really say if that's true or not because I didn't watch the whole thing. I had to go to bed in the middle of the debate because I had to get up at 3am for work. On the way to work Thursday morning and on the way home from work Thursday afternoon the radio talk shows were all abuzz with debate analysis and reactions. Apparently some mainstream media commentators, particularly Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews, didn't take Obama's lackluster performance very well. On the other hand, some conservative radio talk show host were almost gloating. I think that's uncalled for. So Romney won the first debate; that's good, but there are two more debates to go and Obama can quickly get back on game. Conservatives should be praying that Romney will beat Obama in the next two rounds and gain the lead among independents, especially those in the swing states, that he needs to win. In other words, it ain't over till it's over. Save the gloating for November 7.
It's been declared for almost a week now that Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate which took place last Wednesday night. I can't really say if that's true or not because I didn't watch the whole thing. I had to go to bed in the middle of the debate because I had to get up at 3am for work. On the way to work Thursday morning and on the way home from work Thursday afternoon the radio talk shows were all abuzz with debate analysis and reactions. Apparently some mainstream media commentators, particularly Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews, didn't take Obama's lackluster performance very well. On the other hand, some conservative radio talk show host were almost gloating. I think that's uncalled for. So Romney won the first debate; that's good, but there are two more debates to go and Obama can quickly get back on game. Conservatives should be praying that Romney will beat Obama in the next two rounds and gain the lead among independents, especially those in the swing states, that he needs to win. In other words, it ain't over till it's over. Save the gloating for November 7.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Be BOLD!
Tomorrow the first of the three presidential debates if scheduled to take place. Due to my early work schedule I will miss most of it so I can get much needed sleep. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I suspect this debate is going to be a nail biter and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm up for the suspense. Of course, I want Romney to win but I fear he won't. I fear that Romney will play it safe and be "civil" to Obama so as not to appear racist, elitist, heartless, out of touch, and whatever else liberals' accuse him of being. I think that would be a big mistake. If I could offer Mitt Romney one piece of advice about tomorrow's debate it would be: BE BOLD!!!!
Be bold in the defense of free markets. Be bold in the defense of limited government. Be bold in the defense of patriotism. Be bold in the defense of border security. Be bold in the defense of religious freedom. Be bold in the defense of traditional marriage. Be bold in the defense of the unborn. In short, be bold in the defense of the conservative principles Romney claims to believe in.
Romney should debate to win and convert, not to impress the unimpressible. He must not water down his beliefs in order to curry favor with liberals or appear "nice". A bold, spirited, and unapologetic defense of conservative principles is the best way to sway doubters to the cause as well as rally the choir. Smart, aggressive, unashamed, conservatism. It's about time for that. Mr. Romney, it's about to BE BOLD!!!
Be bold in the defense of free markets. Be bold in the defense of limited government. Be bold in the defense of patriotism. Be bold in the defense of border security. Be bold in the defense of religious freedom. Be bold in the defense of traditional marriage. Be bold in the defense of the unborn. In short, be bold in the defense of the conservative principles Romney claims to believe in.
Romney should debate to win and convert, not to impress the unimpressible. He must not water down his beliefs in order to curry favor with liberals or appear "nice". A bold, spirited, and unapologetic defense of conservative principles is the best way to sway doubters to the cause as well as rally the choir. Smart, aggressive, unashamed, conservatism. It's about time for that. Mr. Romney, it's about to BE BOLD!!!
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
School Daze
It's that time of year.
The end of August and the beginning of September is when America's children head back to school. Most of these children will be going to public schools, including most children of conservatives. And that bothers me.
For decades conservatives have sounded the alarm about the academic failings and leftist social engineering plaguing public education. And for decades conservative parents have kept sending their children to public schools. Why? If public schools have become liberalism's madrassas, as Ann Coulter called them, why do conservative parents blithely entrust their children to them? What kind of sense does that make?
Yes, I understand that the main alternatives to public education, homeschooling and private schools, aren't feasible for some conservative parents. But I suspect that a lot of conservatives could home school or private school their kids but just aren't willing to make the sacrifices that would entail. They'd rather take the easier and cheaper way out and send little Johnny to public school, convincing themselves that he'll somehow escape the secular progressive indoctrination endemic there. He won't.
Polls show that the majority of younger Americans, those 30 and under, support Obama, while the majority of older Americans don't. Why this generation gap? Public schools. They have been shockingly successful at inculcating the PC, liberal, big government ideology into their captive audience of children. Conservatives know this, yet they keep giving public schools their kids. It makes me wonder how committed conservatives really are to the survival of their own principles.
I believe that if conservatives want their beliefs to not only survive but flourish then private education must become the norm for them. Public schools are hostile to conservative ideals and that isn't going to change any time soon. Entrusting their children to public education when they don't absolutely have to is, in my view, a failure of conservative parenting. It's like Abraham Lincoln said. The political philosophy in the classroom in one generation becomes the political philosophy of the country in the next generation. Conservatives can stop that "prophecy" dead in its tracks. Don't send little Johnny to the little red school house. Teach him at home or use private education. Aren't conservative ideals worth the sacrifice?
The end of August and the beginning of September is when America's children head back to school. Most of these children will be going to public schools, including most children of conservatives. And that bothers me.
For decades conservatives have sounded the alarm about the academic failings and leftist social engineering plaguing public education. And for decades conservative parents have kept sending their children to public schools. Why? If public schools have become liberalism's madrassas, as Ann Coulter called them, why do conservative parents blithely entrust their children to them? What kind of sense does that make?
Yes, I understand that the main alternatives to public education, homeschooling and private schools, aren't feasible for some conservative parents. But I suspect that a lot of conservatives could home school or private school their kids but just aren't willing to make the sacrifices that would entail. They'd rather take the easier and cheaper way out and send little Johnny to public school, convincing themselves that he'll somehow escape the secular progressive indoctrination endemic there. He won't.
Polls show that the majority of younger Americans, those 30 and under, support Obama, while the majority of older Americans don't. Why this generation gap? Public schools. They have been shockingly successful at inculcating the PC, liberal, big government ideology into their captive audience of children. Conservatives know this, yet they keep giving public schools their kids. It makes me wonder how committed conservatives really are to the survival of their own principles.
I believe that if conservatives want their beliefs to not only survive but flourish then private education must become the norm for them. Public schools are hostile to conservative ideals and that isn't going to change any time soon. Entrusting their children to public education when they don't absolutely have to is, in my view, a failure of conservative parenting. It's like Abraham Lincoln said. The political philosophy in the classroom in one generation becomes the political philosophy of the country in the next generation. Conservatives can stop that "prophecy" dead in its tracks. Don't send little Johnny to the little red school house. Teach him at home or use private education. Aren't conservative ideals worth the sacrifice?
Saturday, September 01, 2012
It's Really That Simple
Many conservatives realize the growing power of the Hispanic vote and are almost desperate to grab an election-winning piece of it. To do that some are opining that the GOP needs to move to the left on the issue of illegal immigration. No, they don't say it like that but that's what it boils down to. The GOP needs to ditch its "hardline", claim these conservatives, and soften its message. I say no. The GOP's position on illegal immigration is not hardline, nor is it complicated. In fact, it's quite simple; we just need a simple, direct explanation of it to Hispanics and anyone else who leans left on this issue. And I think I have it.
Imagine America is a store. Imagine you're the store owner. Like any businessman you love paying customers but hate shoplifters. Paying customers build your business up, so you welcome them. Shoplifters, on the other hand, tear your business down so you do anything you can to keep them out of your store. And no one would blame you for that. It's the same with immigration. Come to America legally, learn our language, respect our culture, i.e., be a "paying customer", and you'll be welcomed. Come to America illegally, impose your language on us, disrespect our culture, i.e., be a "shoplifter", and you will NOT be welcomed, nor should you expect to be. And that goes for foreign nationals of every race. That's the Republican position on immigration. It's really that simple.
What objection can you raise to that, liberals?
Imagine America is a store. Imagine you're the store owner. Like any businessman you love paying customers but hate shoplifters. Paying customers build your business up, so you welcome them. Shoplifters, on the other hand, tear your business down so you do anything you can to keep them out of your store. And no one would blame you for that. It's the same with immigration. Come to America legally, learn our language, respect our culture, i.e., be a "paying customer", and you'll be welcomed. Come to America illegally, impose your language on us, disrespect our culture, i.e., be a "shoplifter", and you will NOT be welcomed, nor should you expect to be. And that goes for foreign nationals of every race. That's the Republican position on immigration. It's really that simple.
What objection can you raise to that, liberals?
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Todd Akin And The Politics Of Hypocrisy
Everybody's talking about it. The "legitimate rape" statement made by Missouri Republican candidate for the Senate, Todd Akin. Democrats are salivating over his remark, believing it's given them
ammunition to defeat Akin and smear all Republicans as anti-women. Top Republicans, also scared of the impact of Akin's gaffe, are practically demanding that he withdraw from the Missouri race.
Yes, Todd Akin said something stupid, really stupid, but Democrats' sanctimonious furor over his statement is pure hypocrisy. Liberals are on the record belittling not just rape, but child rape. A little trip down memory lane will prove this.
Back in 2009 Hollywood movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and faced extradition back to America to face punishment for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl. Polanski had fled the US to avoid imprisonment for the crime. When news broke of his arrest liberal Hollywood rallied behind Polanski. Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and other notable directors signed a petition demanding his release. Other Hollywood celebrities, including Adrien Brody, Debra Winger, and Sigourney Weaver, voiced their support for the director. The most offensive statements made in Polanski's defense came from his friend, Swiss director Otto Weisser, and Whoopi Goldberg, one of the co-hosts of The View. Weisser referred to the attack as "a little mistake" and Goldberg claimed the crime "wasn't rape rape". Mind you, Weisser and Goldberg made their dismissive quips about an act of drugging and sodomizing a child.
Hollywood embraced a child rapist yet Democrats, whom Hollywood staunchly supports, felt no need to distance themselves nor their party from that community. They weren't disturbed in the least by Tinsel Town's casual attitude toward child rape. But now, three years later, Democrats are outraged by a crude but essentially harmless rape comment from a little-known Republican. Gee, could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with their indignation?
Todd Akin said something dumb, even weird, about rape, but he didn't rally around a child rapist or opine that such behavior wasn't all that bad. Hollywood liberals did do that yet Democrats happily continued their close relationship with them. And no one in the mainstream media called them on it. It proves the truth of a comment I read on the blog GayPatriot: "If it wasn't for double standards, [liberals and Democrats] would have no standards at all." Indeed.
Yes, Todd Akin said something stupid, really stupid, but Democrats' sanctimonious furor over his statement is pure hypocrisy. Liberals are on the record belittling not just rape, but child rape. A little trip down memory lane will prove this.
Back in 2009 Hollywood movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and faced extradition back to America to face punishment for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl. Polanski had fled the US to avoid imprisonment for the crime. When news broke of his arrest liberal Hollywood rallied behind Polanski. Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and other notable directors signed a petition demanding his release. Other Hollywood celebrities, including Adrien Brody, Debra Winger, and Sigourney Weaver, voiced their support for the director. The most offensive statements made in Polanski's defense came from his friend, Swiss director Otto Weisser, and Whoopi Goldberg, one of the co-hosts of The View. Weisser referred to the attack as "a little mistake" and Goldberg claimed the crime "wasn't rape rape". Mind you, Weisser and Goldberg made their dismissive quips about an act of drugging and sodomizing a child.
Hollywood embraced a child rapist yet Democrats, whom Hollywood staunchly supports, felt no need to distance themselves nor their party from that community. They weren't disturbed in the least by Tinsel Town's casual attitude toward child rape. But now, three years later, Democrats are outraged by a crude but essentially harmless rape comment from a little-known Republican. Gee, could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with their indignation?
Todd Akin said something dumb, even weird, about rape, but he didn't rally around a child rapist or opine that such behavior wasn't all that bad. Hollywood liberals did do that yet Democrats happily continued their close relationship with them. And no one in the mainstream media called them on it. It proves the truth of a comment I read on the blog GayPatriot: "If it wasn't for double standards, [liberals and Democrats] would have no standards at all." Indeed.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Using Liberal Logic...
...gunman Floyd Corkins isn't responsible for attacking the Family Research Council yesterday.
Corkins wounded security guard Leo Johnson in a shooting spree he committed at the conservative Christian organization's headquarters Wednesday. He was armed with a 9mm handgun and had two magazines, 50 rounds of ammo, and 15 Chick-Fill-A sandwiches. And therein lies the rub.
Corkins act of violence was apparently motivated by liberal politics. He sympathized greatly with the gay community (it's unknown at this time whether Corkins himself is gay). He recently volunteered at The DC Center for the LGBT Community and, according to a statement made by his parents, had "strong opinions" about people who opposed gay rights. As we all know, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fill-A, recently went public with his support for traditional marriage. The Family Research Council received a small donation from Chick-Fill-A a few years ago and has been certified a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That, apparently, was all Corkins needed to target the group.
Using liberal logic, the Southern Poverty Law Center and everyone else who indulges in "hate group" rhetoric are really to blame for Corkins' crime. Labeling an organization a hate group clearly sends the message that that group, and the people who comprise it, don't belong in society, doesn't it? The steady mantra of "Hater! Hater! Hater!" flung at supporters of traditional marriage creates a climate of intolerance towards those people, doesn't it? It sends, doesn't it, the message that traditionalists, especially the Christian ones, can and even should be treated with the utmost disdain. And it's a only a small step from disdain to gun violence, is it not? Using liberal logic, the answer is a resounding, yes!
So Corkins' political crime isn't really his fault. He was virtually forced to do it by the climate of anti-Christian hostility created by liberal "hate group" and "bigot" rhetoric. Who's to blame for the shooting at the Family Research Council? The Southern Poverty Law Center is to blame. The Human Rights Campaign is to blame. NOW is to blame. Dan Savage is to blame. Barney Frank is to blame. Hollywood is to blame. Everyone and every group who share Floyd Corkins views are to blame. Using liberal logic, you can't conclude anything else.
Corkins wounded security guard Leo Johnson in a shooting spree he committed at the conservative Christian organization's headquarters Wednesday. He was armed with a 9mm handgun and had two magazines, 50 rounds of ammo, and 15 Chick-Fill-A sandwiches. And therein lies the rub.
Corkins act of violence was apparently motivated by liberal politics. He sympathized greatly with the gay community (it's unknown at this time whether Corkins himself is gay). He recently volunteered at The DC Center for the LGBT Community and, according to a statement made by his parents, had "strong opinions" about people who opposed gay rights. As we all know, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fill-A, recently went public with his support for traditional marriage. The Family Research Council received a small donation from Chick-Fill-A a few years ago and has been certified a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That, apparently, was all Corkins needed to target the group.
Using liberal logic, the Southern Poverty Law Center and everyone else who indulges in "hate group" rhetoric are really to blame for Corkins' crime. Labeling an organization a hate group clearly sends the message that that group, and the people who comprise it, don't belong in society, doesn't it? The steady mantra of "Hater! Hater! Hater!" flung at supporters of traditional marriage creates a climate of intolerance towards those people, doesn't it? It sends, doesn't it, the message that traditionalists, especially the Christian ones, can and even should be treated with the utmost disdain. And it's a only a small step from disdain to gun violence, is it not? Using liberal logic, the answer is a resounding, yes!
So Corkins' political crime isn't really his fault. He was virtually forced to do it by the climate of anti-Christian hostility created by liberal "hate group" and "bigot" rhetoric. Who's to blame for the shooting at the Family Research Council? The Southern Poverty Law Center is to blame. The Human Rights Campaign is to blame. NOW is to blame. Dan Savage is to blame. Barney Frank is to blame. Hollywood is to blame. Everyone and every group who share Floyd Corkins views are to blame. Using liberal logic, you can't conclude anything else.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Conspiracy?
So, I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday. It was open line Friday and wasn't very interesting, actually. But then Rush related something he'd heard from another source (sorry, didn't catch the source). This source speculated that rising unemployment could help Obama in November. I know. That sounds totally counterintuitive. How could a worsening economy help Obama? But Rush explained it. He pointed out that more and more unemployed and underemployed people means more and more people looking to government for help. And who is promising more and more government entitlements? Obama! People who are on the edge, scared, and feeling like there's no hope can be very susceptible to Obama's class warfare, government-is-here-to-help-you message. Such people would be very tempted to vote for benefits over values. That's how a weakening economy could help the president on election day. And I'm sure the preceding scenario hasn't escaped Obama and his team. So, is Obama deliberately letting, or even making, the economy run down to help his re-election chances? I don't want to be conspiratorial but I can't put anything past the current occupant of the White House.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Devil Came To Court Today
James Eagan Holmes, the 24-year-old "alleged" shooter in the horrific theater massacre which occurred Friday, had his first day in court today. Holmes sat in court looking dazed and darkly clownish in his outrageously dyed red-orange hair. As I looked at Holmes on tv I became deeply disturbed by the realization that this evil man's face and name will become more well-known that those of his victims, which included 3 children (two injured, one killed). Perhaps that's just the inevitable result of the judicial process working itself out. After all, that process is public and should be. Grieving for and remembering the victims is private, and should be. Still, it seems like there should be some kind of way of acknowledging the victims' lives during the time that James Holmes will be in the public eye. Why should the victims die in obscurity while Holmes lives in notoriety? I don't have an answer to my own question. Perhaps there isn't one. Unless a victim is already famous, e.g.Sharon Tate, mass killers like Holmes just seem to end up more renowned than their prey. That's an injustice that not even the death penatly can rectify.
The devil came to court today. Damn him!!!!!!
The devil came to court today. Damn him!!!!!!
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Just What Will This Mean?
It's been about two weeks now since the Supreme Court upheld Obama's health care reform law and I'm still trying to digest it. The Court's decision certainly wasn't expected by me and the more I think about it it seems more and more shady. I'm starting to wonder if all is at it seems here.
The Court found the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", constitutional which seems like a straight forward victor for Obama, but the way the Court found Obamacare constitutional poses problems for the president. The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare by defining the most hated part of the law, the individual mandate, as a tax in contrast to the administration's 3 year long insistence that it was not. So now the president's victory will force him and his supporters to sell this newly defined tax to a nation that hates taxes even more than big government. In short, his "victory" has Obama in a bind.
I've heard speculation from conservative talking heads that this conundrum for Obama may have been planned. I've heard that Chief Justice Roberts was being "crazy like a fox" with his decision, making Obamacare constitutional but in a way that a) put Obama on the spot and b) gave Republicans a weapon to deploy against him in the election. And it energized the conservative/Republican base to boot. Some conservative talking heads seem to think that the Supreme Court's decision not only isn't so bad but is a net positive for Republicans. Sorry, but I'm just not feeling it.
Yes, the Court's decision energized the conservative/Republican base, which is good, but that's the only good thing I see in it. I don't see calling the individual mandate a tax as a good thing at all. Sure, it gives the Republicans a weapon against Obama but I fear that it also expands the taxation power of Congress. By labeling the individual mandate a tax the high Court set a precedent that makes Congress' taxation power pretty much limitless when it is intended to control behavior. Think about it. The federal government passes a law that forces Americans to buy health insurance and financially punishes them if they don't, and the Supreme Court says the law is constitutional because the financial punishment is a "tax". The feds can now "tax" us for not doing pretty much anything they tell us to do.That's frightening, and my fear is not assuaged just because this expansion of federal power has energized the base.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm glad, thrilled actually, the conservative/Republican base is energized like it hasn't been since the Tea Party protests of 2009-2010. We need that energy to get out our message and, more importantly, our vote. But if we fall short in November, despite all this new energy, and fail to oust Obama from the White House and the Senate Dems from their majority, Obamacare will remain the law of the land. What then? Will conservatives/Republicans have enough energy to keep fighting this insidious law? Will we have enough energy to use uncomfortable (for us) tactics, e.g. civil disobedience, if necessary? We don't know the answer to those questions and that scares me as much as the federal government's unprecedented power grab.
So, what does this all mean? Where will the Supreme Court's decision lead? It will lead, I believe, to either the restoration of American freedom and self-reliance or to the transformation of America as Obama promised. I want the restoration of America, not Obama's Marxist-inspired "change". Conservatives/Republicans can restore America if we choose to. We have the energy, but do we have the tenacity to win? Time will tell, and I pray it's on our side.
The Court found the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", constitutional which seems like a straight forward victor for Obama, but the way the Court found Obamacare constitutional poses problems for the president. The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare by defining the most hated part of the law, the individual mandate, as a tax in contrast to the administration's 3 year long insistence that it was not. So now the president's victory will force him and his supporters to sell this newly defined tax to a nation that hates taxes even more than big government. In short, his "victory" has Obama in a bind.
I've heard speculation from conservative talking heads that this conundrum for Obama may have been planned. I've heard that Chief Justice Roberts was being "crazy like a fox" with his decision, making Obamacare constitutional but in a way that a) put Obama on the spot and b) gave Republicans a weapon to deploy against him in the election. And it energized the conservative/Republican base to boot. Some conservative talking heads seem to think that the Supreme Court's decision not only isn't so bad but is a net positive for Republicans. Sorry, but I'm just not feeling it.
Yes, the Court's decision energized the conservative/Republican base, which is good, but that's the only good thing I see in it. I don't see calling the individual mandate a tax as a good thing at all. Sure, it gives the Republicans a weapon against Obama but I fear that it also expands the taxation power of Congress. By labeling the individual mandate a tax the high Court set a precedent that makes Congress' taxation power pretty much limitless when it is intended to control behavior. Think about it. The federal government passes a law that forces Americans to buy health insurance and financially punishes them if they don't, and the Supreme Court says the law is constitutional because the financial punishment is a "tax". The feds can now "tax" us for not doing pretty much anything they tell us to do.That's frightening, and my fear is not assuaged just because this expansion of federal power has energized the base.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm glad, thrilled actually, the conservative/Republican base is energized like it hasn't been since the Tea Party protests of 2009-2010. We need that energy to get out our message and, more importantly, our vote. But if we fall short in November, despite all this new energy, and fail to oust Obama from the White House and the Senate Dems from their majority, Obamacare will remain the law of the land. What then? Will conservatives/Republicans have enough energy to keep fighting this insidious law? Will we have enough energy to use uncomfortable (for us) tactics, e.g. civil disobedience, if necessary? We don't know the answer to those questions and that scares me as much as the federal government's unprecedented power grab.
So, what does this all mean? Where will the Supreme Court's decision lead? It will lead, I believe, to either the restoration of American freedom and self-reliance or to the transformation of America as Obama promised. I want the restoration of America, not Obama's Marxist-inspired "change". Conservatives/Republicans can restore America if we choose to. We have the energy, but do we have the tenacity to win? Time will tell, and I pray it's on our side.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Happy 4th of July, Friends!
Hi friends! I hope all of you are having a blessed, safe, and meaningful holiday. God bless all of you and God bless our great Republic!
Thursday, June 28, 2012
A Pyrrhic Victory?
Dick Morris said it best: Obama won the battle but lost the war. That was Morris' assessment of the Supreme Court's shocking decision today upholding Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare". On the surface this is a big victory for Obama, but it can and will ultimately prove his undoing. Just a few hours after the ruling Romney had received nearly $3,000,000 in campaign donations. Yes, the Republican base is fired up and ready to take down Obamacare by taking down Obama. The president's big victory may be one big backfire. But I'm getting tired; need to get to bed. More on the Supreme Court's decision anon.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Raaaaaacist!
So, I heard today that former president Jimmy Carter severely criticized Barak Obama, accusing him if violating human rights in fighting the War on Terror. Now from the moment Obama was elected president liberals have promulgated the notion that it's racist to dare oppose him. No critic can possibly be motivated by genuine policy or ideological differences with the Anointed One. Oh, no. Racism is the only motive anyone can truly have for "disrespecting" Obama. So, now that Jimmy Carter has lashed out at Obama he will be in for stern, hysterical accusations of racism from liberals any minute now. This ought to be good. Waiting, waiting, waiting...
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Had This Been Michelle Obama...
...there would've been riots in the streets.
Ok, maybe not riots in the streets, but there would've been shrill accusations of racism by the usual suspects had any Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata to bits with a baseball bat. But let Donna Dewitt, Democrat-supporting president of South Carolina's AFL/CIO, whack a pinata with the face of South Carolina's Indian-American governor, Nikki Haley, and the self-appointed protectors of minorities are deafeningly silent. Hmmmm. Are we supposed to believe that Donna Dewitt's hateful antics were just an expression of political disagreement with Gov. Haley? Would liberals accept such an explanation if a Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata? Of course not. And we conservatives and Republicans shouldn't accept such an explanation for Ms. Dewitt's shameful "fun". It's time we started calling progressives out on their racism and their hypocrisy. If they get it thrown back in their faces often enough maybe they'll be put on the defensive for a change and will be forced to retreat from their favorite political weapon: yelling 'raaaaaacist!" And that can only be a good thing for the country, especially for successful non-white Americans like Gov. Nikki Haley whose triumphs reveal how much America has overcome the poison of racism. It's high time progressives were made to see that.
Ok, maybe not riots in the streets, but there would've been shrill accusations of racism by the usual suspects had any Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata to bits with a baseball bat. But let Donna Dewitt, Democrat-supporting president of South Carolina's AFL/CIO, whack a pinata with the face of South Carolina's Indian-American governor, Nikki Haley, and the self-appointed protectors of minorities are deafeningly silent. Hmmmm. Are we supposed to believe that Donna Dewitt's hateful antics were just an expression of political disagreement with Gov. Haley? Would liberals accept such an explanation if a Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata? Of course not. And we conservatives and Republicans shouldn't accept such an explanation for Ms. Dewitt's shameful "fun". It's time we started calling progressives out on their racism and their hypocrisy. If they get it thrown back in their faces often enough maybe they'll be put on the defensive for a change and will be forced to retreat from their favorite political weapon: yelling 'raaaaaacist!" And that can only be a good thing for the country, especially for successful non-white Americans like Gov. Nikki Haley whose triumphs reveal how much America has overcome the poison of racism. It's high time progressives were made to see that.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Remember
Enjoying the three day weekend and am eternally grateful to all the fighting men whose ultimate sacrifice allows me to enjoy it in peace and freedom. Have a meaningful Memorial Day.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Double Tap
Have you seen the movie Zombieland? It's a horror comedy about four people fighting to survive a plague of zombies that's infecting the land. The protagonist of the film is a college student named Columbus, played by the adorable Jesse Eisenberg. Columbus has created many rules to help him survive in this post-apocalyptic, zombie infested America. One of his rules is that when killing zombies always do a "double tap", that is hit or shoot zombies in the head twice to make sure they're dead. The double tap is a good rule for offing the walking dead but it's a terrible and terribly unfair rule for collecting taxes, but it's a rule our friendly federal government is inflicting on certain citizens of our (once?) great Republic. And just who are the targets of the income tax double tap? The eeeeeevil rich.
Rich Americans endure a federal double tap on their income. You'd never know this from the shrill class warfare rhetoric pouring from Obama and company, but it's true. The dastardly "rich", those Americans making over $200,000 a year, pay a 33%-35% federal income tax rate on their earned income. If they invest some of their earned income and make a profit, that investment income, aka capital gains, is taxed at a rate as high as 25%, depending on what the investment is. So, the income rich people earn from their jobs--yes, most rich people work--is taxed. Then any profit made from investing that already taxed earned income is also taxed. Can you say, "Double tap!". I knew you could.
So now you know. The eeeeevil, blood sucking rich not only pay their fair share in federal income taxes, they pay twice. But we 99 per centers shouldn't gloat. The government, certainly not the federal government, shouldn't be taking anyone's money. It's ours. We earned it by the sweat of our brow. The income tax, however, effectively abrogates our ownership of the fruits of our labor. It transfers that ownership to the government and makes us wards of the state, living on however much of our labor the state decides we deserve. And most of us meekly submit to this statist thievery, even arguing about how to make it "fairer". That's like arguing how to make muggings fairer.
The income tax must be abolished. No one's income, however substantial, should be confiscated by Uncle Sam. It's ours. We earned it. It belongs to us.
Tapping is for zombies.
Rich Americans endure a federal double tap on their income. You'd never know this from the shrill class warfare rhetoric pouring from Obama and company, but it's true. The dastardly "rich", those Americans making over $200,000 a year, pay a 33%-35% federal income tax rate on their earned income. If they invest some of their earned income and make a profit, that investment income, aka capital gains, is taxed at a rate as high as 25%, depending on what the investment is. So, the income rich people earn from their jobs--yes, most rich people work--is taxed. Then any profit made from investing that already taxed earned income is also taxed. Can you say, "Double tap!". I knew you could.
So now you know. The eeeeevil, blood sucking rich not only pay their fair share in federal income taxes, they pay twice. But we 99 per centers shouldn't gloat. The government, certainly not the federal government, shouldn't be taking anyone's money. It's ours. We earned it by the sweat of our brow. The income tax, however, effectively abrogates our ownership of the fruits of our labor. It transfers that ownership to the government and makes us wards of the state, living on however much of our labor the state decides we deserve. And most of us meekly submit to this statist thievery, even arguing about how to make it "fairer". That's like arguing how to make muggings fairer.
The income tax must be abolished. No one's income, however substantial, should be confiscated by Uncle Sam. It's ours. We earned it. It belongs to us.
Tapping is for zombies.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The Myth Of Income Inequality
There's a myth stalking America. It's the myth of income inequality, and it's dangerous. This myth is being used by progressives to divide Americans, stoke the fires of envy and class warfare, and promote anti-liberty, socialistic policies totally contrary to the principles of our Founding Fathers.
It's time to debunk this myth.
There is no income inequality in America. How can I say that, some might ask, in light of the blatant fact that Americans earn differing sums of money? I don't deny income differences. Of course they exist, and that's ok. It's ok for people to earn different levels of income. What's not ok is labeling those income differences an "inequality".
It's not an inequity for one person to make more money than another. Saying that it is implies that differing income levels are the result of some deliberate institutional injustice which government must intervene to correct. Wrong. Disparities in income result primarily from the choices of individuals, that is, from freedom.
People are different. They have different personalities, abilities, values, goals, and life experiences. Consequently, people make vastly divergent life decisions. These decisions then impact the financial success, or lack there of, people will have in their lives. A college graduate will be richer than a high school graduate who, in turn, will be richer than a high school dropout. And that's as it should be. Freedom, and the life choices it allows individuals to make, matters. Progressive believers in the income inequality myth hate that.
Progressives' concept of "social justice" rejects equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome. For now, the progressive utopians can't engineer society so that everyone earns the same amount of money regardless of their job. Instead, they seek to impose economic "equality" through wealth redistribution, i.e., government taking from the "rich" and distributing the booty to the "poor" via government programs. It's pretty obvious how the myth of income inequality facilitates the progressives' redistribution scheme. Arguing for economic and individual freedom over redistribution can be denounced as "anti-equality". By lambasting "income inequality", progressives can claim the moral high ground while pursuing a policy that will bankrupt the nation.
Income inequality is an ideologically motivated hoax. It doesn't exist. What exists in American society are income differences determined by the life choices of individuals, choices made possible by the blessing of freedom. I want to keep that freedom, even if it means I don't earn as much money as Bill Gates. Freedom means much more to me than money, which is why I totally reject the myth of income inequality. How about you?
It's time to debunk this myth.
There is no income inequality in America. How can I say that, some might ask, in light of the blatant fact that Americans earn differing sums of money? I don't deny income differences. Of course they exist, and that's ok. It's ok for people to earn different levels of income. What's not ok is labeling those income differences an "inequality".
It's not an inequity for one person to make more money than another. Saying that it is implies that differing income levels are the result of some deliberate institutional injustice which government must intervene to correct. Wrong. Disparities in income result primarily from the choices of individuals, that is, from freedom.
People are different. They have different personalities, abilities, values, goals, and life experiences. Consequently, people make vastly divergent life decisions. These decisions then impact the financial success, or lack there of, people will have in their lives. A college graduate will be richer than a high school graduate who, in turn, will be richer than a high school dropout. And that's as it should be. Freedom, and the life choices it allows individuals to make, matters. Progressive believers in the income inequality myth hate that.
Progressives' concept of "social justice" rejects equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome. For now, the progressive utopians can't engineer society so that everyone earns the same amount of money regardless of their job. Instead, they seek to impose economic "equality" through wealth redistribution, i.e., government taking from the "rich" and distributing the booty to the "poor" via government programs. It's pretty obvious how the myth of income inequality facilitates the progressives' redistribution scheme. Arguing for economic and individual freedom over redistribution can be denounced as "anti-equality". By lambasting "income inequality", progressives can claim the moral high ground while pursuing a policy that will bankrupt the nation.
Income inequality is an ideologically motivated hoax. It doesn't exist. What exists in American society are income differences determined by the life choices of individuals, choices made possible by the blessing of freedom. I want to keep that freedom, even if it means I don't earn as much money as Bill Gates. Freedom means much more to me than money, which is why I totally reject the myth of income inequality. How about you?
Monday, April 09, 2012
"Not Ashamed"
Here's a poem/song I wrote today while at work. Actually, this little song has been percolating in my head for several months but it all came together today at work. The song is about a traditionalist--yours truly--confronting secular progressives, aka liberals, about what I believe. The tune for "Not Ashamed" is based on the music to the song "Still the Same" by the erstwhile, white nationalist duo, Prussian Blue. Yes, Prussian Blue. And yes, I sometimes listen to white power rock, even though I'm black. But so what? I listen to the far-left rock band Rage Against the Machine, even though I'm a proud right-winger. What can I say? I'm eclectic that way. Anyway, hope you like my song.
Not Ashamed
by Seane-Anna
Why do you say that
I must be ashamed of
who I am?
What have I done to you?
And why do you say that
I can't take pride
in my name?
Isn't that just what you do?
Well I now proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
Why do you laugh at
and trash all the things
that I believe?
Why are you so afraid?
And why do you battle
so hard against the Truth
that I receive?
What's the source of all your hate?
Well, I still proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
You ask me why I reject your beliefs?
It's not complicated.
I put them to the test and in the end
I found them overrated.
Your contradictions, faithlessness, and self-hatred
got me jaded.
I once was tempted to compromise
but now I can see right through your lies.
Your empty ideas just can't hold sway,
and I've got just one more thing to say
and that's
I now proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
I now proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
Not Ashamed
by Seane-Anna
Why do you say that
I must be ashamed of
who I am?
What have I done to you?
And why do you say that
I can't take pride
in my name?
Isn't that just what you do?
Well I now proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
Why do you laugh at
and trash all the things
that I believe?
Why are you so afraid?
And why do you battle
so hard against the Truth
that I receive?
What's the source of all your hate?
Well, I still proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
You ask me why I reject your beliefs?
It's not complicated.
I put them to the test and in the end
I found them overrated.
Your contradictions, faithlessness, and self-hatred
got me jaded.
I once was tempted to compromise
but now I can see right through your lies.
Your empty ideas just can't hold sway,
and I've got just one more thing to say
and that's
I now proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
I now proclaim
that I'm not ashamed!
I won't play your game.
I carry high the flame!
Sunday, April 08, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
"Slutgate" and the Uses of Fake Rage
Well, it's been going on for weeks now, liberals' well-timed outrage over Rush Limbaugh's insult of Sandra Fluke who, as a result, has become the darling of the Left. Liberals have declared that a full blown war is now being waged on women by Republicans because eeeevil Rush--who, of course, is the unofficial leader of the Republican Party--called a liberal woman a slut. Oh, the horror!
Don't get me wrong. I believe it was wrong for Rush to call Ms. Fluke a slut. However, it was also wrong for Ed Schultz to call Laura Ingraham a slut, and for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a cunt–yes, I did write the word–yet, when that and other nasty, misogynist slurs were thrown at conservative women by liberal talking heads, no one on the Left had a nervous breakdown and declared that a “war on women” had been unleashed. That tells me that all the outrage being dumped on Rush by liberals now is 100% FAKE. They’re simply using this trumped up “attack” on the nation’s females to try and shut Rush down BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE OPPOSING SPEECH. That's what this is really all about: shutting down opposing speech.
The Left wants no opposition to their agenda. Freedom of speech? The right to protest? Liberals don't believe those are rights. Rather, they regard them as tactics in political warfare, tactics that are legitimate only when used by the Left to advance its agenda. When speech doesn't advance the goals of the Left, leftists want it stopped. Claiming that they're fighting runaway misogyny is just a cover for the real goal of suppressing opposing views. That's what's really going on here, and we conservatives must make that clear.
And as for the original contraceptive issue which started "slutgate" in the first place? It’s not about government giving women free birth control. Rather, it’s about the government mandating that a) insurance companies must provide free contraceptives in their policies, and b) private companies must provide such insurance policies to their employees, EVEN IF THE PRIVATE COMPANY IS RUN BY A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION THAT OPPOSES CONTRACEPTIVES. It’s that mandate, and the complete disregarding of religious freedom, that conservatives are vehemently opposed to. If a private company chooses, of its own free will, to provide its employees with insurance that covers birth control, fine. But the federal government is overstepping its bounds to order them to do so. That is a HUGE power grab that we conservatives have no intention of letting the federal government get away with, no matter how many times we're accused of waging a "war on women".
And as for Sandra Fluke and all those who think like her? Well, not wanting to pay for her own contraceptives may not make a woman a slut, but I have to ask. If you don't want to pay for your own contraceptives, are you really responsible enough to be having sex in the first place? I'm just asking.
Don't get me wrong. I believe it was wrong for Rush to call Ms. Fluke a slut. However, it was also wrong for Ed Schultz to call Laura Ingraham a slut, and for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a cunt–yes, I did write the word–yet, when that and other nasty, misogynist slurs were thrown at conservative women by liberal talking heads, no one on the Left had a nervous breakdown and declared that a “war on women” had been unleashed. That tells me that all the outrage being dumped on Rush by liberals now is 100% FAKE. They’re simply using this trumped up “attack” on the nation’s females to try and shut Rush down BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE OPPOSING SPEECH. That's what this is really all about: shutting down opposing speech.
The Left wants no opposition to their agenda. Freedom of speech? The right to protest? Liberals don't believe those are rights. Rather, they regard them as tactics in political warfare, tactics that are legitimate only when used by the Left to advance its agenda. When speech doesn't advance the goals of the Left, leftists want it stopped. Claiming that they're fighting runaway misogyny is just a cover for the real goal of suppressing opposing views. That's what's really going on here, and we conservatives must make that clear.
And as for the original contraceptive issue which started "slutgate" in the first place? It’s not about government giving women free birth control. Rather, it’s about the government mandating that a) insurance companies must provide free contraceptives in their policies, and b) private companies must provide such insurance policies to their employees, EVEN IF THE PRIVATE COMPANY IS RUN BY A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION THAT OPPOSES CONTRACEPTIVES. It’s that mandate, and the complete disregarding of religious freedom, that conservatives are vehemently opposed to. If a private company chooses, of its own free will, to provide its employees with insurance that covers birth control, fine. But the federal government is overstepping its bounds to order them to do so. That is a HUGE power grab that we conservatives have no intention of letting the federal government get away with, no matter how many times we're accused of waging a "war on women".
And as for Sandra Fluke and all those who think like her? Well, not wanting to pay for her own contraceptives may not make a woman a slut, but I have to ask. If you don't want to pay for your own contraceptives, are you really responsible enough to be having sex in the first place? I'm just asking.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Monique And The Magical Mystery Fuel
While driving home from Bible study tonight I was listening to talk radio. The show that was on--sorry, I didn't catch the name--was addressing the Obama administration's policy not to bring down gas prices. The show's host was positing the idea that Obama wants higher gas prices as a way to gin up support for green energy investments, which Obama believes in fervently. A woman named Monique called into the show to weigh in on the discussion. Monique opined that Obama is looking for the magical mystery fuel to replace oil and he believes he can compel its invention by making it financially painful for Americans to drive. When I heard what Monique said I burst out laughing. "Magical mystery fuel". LOVE IT! And she was so right! That IS what Obama devoutly believes in, a magical mystery fuel to deliver us from the evil of fossil fuels. And he IS arrogant enough to believe he can force it to materialize by allowing more and more pain at the pump.
Barak Obama has a messiah complex. He does not believe he was elected president to discharge the chief executive's constitutionally mandated duties and to do the will of the people. No, he believes he was elected to impose on us religion-and-gun clinging people his superior, secular progressive vision of the Good Society. Obama knows that alternative energy is better for us so he feels justified in compelling compliance with his "green energy" policies and objectives. Moniuqe nailed it. The magical mystery fuel is Obama's Holy Grail, and he's willing to permit increasing hardship on millions of Americans to get it. But hey, it's for our own good, even though we're too unsophisticated to get that. But the Anointed One is looking out for us. I'll try to remember that next time I'm pumping $4 a gallon gas.
Barak Obama has a messiah complex. He does not believe he was elected president to discharge the chief executive's constitutionally mandated duties and to do the will of the people. No, he believes he was elected to impose on us religion-and-gun clinging people his superior, secular progressive vision of the Good Society. Obama knows that alternative energy is better for us so he feels justified in compelling compliance with his "green energy" policies and objectives. Moniuqe nailed it. The magical mystery fuel is Obama's Holy Grail, and he's willing to permit increasing hardship on millions of Americans to get it. But hey, it's for our own good, even though we're too unsophisticated to get that. But the Anointed One is looking out for us. I'll try to remember that next time I'm pumping $4 a gallon gas.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
State, Stay In Your Place!
On last night's episode of The O'Reilly Factor I learned of an outrageous act going on in California. In four of its counties, the state of California, using taxpayer money, is actually mailing condoms to kids as young as 12! You read that right. California is sending kids condoms, along with lubricant and pamphlets on avoiding pregnancy and STDs. How nice! And these neat little packages are being mailed in plain envelopes so as not to attract attention from pesky, nosy parents. This is government corruption and overreach on steroids!
Children belong to their parents. It is the sacred right and duty of parents to teach children morality and values. Consequently, parents have the right to know everything about their children's lives so they can guide them into making the right decisions. The state has NO right whatsoever to intefere with parents' rights and duties. Yes, some parents will fail in their responsibility, and that is the usual excuse used by progressive types to justify the government helping children evade parental oversight. The state must step in, they say, because some parents can't be trusted to do their job. But the failure of some parents to do their job does not justify government on any level overruling the rights and authority of all parents.
Yes, teen pregnancy and STD infection are disturbing. But state intrusion into the family isn't the solution. Not only does this shatter the cohesion of the family, but it undermines the general safety of children. As stated above, California is mailing condoms to children as young as 12, apparently without bothering to ascertain the age of these children's sex partners. That means that the state of California believes that 12-year-olds can consent to sex. How will that affect the enforcement of age-of-consent laws? It destroys the state's credibility to claim, on one hand, that 12-year-olds can't consent to sex while, on the other hand, giving them the means to do just that.
If the state wants to help stop teen pregnancy and STD infection it should flood the airwaves with public service announcements warning of the consequences of unprotected sex and give parents the correct information to discuss with their children. That is the limited role the state should have: dispensing information which parents then use according to their values. Some parents are very liberal and see nothing wrong with their (very young) teen children being sexually active. Such parents will, no doubt, give the go ahead for their kids to use birth control. Traditionalist parents wouldn't make that choice. But what ever choice parents make, the key is that they, and not the government, are in charge of their children.
We should not have government interfering with the sacred relationship between parent and child. Raising children is the job of parents, not the state. Unless abuse is happening, parents must be free to bring up their children as they see fit, even if they make choices the we-know-better progressives don't like. That is the essence of freedom, and the last time I checked, freedom was a good thing.
Children belong to their parents. It is the sacred right and duty of parents to teach children morality and values. Consequently, parents have the right to know everything about their children's lives so they can guide them into making the right decisions. The state has NO right whatsoever to intefere with parents' rights and duties. Yes, some parents will fail in their responsibility, and that is the usual excuse used by progressive types to justify the government helping children evade parental oversight. The state must step in, they say, because some parents can't be trusted to do their job. But the failure of some parents to do their job does not justify government on any level overruling the rights and authority of all parents.
Yes, teen pregnancy and STD infection are disturbing. But state intrusion into the family isn't the solution. Not only does this shatter the cohesion of the family, but it undermines the general safety of children. As stated above, California is mailing condoms to children as young as 12, apparently without bothering to ascertain the age of these children's sex partners. That means that the state of California believes that 12-year-olds can consent to sex. How will that affect the enforcement of age-of-consent laws? It destroys the state's credibility to claim, on one hand, that 12-year-olds can't consent to sex while, on the other hand, giving them the means to do just that.
If the state wants to help stop teen pregnancy and STD infection it should flood the airwaves with public service announcements warning of the consequences of unprotected sex and give parents the correct information to discuss with their children. That is the limited role the state should have: dispensing information which parents then use according to their values. Some parents are very liberal and see nothing wrong with their (very young) teen children being sexually active. Such parents will, no doubt, give the go ahead for their kids to use birth control. Traditionalist parents wouldn't make that choice. But what ever choice parents make, the key is that they, and not the government, are in charge of their children.
We should not have government interfering with the sacred relationship between parent and child. Raising children is the job of parents, not the state. Unless abuse is happening, parents must be free to bring up their children as they see fit, even if they make choices the we-know-better progressives don't like. That is the essence of freedom, and the last time I checked, freedom was a good thing.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
As Athens Burns...
...Americans need to wake up.
The nation of Greece is facing imminent financial collapse and her people would rather riot in the streets than face the fact that their government can no longer support them. Americans need to wake up because we have a president who's determined to turn our country into the kind of welfare state that's bankrupted Greece.
America is an exceptional nation but she's not above the laws of math. If she continues to spend with reckless abandon she will financially implode just like Greece. America has a president fanatically devoted to the false belief that we can tax and spend our way to a just society. We can't. We can only tax and spend our way into more debt, dependency, and enslavement--yes, enslavement--to the foreign countries that are financing our debt.
Americans need to wake up.
Greece isn't the only European welfare state facing financial ruin. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy are also having problems. Yet, Obama and the Democrats continue to see European welfare statism as the example America should follow, the model she should copy. And a huge swath of the American people agrees.
Millions of Americans believe that the government's job is to take care of them. "Entitlementism" is their religion. They don't want to hear that the government is broke. They just want the freebies they've been taught all their lives are rightfully theirs. If they have any concerns about the debt at all, they believe it can be solved by taxing the eeeeevil rich. But in general, they're in deep denial about America's financial danger. These are the people who will riot in America's streets if this nation financially implodes as Greece has done. It's the natural result of "entitlementism".
Athens is burning. America is heading down the same path that's produced the rioting in the Greek capital. America is at a crossroads. The upcoming presidential election will put this nation on the path to more and more welfare statism or the path back to economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, limited government and the consequent prosperity. The choice is stark, and it can't be based on "what's in it for me?". Rather, the choice must be made out of committment to the well-being of the nation both now and in the future. Athens is burning. That's telling us something, if we have the ears to hear.
Americans, WAKE UP!
The nation of Greece is facing imminent financial collapse and her people would rather riot in the streets than face the fact that their government can no longer support them. Americans need to wake up because we have a president who's determined to turn our country into the kind of welfare state that's bankrupted Greece.
America is an exceptional nation but she's not above the laws of math. If she continues to spend with reckless abandon she will financially implode just like Greece. America has a president fanatically devoted to the false belief that we can tax and spend our way to a just society. We can't. We can only tax and spend our way into more debt, dependency, and enslavement--yes, enslavement--to the foreign countries that are financing our debt.
Americans need to wake up.
Greece isn't the only European welfare state facing financial ruin. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy are also having problems. Yet, Obama and the Democrats continue to see European welfare statism as the example America should follow, the model she should copy. And a huge swath of the American people agrees.
Millions of Americans believe that the government's job is to take care of them. "Entitlementism" is their religion. They don't want to hear that the government is broke. They just want the freebies they've been taught all their lives are rightfully theirs. If they have any concerns about the debt at all, they believe it can be solved by taxing the eeeeevil rich. But in general, they're in deep denial about America's financial danger. These are the people who will riot in America's streets if this nation financially implodes as Greece has done. It's the natural result of "entitlementism".
Athens is burning. America is heading down the same path that's produced the rioting in the Greek capital. America is at a crossroads. The upcoming presidential election will put this nation on the path to more and more welfare statism or the path back to economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, limited government and the consequent prosperity. The choice is stark, and it can't be based on "what's in it for me?". Rather, the choice must be made out of committment to the well-being of the nation both now and in the future. Athens is burning. That's telling us something, if we have the ears to hear.
Americans, WAKE UP!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The God of Change
While listening to The Michael Medved Show the other day Medved played a soundbite from famous actor Robert Redford. Redford opined--and I'm paraphrasing--that change was good, accepting change was open-minded, and opposing change was narrow-minded. He was implying that liberals are enlightened for embracing change and conservatives are backwards for not.
Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.
Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.
When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.
Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.
Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.
Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.
When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.
Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Shocker
Shocked.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
It's All About Power
A few days ago Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a struggling Black woman, Ruth Williams, some money to help her out. Romney's kind gesture was immediately denounced by some on the Left as racist. Huh? How is giving a woman of color some help, one human being to another, racist? It isn't, but one particular criticism of Romney revealed the real problem his critics have with his act.
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Rick Santorum, The Greatest Threat To Black People!
A few nights ago I heard on The O'Reilly Factor about presidential candidate Rick Santorum's remark about not wanting to give Black people more welfare money. My sister also e-mailed a video of Santorum saying his very unpc statement. She titled the e-mail "What a bigot!" Rick Santorum a bigot? Not!
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, friends! I pray 2012 will be a blessed and prosperous year for all of you and for our great nation. Let's make that happen. Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)