This is extremely disturbing, and must not be ignored. Below are two editorials appearing in today's (July 19, 2013) Dallas Morning News. They have diametrically opposed messages, and reflect the seriously alarming degree of polarization of American society today. Both writers are African-American men. One is a rational voice of intelligence and reason regarding justice and the rule of law. The other is borderline sedition (perhaps over the line) in attempting to incite a civil war. Apparently a lot of people in America do not know which is which. A lot more people may not be paying attention. This is getting frighteningly out of hand. Unfortunately for us and especially our children and grandchildren, more and more people seem to be listening to the wrong voices. Where is this country heading? We had better figure out how to change the course we are on before it is too late. The clock is ticking.
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130718-thomas-sowell-case-against-zimmerman-reflected-political-perversion.ece
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130718-leonard-pitts-the-trayvon-tragedy--a-wake-up-call-for-african-americans.ece
Friday, July 19, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Big Brother Barack
It should surprise no one that the National Security Agency is collecting metadata on phone calls and emails of American citizens. It may even be necessary due to the constant threat of terrorism in the world today. But given this administration's record of lying to the public about every issue from the cost of ObamaCare to the recent Benghazi, IRS and spying on journalists scandals, who could possibly trust them to use the information they gather solely for the purpose they contend? They have demonstrated they will do anything to maintain power and eliminate their political opponents through any means, including illegal and unethical. They simply cannot be trusted.
Of course it is the quintessential example of hypocrisy that Barack Obama and his attack dogs demonized George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld during his first presidential campaign for doing the same things using the same methods Obama has doubled-down on since becoming president. That is Obama's standard operating procedure. It is also a clear indication that Barack Obama was either too ignorant and irresponsible to be president of the United States or an unethical, immoral, deliberately dishonest fraud. Personally, I think he is all of the above.
I am sick and tired of the Democratic Party's major media propaganda machine determining that every activity undertaken by Republicans in office is a crime against humanity while the same actions taken by Democrats in office is in the public interest. Now the Obama image makers are telling us that the NSA has been ultra successful under the Obama regime's leadership in uncovering and thwarting over fifty planned terrorist operations, of course without giving any verifiable proof. We are just supposed to believe them.
Since the NSA is conducting these operations I would certainly hope the efforts would have achieved some actionable results. But that doesn't mean they won't also listen in on private phone conversations and read private emails as well. They tell us they would never use the information gathered from data monitoring to spy on individual Americans, and again we are just supposed to blindly believe them. They told us Benghazi was about a blasphemous movie and not a terrorist assault, too.
It is not much of a leap for this administration from routine data mining to monitoring the communications of political opponents. They have already been caught in intentional outright lies, demonstrating you can't believe a word these people say. Wouldn't it be nice to employ a private network of hackers to gather the same metadata the NSA is gathering and use it to track government officials emails and phone calls to see what they are really up to.
Democrats have shown time and time again that they will lie about anything to get elected and embellish their accomplishments in office, and Barack Obama is clearly the Liar in Chief. The last time their candidate for president had any integrity at all was 1988 with Michael Dukakis. He was an unabashed liberal, and there is nothing wrong with that other than he believes in the wrong policies. He was not a habitual lying opportunist, as every one of their candidates since has been (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama - and, if current opinion holds, the disaster in waiting known as Hillary).
Having stated that the methods used to conduct national security operations are probably necessary but the people conducting those operations cannot be trusted to abide by the Constitution regarding the individual rights of American citizens, where does that leave us today? Unfortunately, the question presents a serious dilemma. Maybe we need to ask who is the biggest threat to the American people, global terrorists or our own government? In my humble opinion, the answer to that question is becoming more visible every day. The evidence seems to indicate the primary threat, the one that presents the most danger to all of us rather than just an unfortunate few who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, is our own government.
Of course it is the quintessential example of hypocrisy that Barack Obama and his attack dogs demonized George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld during his first presidential campaign for doing the same things using the same methods Obama has doubled-down on since becoming president. That is Obama's standard operating procedure. It is also a clear indication that Barack Obama was either too ignorant and irresponsible to be president of the United States or an unethical, immoral, deliberately dishonest fraud. Personally, I think he is all of the above.
I am sick and tired of the Democratic Party's major media propaganda machine determining that every activity undertaken by Republicans in office is a crime against humanity while the same actions taken by Democrats in office is in the public interest. Now the Obama image makers are telling us that the NSA has been ultra successful under the Obama regime's leadership in uncovering and thwarting over fifty planned terrorist operations, of course without giving any verifiable proof. We are just supposed to believe them.
Since the NSA is conducting these operations I would certainly hope the efforts would have achieved some actionable results. But that doesn't mean they won't also listen in on private phone conversations and read private emails as well. They tell us they would never use the information gathered from data monitoring to spy on individual Americans, and again we are just supposed to blindly believe them. They told us Benghazi was about a blasphemous movie and not a terrorist assault, too.
It is not much of a leap for this administration from routine data mining to monitoring the communications of political opponents. They have already been caught in intentional outright lies, demonstrating you can't believe a word these people say. Wouldn't it be nice to employ a private network of hackers to gather the same metadata the NSA is gathering and use it to track government officials emails and phone calls to see what they are really up to.
Democrats have shown time and time again that they will lie about anything to get elected and embellish their accomplishments in office, and Barack Obama is clearly the Liar in Chief. The last time their candidate for president had any integrity at all was 1988 with Michael Dukakis. He was an unabashed liberal, and there is nothing wrong with that other than he believes in the wrong policies. He was not a habitual lying opportunist, as every one of their candidates since has been (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama - and, if current opinion holds, the disaster in waiting known as Hillary).
Having stated that the methods used to conduct national security operations are probably necessary but the people conducting those operations cannot be trusted to abide by the Constitution regarding the individual rights of American citizens, where does that leave us today? Unfortunately, the question presents a serious dilemma. Maybe we need to ask who is the biggest threat to the American people, global terrorists or our own government? In my humble opinion, the answer to that question is becoming more visible every day. The evidence seems to indicate the primary threat, the one that presents the most danger to all of us rather than just an unfortunate few who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, is our own government.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
A Special Kind of Stupid
The Obama administration is now in lock-down mode conducting CYA (cover your ass) operations, using serial press conferences denying responsibility following discovery of their abundant transgressions and more recently just ignoring the scandals and changing the subject. Unfortunately this all comes naturally to Barack Obama. Benghazi? No big deal because Barry says it isn't. Never mind that top government officials intentionally lying to the American people is a real big deal. The IRS targeting conservative groups for harassment? Just a few lower level employees at the IRS having some fun. Telephone taps on the Associated Press? The Justice Department just trying to cover up leaks of classified information to the press. Naturally the presidential lapdogs say Comrade Barack, who demands personal credit for everything that reflects positively on him, knew nothing about this stuff.
Of course the administration's 'talking points' are to blame these 'minor' issues on Republicans playing politics in order to obstruct the angelic Democrats attempts to conduct their business of governing. So there it is. It is all the Republicans fault. After more than four years of blaming George Bush for everything from Abu Ghraib to the demise of Twinkies, the Obama brain trust has found a new bogeyman. The fawning media certainly can't blame Barack Obama for his administration's recurrent failures and misdeeds, so what could be better than blaming all Republicans. Sadly, it really takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.
But a lot of Democrats believe it is OK for the IRS to target the Tea Party and other conservative organizations. After all, they have been brainwashed by the Obama media machine to believe anyone not prostrating themselves before His Excellency and his teleprompter are all jack-booted thugs, religious wing-nuts and racist cretins. They most certainly are not. They are Americans who do not agree with the policies of the current regime in power, and both peaceful protest and freedom of speech are still Constitutionally protected rights of every American, not just those on the left, although you would never know that from following the news or being anywhere near a college campus.
Are the Republicans motivated by politics? Well, duh! Of course they are. But it is also their job as members of Congress to hold government officials accountable for derelictions of duty in public office, especially Hillary Clinton - the person most responsible for the fiasco in Benghazi. This woman is the current front running presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 2016, and she has no business being president of the United States. She is an incompetent, arrogant, self-absorbed political opportunist who lied about her controversial past in Arkansas, rode the coat-tails of her husband into high political office, and presided over the loss of global American influence in her disastrous term as Secretary of State.
In case the Democratic Party voters haven't noticed, every move the Democrats make is motivated by politics ever since Barack Obama became president. Just look at the emails regarding Benghazi and the IRS harassment of conservatives. BO just has his underlings do the dirty work so he can maintain plausible deniability. Field Marshal Obama cannot be allowed to be distracted from his constant drumbeat of flowery but dishonest rhetoric. God forbid the public might discover that he is only interested in buying votes. His political strategy has not changed since he arrived on the national political scene, and probably well before that - make up lies about the opponent and then accuse the opponent of lying. Blaming the Republicans for having political motives as if they are solely responsible for all the shit that goes wrong on his watch is a sick joke.
Even if Barack Obama knew nothing about the Benghazi scandal, the IRS scandal, or the wire-tapping scandal, which are all dubious contentions, they are all evidence of his absolute failure of leadership. He is the one responsible for selecting the incompetents and/or people of sordid character now running the major government agencies. These are exactly the kind of people he wants to implement his imperial agenda. And if Obama was in the loop on all these scandals, which is most likely given his dictatorial control of the executive branch, then it is obvious he has an arrogant contempt for the law of the land and the American people.
Incredibly, some folks still want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, even though there isn't much doubt left. But his culpability in the current scandals is not the only blemish on his record in office. His economic policies continue to cause the American economy to limp along in substandard fashion. His disastrous foreign policies are turning the world into a much more dangerous place. Barack Obama and everyone in his administration are demonstrating every day they do not belong in positions of authority. After nearly 4 1/2 years in office it is still difficult to discern whether he is just a serial liar living in his own fantasy world or an egomaniacal sociopath.
Combining the misdeeds of the IRS with the unrelenting record of habitual lying about everything from Benghazi to Republicans positions on the issues to the real cost of ObamaCare, it should be quite clear to everyone now that the Obama regime is populated with sleazeballs, starting at the top. Everything this clique of autocratic miscreants does is for the purpose of keeping themselves in political power. They could care less about ordinary Americans or the future of the country. A government that dictates to the people what to think, what to read, who to hate and how to act is a government that can and will do anything it wants to subjugate the people and keep them in line.
These scandals are almost certainly not the only ones that will emerge from this administration. So far they are just the only ones where they got caught.
Evidence continues to mount that the real problem with Obama believers is that they are just stupid. I really do hate to use that word because it is quite inflammatory. But the evidence of stupidity has become overwhelming. They are stupid because they never learn from experience. Those who vote for Obama are stupid because they repeatedly fall for the lies and false promises. His supporters who may be aware of the history of failure of left wing ideology and its policies are stupid because they apparently think they are much smarter than those who have tried to implement those policies before them.
Collectivist economic policies bring everyone but the self-anointed political leaders down to the equality and paralysis of mass poverty. Social policies that overturn traditional culture and allow unrestrained behavioral indulgence lead to the polarization of society and chaos. Every socialist policy tried to date, from environmental to educational to regulatory have experienced unintended consequences that make things worse, not better. And gutting national security to pay for the socialist programs is the epitome of stupidity. Liberals are not as smart as they think they are. The are always wrong but never in doubt. To repeat the obvious, that is really a special kind of stupid.
Of course it is possible that a small number of those on the left are not really stupid at all. Those are the ones who know full well what the devastating results of their policies will be. They know the economic and social damage they will cause because that is their intention. They plan on taking advantage of the chaos and turmoil to consolidate power and rule as autocratic dictators. The best way to do that is to use the media to spread propaganda proclaiming widespread success of government policies when the reality is just the opposite. A rational analysis of the last four years would lead one to conclude that those are the kind of people in charge of our government today.
Of course the administration's 'talking points' are to blame these 'minor' issues on Republicans playing politics in order to obstruct the angelic Democrats attempts to conduct their business of governing. So there it is. It is all the Republicans fault. After more than four years of blaming George Bush for everything from Abu Ghraib to the demise of Twinkies, the Obama brain trust has found a new bogeyman. The fawning media certainly can't blame Barack Obama for his administration's recurrent failures and misdeeds, so what could be better than blaming all Republicans. Sadly, it really takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.
But a lot of Democrats believe it is OK for the IRS to target the Tea Party and other conservative organizations. After all, they have been brainwashed by the Obama media machine to believe anyone not prostrating themselves before His Excellency and his teleprompter are all jack-booted thugs, religious wing-nuts and racist cretins. They most certainly are not. They are Americans who do not agree with the policies of the current regime in power, and both peaceful protest and freedom of speech are still Constitutionally protected rights of every American, not just those on the left, although you would never know that from following the news or being anywhere near a college campus.
Are the Republicans motivated by politics? Well, duh! Of course they are. But it is also their job as members of Congress to hold government officials accountable for derelictions of duty in public office, especially Hillary Clinton - the person most responsible for the fiasco in Benghazi. This woman is the current front running presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 2016, and she has no business being president of the United States. She is an incompetent, arrogant, self-absorbed political opportunist who lied about her controversial past in Arkansas, rode the coat-tails of her husband into high political office, and presided over the loss of global American influence in her disastrous term as Secretary of State.
In case the Democratic Party voters haven't noticed, every move the Democrats make is motivated by politics ever since Barack Obama became president. Just look at the emails regarding Benghazi and the IRS harassment of conservatives. BO just has his underlings do the dirty work so he can maintain plausible deniability. Field Marshal Obama cannot be allowed to be distracted from his constant drumbeat of flowery but dishonest rhetoric. God forbid the public might discover that he is only interested in buying votes. His political strategy has not changed since he arrived on the national political scene, and probably well before that - make up lies about the opponent and then accuse the opponent of lying. Blaming the Republicans for having political motives as if they are solely responsible for all the shit that goes wrong on his watch is a sick joke.
Even if Barack Obama knew nothing about the Benghazi scandal, the IRS scandal, or the wire-tapping scandal, which are all dubious contentions, they are all evidence of his absolute failure of leadership. He is the one responsible for selecting the incompetents and/or people of sordid character now running the major government agencies. These are exactly the kind of people he wants to implement his imperial agenda. And if Obama was in the loop on all these scandals, which is most likely given his dictatorial control of the executive branch, then it is obvious he has an arrogant contempt for the law of the land and the American people.
Incredibly, some folks still want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, even though there isn't much doubt left. But his culpability in the current scandals is not the only blemish on his record in office. His economic policies continue to cause the American economy to limp along in substandard fashion. His disastrous foreign policies are turning the world into a much more dangerous place. Barack Obama and everyone in his administration are demonstrating every day they do not belong in positions of authority. After nearly 4 1/2 years in office it is still difficult to discern whether he is just a serial liar living in his own fantasy world or an egomaniacal sociopath.
Combining the misdeeds of the IRS with the unrelenting record of habitual lying about everything from Benghazi to Republicans positions on the issues to the real cost of ObamaCare, it should be quite clear to everyone now that the Obama regime is populated with sleazeballs, starting at the top. Everything this clique of autocratic miscreants does is for the purpose of keeping themselves in political power. They could care less about ordinary Americans or the future of the country. A government that dictates to the people what to think, what to read, who to hate and how to act is a government that can and will do anything it wants to subjugate the people and keep them in line.
These scandals are almost certainly not the only ones that will emerge from this administration. So far they are just the only ones where they got caught.
Evidence continues to mount that the real problem with Obama believers is that they are just stupid. I really do hate to use that word because it is quite inflammatory. But the evidence of stupidity has become overwhelming. They are stupid because they never learn from experience. Those who vote for Obama are stupid because they repeatedly fall for the lies and false promises. His supporters who may be aware of the history of failure of left wing ideology and its policies are stupid because they apparently think they are much smarter than those who have tried to implement those policies before them.
Collectivist economic policies bring everyone but the self-anointed political leaders down to the equality and paralysis of mass poverty. Social policies that overturn traditional culture and allow unrestrained behavioral indulgence lead to the polarization of society and chaos. Every socialist policy tried to date, from environmental to educational to regulatory have experienced unintended consequences that make things worse, not better. And gutting national security to pay for the socialist programs is the epitome of stupidity. Liberals are not as smart as they think they are. The are always wrong but never in doubt. To repeat the obvious, that is really a special kind of stupid.
Of course it is possible that a small number of those on the left are not really stupid at all. Those are the ones who know full well what the devastating results of their policies will be. They know the economic and social damage they will cause because that is their intention. They plan on taking advantage of the chaos and turmoil to consolidate power and rule as autocratic dictators. The best way to do that is to use the media to spread propaganda proclaiming widespread success of government policies when the reality is just the opposite. A rational analysis of the last four years would lead one to conclude that those are the kind of people in charge of our government today.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Fools With Signs
The George W. Bush Presidential Library opened last week on the campus of Southern Methodist University. Naturally, protesters were outside the building registering their fanatical hatred of anything to do with George Bush. Some of the Bush-haters carried signs claiming George was responsible for the deaths of 6,000 American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan during his presidency. Actually, the number of American service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 through 2008 is 4,852. Not acknowledged by any of these folks is that under Barack Obama 1,841 more have died in those countries, most after his troop surge in Afghanistan in 2010.
The protestors apparently also have a selective memory of the events of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath. They must have forgotten the outrage and calls for a response demanded by the vast majority of Americans following the assault. They must have forgotten that every intelligence service in the Western world and every prominent Democrat was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and in fact had used them on more than one occasion. They have also conveniently forgotten that Saddam Hussein sponsored global terrorism, providing training camps, headquarters, operating bases and cash to terrorist groups. Regardless, the rabid attack dogs now blame George Bush for everything that has transpired since.
While we are on the subject, if the criteria is to blame the president for the American military casualties in our country's conflicts, how many deaths was Abraham Lincoln responsible for in the Civil War? Answer: 625,000. Franklin Roosevelt in World War II? 405,000. Harry Truman in the Korean War? 36,500. JFK and LBJ in Vietnam? 37,000. Nixon in Vietnam? 21,000. And lets not forget other liberal heroes and heroines such as Rachel Carson, the Queen of the Environmental Cult. She is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of children in Africa from malaria subsequent to the banning of DDT. Take it a step further and ask how many deaths people talking on cellphones while driving are responsible for in America today. Is that Obama's fault because he doesn't do anything about it?
Bush-haters are entitled to their personal opinions, but it would be nice if they would stop using bullshit to justify them. Is it too much to ask for them to pull their collective heads out of their asses and realize we don't live in a perfect world. George Bush certainly made some mistakes as president, mainly due to his attempt to practice 'compassionate conservatism' by allowing domestic spending to grow too much. But contrary to the chants of the Haters he never lied about anything. Acting on information that was accepted as accurate at the time by nearly all knowledgeable sources is not lying. He was probably the last honest man to live and work inside the Capital Beltway.
The protestors apparently also have a selective memory of the events of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath. They must have forgotten the outrage and calls for a response demanded by the vast majority of Americans following the assault. They must have forgotten that every intelligence service in the Western world and every prominent Democrat was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and in fact had used them on more than one occasion. They have also conveniently forgotten that Saddam Hussein sponsored global terrorism, providing training camps, headquarters, operating bases and cash to terrorist groups. Regardless, the rabid attack dogs now blame George Bush for everything that has transpired since.
While we are on the subject, if the criteria is to blame the president for the American military casualties in our country's conflicts, how many deaths was Abraham Lincoln responsible for in the Civil War? Answer: 625,000. Franklin Roosevelt in World War II? 405,000. Harry Truman in the Korean War? 36,500. JFK and LBJ in Vietnam? 37,000. Nixon in Vietnam? 21,000. And lets not forget other liberal heroes and heroines such as Rachel Carson, the Queen of the Environmental Cult. She is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of children in Africa from malaria subsequent to the banning of DDT. Take it a step further and ask how many deaths people talking on cellphones while driving are responsible for in America today. Is that Obama's fault because he doesn't do anything about it?
Bush-haters are entitled to their personal opinions, but it would be nice if they would stop using bullshit to justify them. Is it too much to ask for them to pull their collective heads out of their asses and realize we don't live in a perfect world. George Bush certainly made some mistakes as president, mainly due to his attempt to practice 'compassionate conservatism' by allowing domestic spending to grow too much. But contrary to the chants of the Haters he never lied about anything. Acting on information that was accepted as accurate at the time by nearly all knowledgeable sources is not lying. He was probably the last honest man to live and work inside the Capital Beltway.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Ignoring the Essential, Obsessed with the Inconsequential
America has a big problem. Democrats, or Progressives if that is what they prefer, are in charge of the country's agenda. Apparently these folks think they are the intellectual elite who have the answers to solve every problem. First of all, they do not understand what the real problems are as evidenced by their focus on secondary issues (gun control, gay rights, abortion); issues that no longer exist (racism); that are misguided (immigration, where they favor immigrants that add to the welfare roles rather than educated entrepreneurs); that are not sufficiently understood (climate change); and that are not the business of federal government (health care). Meanwhile, they ignore the real issues that are the responsibility of federal government (national security, sustainable economic growth, generational theft through entitlements).
Second, the politicians solution to every problem is bigger government, meaning to throw more of someone else's money at it. Of course the exception is national security, where reseach and development is not only needed to stay ahead of potential adversaries, but the funding also provides essential jobs and productive innovation that transfers to the private sector. Unfortunately, those in political power continue to ignore the clear evidence that government solutions to non-defense issues don't work. Avoiding the real problems and spending all their time on issues that have little to do with our survival, prosperity and most significant social crisis is inexcusable dereliction of duty. Only politicians, college professors, media pundits and complete morons (redundant?) could be so out of touch with reality.
Second, the politicians solution to every problem is bigger government, meaning to throw more of someone else's money at it. Of course the exception is national security, where reseach and development is not only needed to stay ahead of potential adversaries, but the funding also provides essential jobs and productive innovation that transfers to the private sector. Unfortunately, those in political power continue to ignore the clear evidence that government solutions to non-defense issues don't work. Avoiding the real problems and spending all their time on issues that have little to do with our survival, prosperity and most significant social crisis is inexcusable dereliction of duty. Only politicians, college professors, media pundits and complete morons (redundant?) could be so out of touch with reality.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Holier Than Thou
The gun control issue encompasses everything that is polarizing the United States of America today. The media's disdain for responsible reporting was in full display last week following the defeat in the Senate (Democratic Party controlled Senate, by the way) of the newest attempt at gun control legislation. Headlines raged "Public Opinion Defeated", "Congressmen Bullied By The NRA And Radical Conservatives". Such words and phrases as "cowardice", "disgust", "grossly unfair", "disregard for the children" were used by guests on CBS and other news shows.
Reaching new peaks of arrogance, hubris, and holier than thou condescension, our president added to the conflagration by continuing his incessant slandering of opponents and impugning their motives. "A pretty shameful day for Washington", "The Senators who voted against it are cowardly", "It came down to politics", and "a minority was able to block it from moving forward" were a few of the president's inflammatory comments. Media pundits attributed the defeat to the rural states, as if people living in fly-over country aren't allowed to have a voice.
Obama also asserted that "the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill", saying that the villainous fiends claimed expanded background checks would open the door for universal registration of guns so government would have a record of gun owners. Well, why wouldn't that be an issue of concern? Four months ago Obama got his tax increase on the wealthy and within days was demanding another one to avoid the sequester. Why would anyone believe that he would stop his gun control quest after passing the bill? It would only be a first step, and everyone knows it. Unfortunately, his small steps turn into giant leaps. Expanded gun control will be one of the first items of business if Obama gets to select a new Supreme Court Justice.
There were actually three different gun control bills the Senate voted on. One was a ban on assault weapons, which lost by 60 votes against and 40 for. The second was a ban on magazine capacity greater than ten, which also lost with a majority against, 54 to 46. The third, and the one Obama apparently expected to pass, was the expanded background checks for sales by private citizens online and at gun shows (licensed gun dealers already are required to do background checks). The bill needed 60 votes to pass and only got 54. Opponents said they made their decision based on logic and that passions had no place in the making of momentous policy. What a concept! One Senator said "criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks." It was a rare moment of sanity in the insane asylum known as Congress.
Never-the-less, the Obama propaganda machine gathered children and gun crime victims to create another p. r. opportunity for the Drama King in Chief. Honestly, aren't we all getting sick and tired of the Hollywood productions and the incendiary accusations of evil intentions of opponents designed to create mass hysteria. Would it be too much to ask to start arguing issues on the merits? Obama emoted that even if this gun control legislation saved only one child it would be worth it, ignoring the fact that dozens of people, including children, could be saved if anyone near a developing tragedy had a gun and knew how to use it. He didn't seem to have anyone at his news conference who is alive today because a gun was used to save them from a predator. There are plenty of potential victims whose lives have been saved because someone with a gun prevented an assailant from murdering innocent people. How come that never comes up in Obama's lectures to us peons?
Personally, I don't think it is a bad idea to do background checks on gun sales on the internet and at gun shows. But I am at a loss to understand how that could be enforced. There are over 300 million people in the United States, and it would be impossible to monitor every person to person transaction. Criminals and terrorists are going to get guns or whatever weapon they want to commit crimes. Why is it that so many liberals think they live in a fantasy world where planned or random violence won't occur if government just enacts some worthless law? Why are they so shocked when violence occurs? Violence does not only happen in America, and it certainly doesn't happen only in places that don't have strict gun controls. If guns are strictly controlled then the bullies win, whether that bully is a next door neighbor or an oppressive government. No country can legislate utopia or the elimination of violent crime within its borders until they implement total mind control over the people. Maybe that is what the liberals want, as long as they get to determine the programming. Welcome to Orwell's 1984.
All Americans should be tired by now of the news media always producing one sided reports from commentators and interviews with private citizens of how they are disgusted and appalled by conservatives who won't give in to the passions of the moment that defy logic and rationality in order to pass rapidly composed legislation that will solve nothing. Acting on emotion is generally what causes lethal events in the first place. Doing something stupid or irrational in response to a tragedy does not solve the problem. Politically correct feel good measures that don't serve the intended purpose are a waste of everyone's time at best and a huge mistake at worst. And the gun control legislation rejected by the Senate would have served no useful purpose.
Sane people understand that we have to deal with the reality that bad people exist and will do bad things. Bad people who want to use guns will have guns, regardless of any new law. Is it really a good idea for them to be the only people who have guns? Of course not. Would the new law have prevented law abiding citizens from owning guns? No, not yet, but it would make it harder for some of them to own a gun, and that could be the difference between life and death. This was a law that would make it easier for the bad guys to do their evil deeds while preventing the decent from defending themselves. It would clearly have had the opposite effect of what presumably was intended. One can only wonder what is going on inside the mind of our president. It is very sad when an amoeba has more common sense, integrity and class than the charlatan sitting in the oval office.
p.s. - notice that I didn't even have to bring up the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which as far as some of us are concerned is still the law of the land.
Reaching new peaks of arrogance, hubris, and holier than thou condescension, our president added to the conflagration by continuing his incessant slandering of opponents and impugning their motives. "A pretty shameful day for Washington", "The Senators who voted against it are cowardly", "It came down to politics", and "a minority was able to block it from moving forward" were a few of the president's inflammatory comments. Media pundits attributed the defeat to the rural states, as if people living in fly-over country aren't allowed to have a voice.
Obama also asserted that "the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill", saying that the villainous fiends claimed expanded background checks would open the door for universal registration of guns so government would have a record of gun owners. Well, why wouldn't that be an issue of concern? Four months ago Obama got his tax increase on the wealthy and within days was demanding another one to avoid the sequester. Why would anyone believe that he would stop his gun control quest after passing the bill? It would only be a first step, and everyone knows it. Unfortunately, his small steps turn into giant leaps. Expanded gun control will be one of the first items of business if Obama gets to select a new Supreme Court Justice.
There were actually three different gun control bills the Senate voted on. One was a ban on assault weapons, which lost by 60 votes against and 40 for. The second was a ban on magazine capacity greater than ten, which also lost with a majority against, 54 to 46. The third, and the one Obama apparently expected to pass, was the expanded background checks for sales by private citizens online and at gun shows (licensed gun dealers already are required to do background checks). The bill needed 60 votes to pass and only got 54. Opponents said they made their decision based on logic and that passions had no place in the making of momentous policy. What a concept! One Senator said "criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks." It was a rare moment of sanity in the insane asylum known as Congress.
Never-the-less, the Obama propaganda machine gathered children and gun crime victims to create another p. r. opportunity for the Drama King in Chief. Honestly, aren't we all getting sick and tired of the Hollywood productions and the incendiary accusations of evil intentions of opponents designed to create mass hysteria. Would it be too much to ask to start arguing issues on the merits? Obama emoted that even if this gun control legislation saved only one child it would be worth it, ignoring the fact that dozens of people, including children, could be saved if anyone near a developing tragedy had a gun and knew how to use it. He didn't seem to have anyone at his news conference who is alive today because a gun was used to save them from a predator. There are plenty of potential victims whose lives have been saved because someone with a gun prevented an assailant from murdering innocent people. How come that never comes up in Obama's lectures to us peons?
Personally, I don't think it is a bad idea to do background checks on gun sales on the internet and at gun shows. But I am at a loss to understand how that could be enforced. There are over 300 million people in the United States, and it would be impossible to monitor every person to person transaction. Criminals and terrorists are going to get guns or whatever weapon they want to commit crimes. Why is it that so many liberals think they live in a fantasy world where planned or random violence won't occur if government just enacts some worthless law? Why are they so shocked when violence occurs? Violence does not only happen in America, and it certainly doesn't happen only in places that don't have strict gun controls. If guns are strictly controlled then the bullies win, whether that bully is a next door neighbor or an oppressive government. No country can legislate utopia or the elimination of violent crime within its borders until they implement total mind control over the people. Maybe that is what the liberals want, as long as they get to determine the programming. Welcome to Orwell's 1984.
All Americans should be tired by now of the news media always producing one sided reports from commentators and interviews with private citizens of how they are disgusted and appalled by conservatives who won't give in to the passions of the moment that defy logic and rationality in order to pass rapidly composed legislation that will solve nothing. Acting on emotion is generally what causes lethal events in the first place. Doing something stupid or irrational in response to a tragedy does not solve the problem. Politically correct feel good measures that don't serve the intended purpose are a waste of everyone's time at best and a huge mistake at worst. And the gun control legislation rejected by the Senate would have served no useful purpose.
Sane people understand that we have to deal with the reality that bad people exist and will do bad things. Bad people who want to use guns will have guns, regardless of any new law. Is it really a good idea for them to be the only people who have guns? Of course not. Would the new law have prevented law abiding citizens from owning guns? No, not yet, but it would make it harder for some of them to own a gun, and that could be the difference between life and death. This was a law that would make it easier for the bad guys to do their evil deeds while preventing the decent from defending themselves. It would clearly have had the opposite effect of what presumably was intended. One can only wonder what is going on inside the mind of our president. It is very sad when an amoeba has more common sense, integrity and class than the charlatan sitting in the oval office.
p.s. - notice that I didn't even have to bring up the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which as far as some of us are concerned is still the law of the land.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
The Silent Revolution
Barack Obama said when he was elected to the presidency in 2008 that change has come to America. That may be the last time he told the truth. Today we certainly do live in a new world. Today a vast number of Americans believe they have to buy guns to protect themselves from our own government. Who would have thought in four years it would come to that.
Obama's activist background, radical friends and association with the corrupt Chicago political machine was bad enough. But since he has been president, everything he has done seems designed to weaken and divide us from within. Unilateral disarmament. Foreign policies alienating our friends and favoring our adversaries. Economic policies of market regulation, income redistribution, and central government directed capital allocation, all resulting in declining family income, disappearing individual opportunities, and vanishing personal freedom while at the same time creating a debt bomb sending us down the road to economic collapse.
Perhaps even worse is Obama's deliberate polarization of society into diametrically opposed factions, with demonization and character assassination of those who disagree with him. He is fomenting absolute and irreconcilable hatred of one side against the other, a dangerous game that could have devastating consequences. The disturbing thing is that the American media is enabling and complicit in all of this.
It is well known among those who take the time to learn about Obama's background that he spent his early years being indoctrinated with third world, anti-colonialist, anti-Western bullshit. His father, who Obama barely knew but worshipped as his idol, was a leading anti-colonialist agitator in Kenya. There is much conjecture and confusion about the politics of his mother and grandparents, who were involved in raising young Barack Obama during his formative years. But they must have been quite a bit left of center since they actively sought out noted communist activist and rabid anti-American journalist Franklin Marshall Davis to mentor "Barry" in Hawaii.
It doesn't stop there. His association with other radical America haters is also well known. There is Bill Ayers, the SDS and Weather Underground founder who planned and participated in bombings of the New York City police department in 1970, the US Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972, and lived at the Greenwich Village townhouse where a nail bomb being constructed to explode at a Fort Dix, New Jersey party blew up and killed two members of the Weather Underground. There is Edward Said, a prominent pro-Arab, anti-Israel and PLO representative who was a professor at Columbia University; Roberto Unger, a self-declared Marxist Harvard University professor; and of course, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the America hating, race baiting preacher and leading advocate of World Liberation Theology whose church Obama attended for over twenty years. This is all public knowledge. Does anyone care? Apparently not enough people who vote.
Given that background, Obama's historical perspective seems to reflect the common belief among most developing countries and left wing activists that the developed countries are all imperial colonialists, invading and taking control of weaker countries to extract their resources for profit. That opinion is perfectly understable because, in reality, that is pretty much what the British, Spanish, French and Dutch did. The United States itself was a colony of one of those great powers, and was born through a revolution that threw off the yoke of colonialism. But those days effectively came to a close with the end of the Second World War. The British must have been doing something right since their Empire evolved into the British Commonwealth of present day independent and prosperous countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. The only empire that existed after the middle of the twentieth century was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the oppressive communist empire the left wingers of the world desire to emulate.
Never-the-less, the third world still argues the West plunders the small and the weak for resources, with the US being one of the main culprits in its quest for oil. The radical progressives in America believe it. That is the indoctrination Obama received, and perhaps explains why he is doing everything he can to diminish our global power and influence. In fact it can be argued that every place American oil companies have gone to develop energy resources they have been instrumental in improving the living standards of those countries. That is not the definition of exploitation. That is helping third world countries to benefit from developing their resources and joining the 21st century.
The radical progressives also believe the US arrogantly projects its influence and power around the world, sometimes in places it is not wanted. Guilty as charged, but only when it is needed to preserve order (at least until recently when our president has decided to let the rest of the world go to hell). In the real world, unless there is a responsible superpower using its influence to maintain global order, the world breaks down into chaos, violent warfare, subjugation, oppression, and even state sponsored genocide. That is the history of mankind.
Yet Barack Obama believes we are the bad guys. That is why he is gutting our armed forces to levels that severely limit our ability to protect ourselves from foreign adversaries. His often stated national security goal is zero nukes, to set an example for the rest of the world in order to get them to respond in kind. No rational person could possibly believe that would ever happen. Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel, etc. are not going to give up their nukes. That would be suicidal. Never-the-less, Obama is reducing our nuclear strategic forces, as well as our anti-ballistic missile system capabilities. If he succeeds with this goal, we all die miserable deaths or surrender to the threat of annihilation and become subjects of an oppressive conqueror. When it comes to nukes the only rational policy is to have the most and the best. In nuclear war there is no proportionality. The only response to a nuclear attack is to obliterate the aggressor from the face of the earth to prevent them from ever doing it again.
So the question becomes, why is Barack Obama pursuing the policies that lead to the death of traditional American culture, our hard earned prosperity, and our national identity? Is he a Communist ideologue intent on extinguishing democracy and capitalism in America and establishing a Marxist society? One could certainly get that impression. Everything he does points in that direction. Redistribution of income. Raging against the greed of capitalism. Nationalizing health care. But communism has many definitions, most having to do with the elimination of private property and the means of production owned collectively by all or by the state. Socialism and Marxism mean pretty much the same thing. Suggesting that is what Obama has in mind for America is probably a bit too extreme.
It is my personal opinion Obama is doing what he does because his constant indoctrination since childhood with anti-capitalist, America hating bullshit by his mentors, college professors, associates and friends has brainwashed him into believing it. The 'America is a force of evil' ideology is all he has ever been taught. He truly believes it his duty to be the agent of change. His goal is to turn America into a society controlled and managed by the "enlightened intellectual elite", i.e., himself and his co-conspirators, because he truly believes that is the best type of government. He will never recognize or acknowledge that his beliefs are pure fantasy. And he will lie, deceive, misrepresent, promise anything and vilify anyone who stands in his way, as we have all witnessed, to achieve his objective because the end justifies the means.
In just four years Barack Obama has turned America upside down. Our capitalist economy has been transformed into a welfare state that gives away free money, free food, free phones, and guarantees mortgages that people can't pay - not because so many people need the assistance but to buy votes. Our traditions of private enterprise, free markets, self-reliance, hard work, and individual initiative is being destroyed. Limited government is giving way to big government that controls everything.
Democrats should ask themselves if they really believe America is an evil empire, raping and plundering the world because of capitalist greed. That is what their president thinks. Democrats need to ask themselves if our traditional culture is so grossly misguided and inappropriate that it needs to be totally changed. That is what Obama's legions in his bureaucracy are working to do. Apparently none of them have read the history books regarding the world wars we have fought to preserve freedom and democracy in the world, and how US aid was instrumental in rebuilding the savaged countries following the wars. They also must be unfamiliar of how America's capitalist economic engine has helped countries around the world in building global prosperity.
Whether Obama is pursuing socialism, Marxism, communism, progressivism, fascism (look up the definition of fascism and you might be surprised) or just Obamaism is irrelevant. They are all steps in the wrong direction, the direction in which Obama is taking great leaps. Has American society gone so far off track that any of these ism's are now acceptable options? It appears that a lot of people think so. But I would bet that a majority of the people who voted for Obama just don't give a shit about political ideology. They like the something for nothing that he promises, apparently believing the gravy train will last forever. They are all in for a very unpleasant surprise. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is right about one thing. American is not an exceptional country. Not anymore.
Obama's activist background, radical friends and association with the corrupt Chicago political machine was bad enough. But since he has been president, everything he has done seems designed to weaken and divide us from within. Unilateral disarmament. Foreign policies alienating our friends and favoring our adversaries. Economic policies of market regulation, income redistribution, and central government directed capital allocation, all resulting in declining family income, disappearing individual opportunities, and vanishing personal freedom while at the same time creating a debt bomb sending us down the road to economic collapse.
Perhaps even worse is Obama's deliberate polarization of society into diametrically opposed factions, with demonization and character assassination of those who disagree with him. He is fomenting absolute and irreconcilable hatred of one side against the other, a dangerous game that could have devastating consequences. The disturbing thing is that the American media is enabling and complicit in all of this.
It is well known among those who take the time to learn about Obama's background that he spent his early years being indoctrinated with third world, anti-colonialist, anti-Western bullshit. His father, who Obama barely knew but worshipped as his idol, was a leading anti-colonialist agitator in Kenya. There is much conjecture and confusion about the politics of his mother and grandparents, who were involved in raising young Barack Obama during his formative years. But they must have been quite a bit left of center since they actively sought out noted communist activist and rabid anti-American journalist Franklin Marshall Davis to mentor "Barry" in Hawaii.
It doesn't stop there. His association with other radical America haters is also well known. There is Bill Ayers, the SDS and Weather Underground founder who planned and participated in bombings of the New York City police department in 1970, the US Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972, and lived at the Greenwich Village townhouse where a nail bomb being constructed to explode at a Fort Dix, New Jersey party blew up and killed two members of the Weather Underground. There is Edward Said, a prominent pro-Arab, anti-Israel and PLO representative who was a professor at Columbia University; Roberto Unger, a self-declared Marxist Harvard University professor; and of course, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the America hating, race baiting preacher and leading advocate of World Liberation Theology whose church Obama attended for over twenty years. This is all public knowledge. Does anyone care? Apparently not enough people who vote.
Given that background, Obama's historical perspective seems to reflect the common belief among most developing countries and left wing activists that the developed countries are all imperial colonialists, invading and taking control of weaker countries to extract their resources for profit. That opinion is perfectly understable because, in reality, that is pretty much what the British, Spanish, French and Dutch did. The United States itself was a colony of one of those great powers, and was born through a revolution that threw off the yoke of colonialism. But those days effectively came to a close with the end of the Second World War. The British must have been doing something right since their Empire evolved into the British Commonwealth of present day independent and prosperous countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. The only empire that existed after the middle of the twentieth century was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the oppressive communist empire the left wingers of the world desire to emulate.
Never-the-less, the third world still argues the West plunders the small and the weak for resources, with the US being one of the main culprits in its quest for oil. The radical progressives in America believe it. That is the indoctrination Obama received, and perhaps explains why he is doing everything he can to diminish our global power and influence. In fact it can be argued that every place American oil companies have gone to develop energy resources they have been instrumental in improving the living standards of those countries. That is not the definition of exploitation. That is helping third world countries to benefit from developing their resources and joining the 21st century.
The radical progressives also believe the US arrogantly projects its influence and power around the world, sometimes in places it is not wanted. Guilty as charged, but only when it is needed to preserve order (at least until recently when our president has decided to let the rest of the world go to hell). In the real world, unless there is a responsible superpower using its influence to maintain global order, the world breaks down into chaos, violent warfare, subjugation, oppression, and even state sponsored genocide. That is the history of mankind.
Yet Barack Obama believes we are the bad guys. That is why he is gutting our armed forces to levels that severely limit our ability to protect ourselves from foreign adversaries. His often stated national security goal is zero nukes, to set an example for the rest of the world in order to get them to respond in kind. No rational person could possibly believe that would ever happen. Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel, etc. are not going to give up their nukes. That would be suicidal. Never-the-less, Obama is reducing our nuclear strategic forces, as well as our anti-ballistic missile system capabilities. If he succeeds with this goal, we all die miserable deaths or surrender to the threat of annihilation and become subjects of an oppressive conqueror. When it comes to nukes the only rational policy is to have the most and the best. In nuclear war there is no proportionality. The only response to a nuclear attack is to obliterate the aggressor from the face of the earth to prevent them from ever doing it again.
So the question becomes, why is Barack Obama pursuing the policies that lead to the death of traditional American culture, our hard earned prosperity, and our national identity? Is he a Communist ideologue intent on extinguishing democracy and capitalism in America and establishing a Marxist society? One could certainly get that impression. Everything he does points in that direction. Redistribution of income. Raging against the greed of capitalism. Nationalizing health care. But communism has many definitions, most having to do with the elimination of private property and the means of production owned collectively by all or by the state. Socialism and Marxism mean pretty much the same thing. Suggesting that is what Obama has in mind for America is probably a bit too extreme.
It is my personal opinion Obama is doing what he does because his constant indoctrination since childhood with anti-capitalist, America hating bullshit by his mentors, college professors, associates and friends has brainwashed him into believing it. The 'America is a force of evil' ideology is all he has ever been taught. He truly believes it his duty to be the agent of change. His goal is to turn America into a society controlled and managed by the "enlightened intellectual elite", i.e., himself and his co-conspirators, because he truly believes that is the best type of government. He will never recognize or acknowledge that his beliefs are pure fantasy. And he will lie, deceive, misrepresent, promise anything and vilify anyone who stands in his way, as we have all witnessed, to achieve his objective because the end justifies the means.
In just four years Barack Obama has turned America upside down. Our capitalist economy has been transformed into a welfare state that gives away free money, free food, free phones, and guarantees mortgages that people can't pay - not because so many people need the assistance but to buy votes. Our traditions of private enterprise, free markets, self-reliance, hard work, and individual initiative is being destroyed. Limited government is giving way to big government that controls everything.
Democrats should ask themselves if they really believe America is an evil empire, raping and plundering the world because of capitalist greed. That is what their president thinks. Democrats need to ask themselves if our traditional culture is so grossly misguided and inappropriate that it needs to be totally changed. That is what Obama's legions in his bureaucracy are working to do. Apparently none of them have read the history books regarding the world wars we have fought to preserve freedom and democracy in the world, and how US aid was instrumental in rebuilding the savaged countries following the wars. They also must be unfamiliar of how America's capitalist economic engine has helped countries around the world in building global prosperity.
Whether Obama is pursuing socialism, Marxism, communism, progressivism, fascism (look up the definition of fascism and you might be surprised) or just Obamaism is irrelevant. They are all steps in the wrong direction, the direction in which Obama is taking great leaps. Has American society gone so far off track that any of these ism's are now acceptable options? It appears that a lot of people think so. But I would bet that a majority of the people who voted for Obama just don't give a shit about political ideology. They like the something for nothing that he promises, apparently believing the gravy train will last forever. They are all in for a very unpleasant surprise. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is right about one thing. American is not an exceptional country. Not anymore.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
The Twilight Zone
The civil war in Syria is being won by Islamic extremists while the US does nothing. Egypt is being taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood while we give them billions of dollars in foreign aid and sophisticated weapons. Al-Qaeda flexes its muscles in Africa while we pretend they no longer exist. The Taliban gains strength in Afghanistan as we withdraw. Iran gains influence in Iraq while we close our eyes. It is quite clear that Barack Obama will go down in history as the president who ignored reality and allowed the radical elements gaining power throughout the Middle East to become a belligerent anti-American threat. Combined with the growing conventional and strategic military capabilities of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and who knows how many others, it is obvious this president and his first term Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have conducted the most damaging and potentially devastating foreign policy of any administration in American history.
Domestically the US is suffering its slowest economic recovery ever with government spending and debt out of control. Unemployment is stuck at unacceptable levels. Society is the most polarized it has ever been since the Civil War. Barack Obama's only solution to every issue is more government spending, higher taxes and more regulation of American industry. These policies have never worked before anywhere they have been implemented and they are not working now. It is undeniable that this president and his Federal Reserve Chairman, who is supposed to be independent of political influence, have conducted the most detrimental and destructive domestic policy of any administration in American history.
Yet the media continually tells us what a great job Obama is doing. It is quite clear Barack Obama could not remain in office without the unwavering obsequious support of the sources of information in America. What is up with that? Obama the world's smartest man? Obama the sportsman? Obama the peacemaker? Obama the benevolent? Before long he will be starring in the Most Interesting Man In The World commercials, drinking a Dos Equis. You can already hear the voice-over: "He lives vicariously through himself"; "He has won the lifetime achievement award, twice";
"He is fluent in all languages, including three that only he speaks".
Obama the caped crusading action hero can't be far off. The next big Hollywood blockbuster may well be "Obama of Planet Earth, Intergalactic Superman", coming to a theater near you. Now the creators of the propaganda tsunami are trying to turn his wife into a glamorous super-celebrity, because his exalted status demands one. How soon before the media declares him God? One can only imagine what they would claim he is if he were actually competent. We are living in the Twilight Zone.
Karl Marx said capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction. He was wrong. It is democracy that carries that seed. The problem with democracy is that what begins as a meritocracy eventually evolves into a plutocracy of the super-wealthy; a kleptocracy that takes money from the productive and redistributes it to the unproductive to buy their votes; or a theocracy that worships a charismatic charlatan and false prophet making impossible promises - and clearly liberalism, or progressivism as the neocommunists now call their ideology, has become a religion. Today in America we have a combination of all three running the country. Liberty, justice, equal opportunity and economic affluence for all are on the way out the door. Too bad. It was great while it lasted.
Domestically the US is suffering its slowest economic recovery ever with government spending and debt out of control. Unemployment is stuck at unacceptable levels. Society is the most polarized it has ever been since the Civil War. Barack Obama's only solution to every issue is more government spending, higher taxes and more regulation of American industry. These policies have never worked before anywhere they have been implemented and they are not working now. It is undeniable that this president and his Federal Reserve Chairman, who is supposed to be independent of political influence, have conducted the most detrimental and destructive domestic policy of any administration in American history.
Yet the media continually tells us what a great job Obama is doing. It is quite clear Barack Obama could not remain in office without the unwavering obsequious support of the sources of information in America. What is up with that? Obama the world's smartest man? Obama the sportsman? Obama the peacemaker? Obama the benevolent? Before long he will be starring in the Most Interesting Man In The World commercials, drinking a Dos Equis. You can already hear the voice-over: "He lives vicariously through himself"; "He has won the lifetime achievement award, twice";
"He is fluent in all languages, including three that only he speaks".
Obama the caped crusading action hero can't be far off. The next big Hollywood blockbuster may well be "Obama of Planet Earth, Intergalactic Superman", coming to a theater near you. Now the creators of the propaganda tsunami are trying to turn his wife into a glamorous super-celebrity, because his exalted status demands one. How soon before the media declares him God? One can only imagine what they would claim he is if he were actually competent. We are living in the Twilight Zone.
Karl Marx said capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction. He was wrong. It is democracy that carries that seed. The problem with democracy is that what begins as a meritocracy eventually evolves into a plutocracy of the super-wealthy; a kleptocracy that takes money from the productive and redistributes it to the unproductive to buy their votes; or a theocracy that worships a charismatic charlatan and false prophet making impossible promises - and clearly liberalism, or progressivism as the neocommunists now call their ideology, has become a religion. Today in America we have a combination of all three running the country. Liberty, justice, equal opportunity and economic affluence for all are on the way out the door. Too bad. It was great while it lasted.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
The Simple Solution
Conservatives and most liberals in America have traditionally believed that private enterprise and free markets create economic growth. But for some inexplicable reason the current group of liberals in charge of the Democratic Party think government spending does. It is not a profound revelation that bureaucracies are the most inefficient, unproductive, unaccountable and most corruptible form of organization in existence. Government is the biggest organization there is, so it follows that it is the most inefficient, unproductive, unaccountable and corrupt. Most Americans used to understand that. But it is quite clear that today's Democratic Party no longer believes in capitalism and democracy. They have evolved into hard-core autocratic dictators, and there actions are not to be questioned by us mere lowly citizens. They are now indoctrinated in Marxist theology which does not tolerate different opinions, much the same as Islamic theology does not tolerate non-believers.
The purpose of government regarding economic activity is to legislate and enforce rules and regulations that produce and maintain a fair and competitive commercial and industrial environment with as little intrusion and interference in the marketplace as possible. It should not be involved in determining how investment capital is allocated or in awarding subsidies or tax preferences to stimulate specific political agendas. Its only influence in the economy should be in purchasing goods and services from private organizations in fair competition that are necessary to effectively carry out its duties of providing national security and in the administration of required public services. Those services include the provision of a reasonable safety net for the less fortunate citizens who truly need support.
Despite being on the right side of the less versus more government issue, conservatives are losing the argument against the Progressives / Socialists / Marxists of the Democratic Party. They are losing the argument for two simple reasons. One is that this far left wing of the Democratic Party controls the vast majority of the popular media, incessantly indoctrinating the public with non-stop lies, misrepresentations and propaganda regarding the conservatives motives and agenda. Demonization of the opponent by fabricating lies and then accusing the opponent of lying is very effective politically when all the information the public hears is biased bullshit.
Since the electorate is still nearly evenly divided despite the brainwashing, as evidenced by the closeness of the last election, the lies could be easily overcome if conservatives would pull their heads out and understand the second reason they are losing the argument. The majority of Americans at all income levels really do believe that the top one or two percent on the income scale do not deserve the outrageous amounts of money they make, particularly corporate CEO's and the Lizards of Wall Street. And they are right. Why is that so hard for the most vocal conservatives to understand?
There really isn't a good argument against eliminating all tax preferences and raising tax rates on the mega-earners, those with the seven figure and up annual incomes. Tax preferences are nothing but government directed allocation of capital that promote special interests and increase corruption, a blatant violation of free market principles. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce strong evidence that raising marginal tax rates by another five to ten percent on the mega-wealthy will have a significant impact on capital investment or diminish incentives to work hard. Productive people will always strive to innovate and make more money than their peers. A marginal increase in taxes on earnings at the very top will not stop folks from working to maximize their income.
Certainly increasing tax rates and eliminating tax preferences must be leveraged with more spending cuts. After all, offering tax increases is the only way to get Democrats to do the right thing even though we always have to suffer through their tiresome temper tantrums. Lord knows there is still room for massive cuts in federal spending. The Government Accountability Office, a supposedly non-partisan agency that works for Congress, identified 1,362 government programs that duplicate positions with nearly identical jobs and similar responsibilities at a cost of $364.5 billion each year. That is the fat that needs to be eliminated, not the meat that Obama says is being cut by the $85 billion sequester that Chicken Little and his Democratic Party cohorts are throwing conniption fits over. That doesn't even mention the out of control entitlement programs that have us on a collision course with disaster. Of course the problem for the Dems is that cutting the fat instead of the muscle means canning their most reliable voters, and they couldn't possibly put the country ahead of their own selfish interests.
If conservatives would advocate higher taxes on the mega-wealthy the Democrats would lose their most effective issue. Until conservatives recognize that the majority of people think those at the very top unfairly make too much money, they will continue to lose. And by the way, the top one percent in America includes a considerable number of people who financially support the Democratic Party (see below). For Republicans, raising tax rates at the top is a win - win proposition. So what is the problem?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/02/obama-campaign-reveals-biggest-donors-around-election-day/
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/10/the-top-1-probably-voted-disproportionally-for-obama/
The purpose of government regarding economic activity is to legislate and enforce rules and regulations that produce and maintain a fair and competitive commercial and industrial environment with as little intrusion and interference in the marketplace as possible. It should not be involved in determining how investment capital is allocated or in awarding subsidies or tax preferences to stimulate specific political agendas. Its only influence in the economy should be in purchasing goods and services from private organizations in fair competition that are necessary to effectively carry out its duties of providing national security and in the administration of required public services. Those services include the provision of a reasonable safety net for the less fortunate citizens who truly need support.
Despite being on the right side of the less versus more government issue, conservatives are losing the argument against the Progressives / Socialists / Marxists of the Democratic Party. They are losing the argument for two simple reasons. One is that this far left wing of the Democratic Party controls the vast majority of the popular media, incessantly indoctrinating the public with non-stop lies, misrepresentations and propaganda regarding the conservatives motives and agenda. Demonization of the opponent by fabricating lies and then accusing the opponent of lying is very effective politically when all the information the public hears is biased bullshit.
Since the electorate is still nearly evenly divided despite the brainwashing, as evidenced by the closeness of the last election, the lies could be easily overcome if conservatives would pull their heads out and understand the second reason they are losing the argument. The majority of Americans at all income levels really do believe that the top one or two percent on the income scale do not deserve the outrageous amounts of money they make, particularly corporate CEO's and the Lizards of Wall Street. And they are right. Why is that so hard for the most vocal conservatives to understand?
There really isn't a good argument against eliminating all tax preferences and raising tax rates on the mega-earners, those with the seven figure and up annual incomes. Tax preferences are nothing but government directed allocation of capital that promote special interests and increase corruption, a blatant violation of free market principles. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce strong evidence that raising marginal tax rates by another five to ten percent on the mega-wealthy will have a significant impact on capital investment or diminish incentives to work hard. Productive people will always strive to innovate and make more money than their peers. A marginal increase in taxes on earnings at the very top will not stop folks from working to maximize their income.
Certainly increasing tax rates and eliminating tax preferences must be leveraged with more spending cuts. After all, offering tax increases is the only way to get Democrats to do the right thing even though we always have to suffer through their tiresome temper tantrums. Lord knows there is still room for massive cuts in federal spending. The Government Accountability Office, a supposedly non-partisan agency that works for Congress, identified 1,362 government programs that duplicate positions with nearly identical jobs and similar responsibilities at a cost of $364.5 billion each year. That is the fat that needs to be eliminated, not the meat that Obama says is being cut by the $85 billion sequester that Chicken Little and his Democratic Party cohorts are throwing conniption fits over. That doesn't even mention the out of control entitlement programs that have us on a collision course with disaster. Of course the problem for the Dems is that cutting the fat instead of the muscle means canning their most reliable voters, and they couldn't possibly put the country ahead of their own selfish interests.
If conservatives would advocate higher taxes on the mega-wealthy the Democrats would lose their most effective issue. Until conservatives recognize that the majority of people think those at the very top unfairly make too much money, they will continue to lose. And by the way, the top one percent in America includes a considerable number of people who financially support the Democratic Party (see below). For Republicans, raising tax rates at the top is a win - win proposition. So what is the problem?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/02/obama-campaign-reveals-biggest-donors-around-election-day/
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/10/the-top-1-probably-voted-disproportionally-for-obama/
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Crusaders on a Rampage
The gun control crusaders in America are on a rampage. Before allowing the hysterical, self-righteous lunatics among us to take more individual rights away from law abiding citizens, perhaps it would be enlightening to check a few numbers regarding violent deaths in the United States. I would venture a guess that researching some basic facts might produce results the fanatics may not like because they are more than likely to be politically incorrect. That is because some basic elementary knowledge of the daily news would lead one to suspect the vast majority of murders are committed by black and Latino men under the age of 30, often with drugs involved.
A little research into the numbers reveals that last assumption is not entirely correct. I apologize to Latino men. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that there were 16,259 homicides in the United States in 2010. Firearms accounted for 11,078 of those deaths, or nearly 2 out of every 3. Of the 11,078 firearm homicides, 65% (again 2 out of every 3) were committed by people between the ages of 15 and 34. I did not learn the number of those homicides committed by women, but I would be very confident the number was relatively low.
A separate Wall Street Journal survey found that of the murders committed in 2010, 51% of the killers identified were black. Blacks make up 13% of the US population. Hispanic's were responsible for 11% of the murders while comprising 17% of the population, and non-Hispanic whites committed 36% of the homicides while comprising 63% of the population. Both of the latter two ethnic groups committed considerably less murders than their overall representation in the population. In other words, while only 1 out of every 8 people in America are black, blacks commit more than 1 out of every 2 murders in this country. That is not being racist. That is known as a fact backed by empirical evidence, something that is unfamiliar to the politically correct crowd.
America would be considerably less polarized and more civilized if liberals, including the media, would stop over-indulging in arrogant self-righteous intimidation and condemnation of those who prefer to rely on facts, common sense and rational analysis to generate solutions to problems instead of idiotic adherence to political correctness. It seems to me that if the liberals want to produce legislation that significantly reduces the amount of murders by guns in this country they should focus on the folks who are causing the problems. For example, a rational approach would limit the rights of black men under the age of 35 to own guns. I personally would not advocate that approach since law abiding African-Americans need and deserve the right to defend themselves and their families from criminals as much as anyone else, if not more given the statistics.
Actually, applying legislation to specific segments of the population would probably not be Constitutional. After all, aren't we all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law? Oh, wait a minute, that can't be right. Isn't creating legislation for exclusive groups exactly what Congress does when they legislate tax preferences for special interests??? Regardless, laws are already on the books that require background checks to prevent convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. We don't need new laws. We need law enforcement.
It is interesting that many of the same 'progressives' who want to control gun ownership are the same ones who worship the Quentin Tarantino's of Hollywood, whose latest movie could be described by some as an attempt to ignite a race war by promoting the wholesale killing of white people. Most people won't see it that way, but I will guarantee that more than a few deranged potential mass murderers will be inspired to consider it. Movie producers and violent video game programmers apparently see no irony in taking blood and gore to new levels of graphic carnage, but are appalled and in denial when the crap they promote as entertainment occurs in real life.
'Progressives' really don't give a damn about the relationship between cause and effect, fiction and reality, rational and irrational, or failed policies and actual results. Their goal is to destroy their opposition and take total control of our society by whatever means it takes. America's real problem is due to the fact that money is legally stolen from those who earn it and given to those who haven't in order to buy votes. Obviously there are many folks at the bottom of society who need the support, and that is certainly warranted. But lots of the redistribution ends up in the hands and mouths of people who don't need or deserve it and are more than happy to vote for the Democrats who keep giving it to them. That doesn't even begin to address the billions wasted on unnecessary and inefficient government bureaucrats who screw up the job of handing out the goodies.
Former federal judge, solicitor general and legal scholar Robert Bork, who recently passed away, once said, "Once the justices depart from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical incompetence is lethal." He was speaking about the Supreme Court, but no truer words could be spoken about our current leader and his politically correct crusaders.
A little research into the numbers reveals that last assumption is not entirely correct. I apologize to Latino men. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that there were 16,259 homicides in the United States in 2010. Firearms accounted for 11,078 of those deaths, or nearly 2 out of every 3. Of the 11,078 firearm homicides, 65% (again 2 out of every 3) were committed by people between the ages of 15 and 34. I did not learn the number of those homicides committed by women, but I would be very confident the number was relatively low.
A separate Wall Street Journal survey found that of the murders committed in 2010, 51% of the killers identified were black. Blacks make up 13% of the US population. Hispanic's were responsible for 11% of the murders while comprising 17% of the population, and non-Hispanic whites committed 36% of the homicides while comprising 63% of the population. Both of the latter two ethnic groups committed considerably less murders than their overall representation in the population. In other words, while only 1 out of every 8 people in America are black, blacks commit more than 1 out of every 2 murders in this country. That is not being racist. That is known as a fact backed by empirical evidence, something that is unfamiliar to the politically correct crowd.
America would be considerably less polarized and more civilized if liberals, including the media, would stop over-indulging in arrogant self-righteous intimidation and condemnation of those who prefer to rely on facts, common sense and rational analysis to generate solutions to problems instead of idiotic adherence to political correctness. It seems to me that if the liberals want to produce legislation that significantly reduces the amount of murders by guns in this country they should focus on the folks who are causing the problems. For example, a rational approach would limit the rights of black men under the age of 35 to own guns. I personally would not advocate that approach since law abiding African-Americans need and deserve the right to defend themselves and their families from criminals as much as anyone else, if not more given the statistics.
Actually, applying legislation to specific segments of the population would probably not be Constitutional. After all, aren't we all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law? Oh, wait a minute, that can't be right. Isn't creating legislation for exclusive groups exactly what Congress does when they legislate tax preferences for special interests??? Regardless, laws are already on the books that require background checks to prevent convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. We don't need new laws. We need law enforcement.
It is interesting that many of the same 'progressives' who want to control gun ownership are the same ones who worship the Quentin Tarantino's of Hollywood, whose latest movie could be described by some as an attempt to ignite a race war by promoting the wholesale killing of white people. Most people won't see it that way, but I will guarantee that more than a few deranged potential mass murderers will be inspired to consider it. Movie producers and violent video game programmers apparently see no irony in taking blood and gore to new levels of graphic carnage, but are appalled and in denial when the crap they promote as entertainment occurs in real life.
'Progressives' really don't give a damn about the relationship between cause and effect, fiction and reality, rational and irrational, or failed policies and actual results. Their goal is to destroy their opposition and take total control of our society by whatever means it takes. America's real problem is due to the fact that money is legally stolen from those who earn it and given to those who haven't in order to buy votes. Obviously there are many folks at the bottom of society who need the support, and that is certainly warranted. But lots of the redistribution ends up in the hands and mouths of people who don't need or deserve it and are more than happy to vote for the Democrats who keep giving it to them. That doesn't even begin to address the billions wasted on unnecessary and inefficient government bureaucrats who screw up the job of handing out the goodies.
Former federal judge, solicitor general and legal scholar Robert Bork, who recently passed away, once said, "Once the justices depart from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical incompetence is lethal." He was speaking about the Supreme Court, but no truer words could be spoken about our current leader and his politically correct crusaders.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
The Bottomless Vortex
OK. The fairness issues, justified or not, have now been dealt with. Tax rates on the so-called wealthy have been raised. Now it is time to finally get serious about the real fiscal cliff issues - government spending. Unfortunately, calling government spending a fiscal cliff is a serious understatement. What confronts America is a bottomless fiscal vortex. Government spending is out of control. It is way past time to reduce the bloated government beureaucracy, reign in the exponential growth of entitlement programs, and alleviate restraints on private enterprise.
The problem is that Barack Obama has no interest in addressing those issues. Incomprehensible budget deficits, approaching government insolvency, and the lack of job creating / productivity improving / quality of life enhancing economic expansion does not concern him. His agenda is to grow government and the government dependent welfare state, with the secondary objective of making Republicans responsible for making the tough but necessary choices Americans won't like.
More evidence of that ideological goal appeared yesterday (January 2, 2013). After blackmailing Republicans into approving the tax increases while postponing the spending cuts to deal with the 'fiscal cliff', a problem that is overwhelmingly due to Obama's massive expansion of public debt through welfare state spending programs rather than lack of revenues, Obama now says "I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed." He is refusing to discuss the debt ceiling issue that must be addressed in February. Now that is just absolutely unbelievable audacity!
Republicans got suckered again. They were browbeaten into 'solving' the smoke-screen revenue problem with measures that won't work while punting on the clear and present critical danger of unsustainable government spending. Democrats always promise to address spending issues as a compromise for raising taxes, then refuse to follow through. Democrats play politics as a game, destroying the fabric of the country while blaming Republicans for the results. The game has advanced from "Lie, Cheat and Steal" to "Lie, Cheat, Steal, Destroy and Blame the opposition". Democrats always win that game. Regrettably, it is not really a game as future generations of Americans will discover as first their prosperity, then their livelihood and quality of life, and finally their freedom become distant memories.
I can't help but wonder what percentage of political leaders, media network executives and talking heads, Hollywood celebrities, labor union leaders, community organizers and those who make up the constituency of the Democratic Party (women, blacks, Latinos, people under the age of 30) have ever owned a business or taken any courses at all in economics or history, let alone courses beyond economics or history 101. Do they know anything about macro-economic theory, monetary policy, capital allocation, budgets, or debt? Have they ever been exposed to the historical record of socialism, communism, autocratic dictatorships and other government controlled societies? A country is doomed when the people most uneducated in matters determining a society's existence are the ones who choose its equally unknowledgable leaders. Unfortunately, as the world has shown many times over, a prosperous society starts down the road to ruin when incompetent bullshitters preaching false 'compassion for the people' outmaneuver reality.
The problem is that Barack Obama has no interest in addressing those issues. Incomprehensible budget deficits, approaching government insolvency, and the lack of job creating / productivity improving / quality of life enhancing economic expansion does not concern him. His agenda is to grow government and the government dependent welfare state, with the secondary objective of making Republicans responsible for making the tough but necessary choices Americans won't like.
More evidence of that ideological goal appeared yesterday (January 2, 2013). After blackmailing Republicans into approving the tax increases while postponing the spending cuts to deal with the 'fiscal cliff', a problem that is overwhelmingly due to Obama's massive expansion of public debt through welfare state spending programs rather than lack of revenues, Obama now says "I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed." He is refusing to discuss the debt ceiling issue that must be addressed in February. Now that is just absolutely unbelievable audacity!
Republicans got suckered again. They were browbeaten into 'solving' the smoke-screen revenue problem with measures that won't work while punting on the clear and present critical danger of unsustainable government spending. Democrats always promise to address spending issues as a compromise for raising taxes, then refuse to follow through. Democrats play politics as a game, destroying the fabric of the country while blaming Republicans for the results. The game has advanced from "Lie, Cheat and Steal" to "Lie, Cheat, Steal, Destroy and Blame the opposition". Democrats always win that game. Regrettably, it is not really a game as future generations of Americans will discover as first their prosperity, then their livelihood and quality of life, and finally their freedom become distant memories.
I can't help but wonder what percentage of political leaders, media network executives and talking heads, Hollywood celebrities, labor union leaders, community organizers and those who make up the constituency of the Democratic Party (women, blacks, Latinos, people under the age of 30) have ever owned a business or taken any courses at all in economics or history, let alone courses beyond economics or history 101. Do they know anything about macro-economic theory, monetary policy, capital allocation, budgets, or debt? Have they ever been exposed to the historical record of socialism, communism, autocratic dictatorships and other government controlled societies? A country is doomed when the people most uneducated in matters determining a society's existence are the ones who choose its equally unknowledgable leaders. Unfortunately, as the world has shown many times over, a prosperous society starts down the road to ruin when incompetent bullshitters preaching false 'compassion for the people' outmaneuver reality.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Killers
There cannot possibly be a more inconceivable, horrific, despicable act than the intentional, close range murder of small, helpless, innocent children in an elementary school class room. I am certain that everyone in the world could agree on that. But as emotions run high people should avoid the natural urge of making an irrational, knee-jerk, unwarranted reaction and doing something really stupid in response. Unfortunately, it appears Americans can't help themselves. The politically correct army of self-righteous, self-appointed airheads is demanding to impose more limits on our freedom, and as usual Barack Obama is leading the charge.
The holier-than-thou, politically correct fanatics are coming out of the woodwork to re-open the debate on banning guns in America. As usual, the legal ownership of guns issue has again careened off into the hysterical and irrational. It is probably news to the zealous, but the fact is laws concerning gun ownership already exist to prevent convicted criminals, domestic abusers and the mentally unstable from acquiring or owning guns. The Connecticut killer was clearly insane. According to the law he should not have had access to a gun. Fifty years ago he probably wouldn't have. Back then the insane were institutionalized. But due in no small part to the 'compassion' of the politically correct morons that is no longer the case. The same people screaming about banning guns are the same ones who told us the mentally ill can be controlled with medication, psychotherapy and encounter groups. Obviously they were tragically wrong.
There is one simple argument that should be easy for everyone to understand. Making the ownership of guns illegal means the only people with guns would be the criminals and other miscreants who could care less about complying with the law. Good grief people, that is what being a criminal means. Thugs, bullies and hoodlums would control the streets. Law abiding citizens would have no means to protect themselves and their families from bad people. It is not difficult for those with violent intent to find guns. Approximately 300 million guns exist today in the US alone. There are few things in the world more available than guns, many a lot more lethal than the kind used by the Connecticut killer. If guns were banned, gun smugglers would become billionaires. Banning guns is nonsense. People sticking their head up their ass will not make bad guys go away.
There have always been mass murderers and serial killers since human beings began living in close proximity to each other. The only real solution is to ban the real life monsters, but of course that is impossible. Evil exists in the world and cannot be eliminated. No one knows where the monsters will strike next, but potential targets can be anticipated. Have the anti-gun folks ever noticed that mass murders mostly take place in designated no-gun zones such as schools, theaters and shopping malls? Does that tell them anything? The only defense is to be armed and prepared to deal with evil if it intends for you to be its next victim. Banning guns would be the equivalent of making everyone a helpless potential target.
Guns have been around for centuries. What is new over the last two decades is the pervasive graphic violence distributed in massive quantities to the younger generations in the form of popular entertainment. Could it possibly be expected that a few of the millions who spend hours every day exposed to this stuff might become impervious to it all? Maybe it would be a good idea to ban the glorification of shameless violence on television and in the movies. Maybe Hollywood should stop producing shows with zombies, vampires, axe wielding psychos and murderous teenagers. How about banning the mindless gore and senseless mayhem with body counts in the thousands generated in best selling video games? They may not be poisoning the brain of everyone who plays them but almost certainly influence the psychopaths among us. Of course taking measures that restrict the distribution of this trash is unlikely to happen since the producers of it are big contributors to the Democratic Party.
While we're at it, lets discuss another issue of destructive human behavior that society has gone ballistic to punish - drunk driving. First of all, no one would disagree with the contention that drunks should not be driving vehicles. The problem is with the definition of drunk. The general definition of drunk is one who is intoxicated with liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties. The legal definition of drunk is based on blood alcohol content (BAC). Even though they have varied in the past, every state now has a BAC limit of .08%. Ask anyone who has studied intoxication and they will tell you that .08% alcohol in the blood is an arbitrary creation. The blood alcohol test can be inaccurate by as much as 10%, and it doesn't really measure an individual's level of intoxication. There is no specific identifiable measurement of intoxication. Every individual's tolerance for alcohol is different.
The Office of Alcohol and Drug Education at Notre Dame University has published studies claiming that many factors go into determining whether an individual is intoxicated. The primary factors are weight and gender. Yes ladies, females get drunk on less alcohol than men. Other physical factors are body fat, medication taken and when the person last consumed food. Mental factors affecting the level of intoxication include a person's mood, fatigue, expectations and emotion. Notre Dame's studies have shown that impaired judgment, impaired coordination, slurred speech, diminished senses, intensified emotions and lowered inhibitions occur anywhere between .06 and .10% blood alcohol content depending on the individual.
In most states a person driving a car stopped by the police for any moving violation may be tested for inebriation if the officer thinks he smells alcohol. If the test measures the driver's BAC at .082%, he would most likely be arrested, go to jail and quite possibly have his life ruined. But if the person is a man weighing 200 pounds who has just eaten dinner, he is most likely not drunk. An innocent man is being unjustly punished. I can't help but wonder if that bothers the politically correct crowd's sense of justice.
We might as well also discuss another big time killer of people in America who are driving and riding in vehicles - cell phones. Driving while distracted is growing rapidly as a factor in fatal vehicle accidents, and everyone should know by now that talking and texting on cell phones is a primary cause of distraction. You can't drive down the street without seeing at least one out of every three drivers yacking into a cellphone or looking down to text. Nothing could be more dangerous to you, your passengers and other drivers on the same road than not paying attention to driving the vehicle. Should sell phones be banned while driving? My answer would be yes.
Human beings often feel compelled to stand in judgment of others. A lot of people have a superiority complex, believing they inherently qualify as the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong, who is good and who is evil, and what should be done to punish those who violate their standards. But many of these same people break some laws on a regular basis, I imagine because they think those laws don't apply to them. You can't drive down a street without having someone fly by you 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, oftentimes a woman talking on a cellphone with children in the car. Those people are accidents waiting to happen.
It is not a perfect world and never will be . Of course society must do everything it can to prevent as much of the shit from happening as possible. Laws must be established to discourage and limit the potential damage. But these laws must be rational, reasonable and effective. Emotional, knee-jerk reactions usually make things worse, not better. People need to chill out and use common sense and logical analysis rather than mindless, childish, head up the ass nonsense to deal with these issues.
Tragedies happen to innocent people in real life. There doesn't always have to be a reason. But I suppose if you don't own a gun, have never driven a vehicle after having had a drink, have never talked or texted on your cellphone while driving, don't watch violent television or movies, don't play violent video games, have never driven faster than the speed limit or run red lights, then you can feel imperious and authoritative enough to throw stones and call for drastic punishment of those who do. It may make you feel better, but it will not solve anything or prevent the tragedies.
Having said all that, let me make a prediction. None of it will matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with stricter controls on the sales of assault rifles or the prevention of gun sales through unlicensed dealers without background checks. Furthermore, the legal definition of mental illness should be strengthened and compliance improved. But the current anti-gun frenzy is unlikely to stop there. We live in a new America. Common sense and rationality no longer exist here. Politically correct attitudes and the feminization of society are now a done deal. The America we grew up in is gone. The strongest evidence for that fact is living in the White House. Prepare for your world to continue to be turned upside down.
The holier-than-thou, politically correct fanatics are coming out of the woodwork to re-open the debate on banning guns in America. As usual, the legal ownership of guns issue has again careened off into the hysterical and irrational. It is probably news to the zealous, but the fact is laws concerning gun ownership already exist to prevent convicted criminals, domestic abusers and the mentally unstable from acquiring or owning guns. The Connecticut killer was clearly insane. According to the law he should not have had access to a gun. Fifty years ago he probably wouldn't have. Back then the insane were institutionalized. But due in no small part to the 'compassion' of the politically correct morons that is no longer the case. The same people screaming about banning guns are the same ones who told us the mentally ill can be controlled with medication, psychotherapy and encounter groups. Obviously they were tragically wrong.
There is one simple argument that should be easy for everyone to understand. Making the ownership of guns illegal means the only people with guns would be the criminals and other miscreants who could care less about complying with the law. Good grief people, that is what being a criminal means. Thugs, bullies and hoodlums would control the streets. Law abiding citizens would have no means to protect themselves and their families from bad people. It is not difficult for those with violent intent to find guns. Approximately 300 million guns exist today in the US alone. There are few things in the world more available than guns, many a lot more lethal than the kind used by the Connecticut killer. If guns were banned, gun smugglers would become billionaires. Banning guns is nonsense. People sticking their head up their ass will not make bad guys go away.
There have always been mass murderers and serial killers since human beings began living in close proximity to each other. The only real solution is to ban the real life monsters, but of course that is impossible. Evil exists in the world and cannot be eliminated. No one knows where the monsters will strike next, but potential targets can be anticipated. Have the anti-gun folks ever noticed that mass murders mostly take place in designated no-gun zones such as schools, theaters and shopping malls? Does that tell them anything? The only defense is to be armed and prepared to deal with evil if it intends for you to be its next victim. Banning guns would be the equivalent of making everyone a helpless potential target.
Guns have been around for centuries. What is new over the last two decades is the pervasive graphic violence distributed in massive quantities to the younger generations in the form of popular entertainment. Could it possibly be expected that a few of the millions who spend hours every day exposed to this stuff might become impervious to it all? Maybe it would be a good idea to ban the glorification of shameless violence on television and in the movies. Maybe Hollywood should stop producing shows with zombies, vampires, axe wielding psychos and murderous teenagers. How about banning the mindless gore and senseless mayhem with body counts in the thousands generated in best selling video games? They may not be poisoning the brain of everyone who plays them but almost certainly influence the psychopaths among us. Of course taking measures that restrict the distribution of this trash is unlikely to happen since the producers of it are big contributors to the Democratic Party.
While we're at it, lets discuss another issue of destructive human behavior that society has gone ballistic to punish - drunk driving. First of all, no one would disagree with the contention that drunks should not be driving vehicles. The problem is with the definition of drunk. The general definition of drunk is one who is intoxicated with liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties. The legal definition of drunk is based on blood alcohol content (BAC). Even though they have varied in the past, every state now has a BAC limit of .08%. Ask anyone who has studied intoxication and they will tell you that .08% alcohol in the blood is an arbitrary creation. The blood alcohol test can be inaccurate by as much as 10%, and it doesn't really measure an individual's level of intoxication. There is no specific identifiable measurement of intoxication. Every individual's tolerance for alcohol is different.
The Office of Alcohol and Drug Education at Notre Dame University has published studies claiming that many factors go into determining whether an individual is intoxicated. The primary factors are weight and gender. Yes ladies, females get drunk on less alcohol than men. Other physical factors are body fat, medication taken and when the person last consumed food. Mental factors affecting the level of intoxication include a person's mood, fatigue, expectations and emotion. Notre Dame's studies have shown that impaired judgment, impaired coordination, slurred speech, diminished senses, intensified emotions and lowered inhibitions occur anywhere between .06 and .10% blood alcohol content depending on the individual.
In most states a person driving a car stopped by the police for any moving violation may be tested for inebriation if the officer thinks he smells alcohol. If the test measures the driver's BAC at .082%, he would most likely be arrested, go to jail and quite possibly have his life ruined. But if the person is a man weighing 200 pounds who has just eaten dinner, he is most likely not drunk. An innocent man is being unjustly punished. I can't help but wonder if that bothers the politically correct crowd's sense of justice.
We might as well also discuss another big time killer of people in America who are driving and riding in vehicles - cell phones. Driving while distracted is growing rapidly as a factor in fatal vehicle accidents, and everyone should know by now that talking and texting on cell phones is a primary cause of distraction. You can't drive down the street without seeing at least one out of every three drivers yacking into a cellphone or looking down to text. Nothing could be more dangerous to you, your passengers and other drivers on the same road than not paying attention to driving the vehicle. Should sell phones be banned while driving? My answer would be yes.
Human beings often feel compelled to stand in judgment of others. A lot of people have a superiority complex, believing they inherently qualify as the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong, who is good and who is evil, and what should be done to punish those who violate their standards. But many of these same people break some laws on a regular basis, I imagine because they think those laws don't apply to them. You can't drive down a street without having someone fly by you 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, oftentimes a woman talking on a cellphone with children in the car. Those people are accidents waiting to happen.
It is not a perfect world and never will be . Of course society must do everything it can to prevent as much of the shit from happening as possible. Laws must be established to discourage and limit the potential damage. But these laws must be rational, reasonable and effective. Emotional, knee-jerk reactions usually make things worse, not better. People need to chill out and use common sense and logical analysis rather than mindless, childish, head up the ass nonsense to deal with these issues.
Tragedies happen to innocent people in real life. There doesn't always have to be a reason. But I suppose if you don't own a gun, have never driven a vehicle after having had a drink, have never talked or texted on your cellphone while driving, don't watch violent television or movies, don't play violent video games, have never driven faster than the speed limit or run red lights, then you can feel imperious and authoritative enough to throw stones and call for drastic punishment of those who do. It may make you feel better, but it will not solve anything or prevent the tragedies.
Having said all that, let me make a prediction. None of it will matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with stricter controls on the sales of assault rifles or the prevention of gun sales through unlicensed dealers without background checks. Furthermore, the legal definition of mental illness should be strengthened and compliance improved. But the current anti-gun frenzy is unlikely to stop there. We live in a new America. Common sense and rationality no longer exist here. Politically correct attitudes and the feminization of society are now a done deal. The America we grew up in is gone. The strongest evidence for that fact is living in the White House. Prepare for your world to continue to be turned upside down.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
You've Got To Be Kidding
I highly recommend the weekly news magazine "The Week" to anyone who is interested in learning interesting things the major media sources do not report. It is a great source for learning both sides of the major issues we face rather than depending on the seriously biased reporting of the primary news networks and publications. The magazine's style is to present short summaries of articles from other sources that represent differing viewpoints regarding the debatable issues of the day. But they also include condensed versions of articles with information that is often quite enlightening.
I have not even finished reading the current issue (December 14, 2012) and have already found a lot of good stuff. For example, Michael Barone wrote in the National Review that collecting disability has become a career for many Americans. In 1960 there were 455,000 Americans receiving Social Security disability payments, which was created to help citizens who were too sick or disabled to work. That would have comprised .45% of all adults between the working ages of 18 and 65 (99.0 million). Fifty years later the number of people in the country receiving disability payments has exploded to 8.6 million, or 4.4% of Americans between 18 and 65 (194.2 million). In 50 years the percent on disability increased 10x while the working age population less than doubled.
The primary reason for this disability epidemic is that the government has considerably expanded its requirements to qualify. Now such unverifiable afflictions as mood disorders, depression, and back, knee and joint pain makes people eligible. The author claims that almost 50% of disability payments go to people who claim pain or mental disorders that no doctor can prove or disprove. He also maintained that over the two years 2010 and 2011 only 1,730,000 new jobs were created at the same time 790,000 folks went on disability. Seems that more people are gaming the system every day.
Another report from the Gulf News, based in the United Arab Emirates, laments the Obama administration's 180 degree turn from condemning the Muslim Brotherhood to "giving them red carpet treatment" following the 'Arab Spring', saying that is not only "pathetically opportunistic" but also dangerously naive. The report states the U.S. now seems to embrace the ridiculous notion that Islamists are the only credible political force in the Middle East, totally disregarding the region's liberals and particularly ignoring the younger folks who are doing the protesting. The Gulf States are already looking for new allies in Asia since America "swaps allies at the speed of light." More proof that Barack and Hillary have no clue regarding foreign policy.
My favorite piece from the magazine is a one sentence note published by Salon.com that households with incomes of under $13,000 a year spend an average of 9% on lottery tickets. Obviously there is a reason they are on the public dole - they are stupid. Finally, there is a report on the current baby bust in America. The Pew Research Center found that the U.S. birthrate in 2011 was the lowest ever recorded with only 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. That compares with 71 in 1990 and 122 in the WWII postwar period. Some say Americans are so focused on their own personal fulfillment that they can't be bothered to raise a generation to replace them. Of course the feminazi's have gone apeshit over that comment saying it displays a malicious hostility to women. Regardless, with so few youngsters coming into the world, before long America will resemble a huge nursing home with no one to pay the freight.
All interesting stuff. Welcome to liberal Utopia.
I have not even finished reading the current issue (December 14, 2012) and have already found a lot of good stuff. For example, Michael Barone wrote in the National Review that collecting disability has become a career for many Americans. In 1960 there were 455,000 Americans receiving Social Security disability payments, which was created to help citizens who were too sick or disabled to work. That would have comprised .45% of all adults between the working ages of 18 and 65 (99.0 million). Fifty years later the number of people in the country receiving disability payments has exploded to 8.6 million, or 4.4% of Americans between 18 and 65 (194.2 million). In 50 years the percent on disability increased 10x while the working age population less than doubled.
The primary reason for this disability epidemic is that the government has considerably expanded its requirements to qualify. Now such unverifiable afflictions as mood disorders, depression, and back, knee and joint pain makes people eligible. The author claims that almost 50% of disability payments go to people who claim pain or mental disorders that no doctor can prove or disprove. He also maintained that over the two years 2010 and 2011 only 1,730,000 new jobs were created at the same time 790,000 folks went on disability. Seems that more people are gaming the system every day.
Another report from the Gulf News, based in the United Arab Emirates, laments the Obama administration's 180 degree turn from condemning the Muslim Brotherhood to "giving them red carpet treatment" following the 'Arab Spring', saying that is not only "pathetically opportunistic" but also dangerously naive. The report states the U.S. now seems to embrace the ridiculous notion that Islamists are the only credible political force in the Middle East, totally disregarding the region's liberals and particularly ignoring the younger folks who are doing the protesting. The Gulf States are already looking for new allies in Asia since America "swaps allies at the speed of light." More proof that Barack and Hillary have no clue regarding foreign policy.
My favorite piece from the magazine is a one sentence note published by Salon.com that households with incomes of under $13,000 a year spend an average of 9% on lottery tickets. Obviously there is a reason they are on the public dole - they are stupid. Finally, there is a report on the current baby bust in America. The Pew Research Center found that the U.S. birthrate in 2011 was the lowest ever recorded with only 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. That compares with 71 in 1990 and 122 in the WWII postwar period. Some say Americans are so focused on their own personal fulfillment that they can't be bothered to raise a generation to replace them. Of course the feminazi's have gone apeshit over that comment saying it displays a malicious hostility to women. Regardless, with so few youngsters coming into the world, before long America will resemble a huge nursing home with no one to pay the freight.
All interesting stuff. Welcome to liberal Utopia.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
A Great Election?
The other day I drove downtown to have lunch with one of my best friends. As I entered his office his brother was leaving. The brother smiled and said, "Great Election!" He was serious. He has read some of my stuff so he knew I would not agree. Just a friendly dig. He is a good guy and extremely intelligent (Harvard Law Degree, but I won't hold that against him). He ran as the Democratic candidate for the U. S. House of Representatives a couple years ago in a district where he didn't really have a chance, so you know he is really into politics and policy. His comment, "Great election", got me thinking. What do I truly believe? So I jotted down a few random thoughts.
Politically speaking, I probably support as many liberal positions on the issues as I do conservative ones, but with a lot of caveats. For example -
- I support raising marginal tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year. It would be even better if tax preferences were eliminated. In an advanced society there really is no reason that billionaires and multi-millionaires can't kick in a little to help the indigent. Minor changes in tax rates at the top are not going to bring American industry to a halt. It is other policies of the Obama administration that will do that.
- A necessary safety net for those who truly need it is indisputable. Contrary to liberal propaganda, I don't know any nor have ever heard of any conservatives that do not agree with that premise. What we don't support is government handouts to those who don't need it.
- I think the troops should come home from Afghanistan. In fact, Obama's surge should never have happened. Contrary to Obama's view, Iraq was the good war and Afghanistan is not. Iraq was a relatively modern state ruled by a psychotic tyrant who murdered his own people and invaded his neighbors. It is well documented that he used weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq on rebellious Kurdish towns and in the long war against Iran. He had threatened the United States and American interests numerous times, and had displayed the will to carry those threats out. He was one of the primary supporters of Islamic terrorism. He had to go. In contrast, Afghans are tribal. Except for a minority of enlightened women, they want to live the way they have for centuries. We cannot impose democracy on people who don't want it.
- Universal health care may not be a bad idea as long as it would not be managed and controlled by the federal government.
- I support immigration for those who come to this country to work and improve the lives of themselves and their families, but only if they are willing to assimilate into our culture and learn the language. Multi-culturalism is fine as long as it does not prevent integration into society and the marketplace nor create ethnic rivalries.
- Preserving the environment is undeniably essential, but radical measures advocated by dedicated greenies based on fanatical belief in still disputable evidence is more than likely to have unintended consequences. I would not dispute that we may be in a period of global warming, even though the same folks going postal on the issue now are the same ones claiming global cooling forty years ago. But the climate is in a constant state of change. Always has been. Humans are probably contributing, but fossil fuels are not the only culprit. Urban development and building things where they don't belong are just as guilty. It doesn't make much sense to blame SUV's while banning construction of new nuclear power facilities and continuing to depend on coal fired power plants.
- I think it would be a good idea to legalize marijuana and then tax it.
- Abortion and gay rights? I could care less. These issues are not important as to whether the country survives, grows and prospers. Unfortunately a substantial number of people who vote consider these issues the most important issues in contention, and vote accordingly. That is sad, and irresponsible.
Except for abortion, gay rights and legalization of marijuana, those are all very important issues. But to me, they are not the most important. The most important are the issues that determine whether America will survive and continue to maintain our legacy of freedom and prosperity. In my opinion, except for the safety net that must be maintained for those who need it, none of the above issues are as critical to the future of America as the following -
- Private enterprise and free markets must be allowed to flourish. Dodd-Frank hinders economic growth, the EPA has assumed Gestapo powers, and government bailouts reward the guilty and punish the prudent. I know Bush started the bailouts, but Obama has quadrupled down.
- Entitlements must be reformed and cut substantially for a very simple reason. The country cannot afford the current programs and will implode if major changes are not made.
- A strong defense capability must be maintained because weapons in the arsenals of potential adversaries are getting more sophisticated and destructive. At the same time, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are not getting any friendlier.
- Government must stop practicing social and economic engineering. It is a misallocation of capital, a waste of resources, invites cronyism and corruption, and usually has detrimental unintended consequences.
- Welfare must be rationalized to stop handouts to those who don't need it and to encourage self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than make it a comfortable lifestyle.
- Tax reform designed to increase fairness must be implemented. That means eliminating tax preferences or eliminating the income tax altogether and adopting a value added sales tax.
- The federal government must stop manipulating the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, stop using regulatory agencies to bail out the failures of favored enterprises (public or private), and stop subsidizing politically correct agendas.
- Public employees should not be allowed to be members of labor unions. They are both workers and management, so there is no restraint on their demands while they enjoy no competition in providing their services.
- We will never have responsible government no matter which party is in charge until we have term limits. My suggestion would be one term of 8 years for the Senate, one term of 4 years for the House, and one term of 6 years for president. Allowing multiple terms means they spend most of their time campaigning rather than doing the country's business.
It seems to me that liberals focus on the minor, feel good about yourself issues while conservatives emphasize the major ones. Liberals are all about the selfish issues that create a new morality of permissiveness that makes any behavior acceptable, makes daily life more convenient with minimal effort, and hands out free stuff paid for by someone else. Far left socialists have taken over the Democratic Party and turned it into the party of free money, free condoms, free food, free phones and freebasing. Conversely, conservatives focus on the issues that determine future prosperity, survival and freedom.
The biggest hoax socialists play on America is their claim that their policies are for the people, especially the children. Look what they are doing for those children. They are burdening them with massive debts, worthless educations, and false expectations. For those in the inner cities it's even worse as they face abandonment, violence and hopelessness. Obama and his politburo are creating a society of parasites based on dependency rather than productive citizens motivated by personal responsibility and meaningful opportunities.
Why would anyone believe a country can survive and prosper when it mandates educational ignorance, bloated unproductive bureaucracy and income redistribution, which means taking from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't? Why would anyone believe a country that rewards lethargy and immorality while punishing prudence and ambition will long endure? The Obamaites might as well just give Americans free heroine and tell them to enjoy it right up to the end. They are no different than drug dealers providing the people short term highs for long term pain and destruction. Feel good now, pay the price later. Like it's Halloween every night - free candy.
So no, I can't agree that it was a great election. I can't see the Obama administration making the spending cuts and entitlement reforms that are necessary. I do see them placing more restraints on private enterprise and free markets that will limit economic growth. I also see them making reductions in our defense capabilities that could prove suicidal. The only result of the policies Obama is pursuing is either internal destruction from economic meltdown and social chaos or defeat and subjugation at the hands of a belligerent foreign power. It's not just a fiscal cliff he is leading us over. It is a real cliff, and the fall will be fatal if he is not stopped.
Politically speaking, I probably support as many liberal positions on the issues as I do conservative ones, but with a lot of caveats. For example -
- I support raising marginal tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year. It would be even better if tax preferences were eliminated. In an advanced society there really is no reason that billionaires and multi-millionaires can't kick in a little to help the indigent. Minor changes in tax rates at the top are not going to bring American industry to a halt. It is other policies of the Obama administration that will do that.
- A necessary safety net for those who truly need it is indisputable. Contrary to liberal propaganda, I don't know any nor have ever heard of any conservatives that do not agree with that premise. What we don't support is government handouts to those who don't need it.
- I think the troops should come home from Afghanistan. In fact, Obama's surge should never have happened. Contrary to Obama's view, Iraq was the good war and Afghanistan is not. Iraq was a relatively modern state ruled by a psychotic tyrant who murdered his own people and invaded his neighbors. It is well documented that he used weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq on rebellious Kurdish towns and in the long war against Iran. He had threatened the United States and American interests numerous times, and had displayed the will to carry those threats out. He was one of the primary supporters of Islamic terrorism. He had to go. In contrast, Afghans are tribal. Except for a minority of enlightened women, they want to live the way they have for centuries. We cannot impose democracy on people who don't want it.
- Universal health care may not be a bad idea as long as it would not be managed and controlled by the federal government.
- I support immigration for those who come to this country to work and improve the lives of themselves and their families, but only if they are willing to assimilate into our culture and learn the language. Multi-culturalism is fine as long as it does not prevent integration into society and the marketplace nor create ethnic rivalries.
- Preserving the environment is undeniably essential, but radical measures advocated by dedicated greenies based on fanatical belief in still disputable evidence is more than likely to have unintended consequences. I would not dispute that we may be in a period of global warming, even though the same folks going postal on the issue now are the same ones claiming global cooling forty years ago. But the climate is in a constant state of change. Always has been. Humans are probably contributing, but fossil fuels are not the only culprit. Urban development and building things where they don't belong are just as guilty. It doesn't make much sense to blame SUV's while banning construction of new nuclear power facilities and continuing to depend on coal fired power plants.
- I think it would be a good idea to legalize marijuana and then tax it.
- Abortion and gay rights? I could care less. These issues are not important as to whether the country survives, grows and prospers. Unfortunately a substantial number of people who vote consider these issues the most important issues in contention, and vote accordingly. That is sad, and irresponsible.
Except for abortion, gay rights and legalization of marijuana, those are all very important issues. But to me, they are not the most important. The most important are the issues that determine whether America will survive and continue to maintain our legacy of freedom and prosperity. In my opinion, except for the safety net that must be maintained for those who need it, none of the above issues are as critical to the future of America as the following -
- Private enterprise and free markets must be allowed to flourish. Dodd-Frank hinders economic growth, the EPA has assumed Gestapo powers, and government bailouts reward the guilty and punish the prudent. I know Bush started the bailouts, but Obama has quadrupled down.
- Entitlements must be reformed and cut substantially for a very simple reason. The country cannot afford the current programs and will implode if major changes are not made.
- A strong defense capability must be maintained because weapons in the arsenals of potential adversaries are getting more sophisticated and destructive. At the same time, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are not getting any friendlier.
- Government must stop practicing social and economic engineering. It is a misallocation of capital, a waste of resources, invites cronyism and corruption, and usually has detrimental unintended consequences.
- Welfare must be rationalized to stop handouts to those who don't need it and to encourage self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than make it a comfortable lifestyle.
- Tax reform designed to increase fairness must be implemented. That means eliminating tax preferences or eliminating the income tax altogether and adopting a value added sales tax.
- The federal government must stop manipulating the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, stop using regulatory agencies to bail out the failures of favored enterprises (public or private), and stop subsidizing politically correct agendas.
- Public employees should not be allowed to be members of labor unions. They are both workers and management, so there is no restraint on their demands while they enjoy no competition in providing their services.
- We will never have responsible government no matter which party is in charge until we have term limits. My suggestion would be one term of 8 years for the Senate, one term of 4 years for the House, and one term of 6 years for president. Allowing multiple terms means they spend most of their time campaigning rather than doing the country's business.
It seems to me that liberals focus on the minor, feel good about yourself issues while conservatives emphasize the major ones. Liberals are all about the selfish issues that create a new morality of permissiveness that makes any behavior acceptable, makes daily life more convenient with minimal effort, and hands out free stuff paid for by someone else. Far left socialists have taken over the Democratic Party and turned it into the party of free money, free condoms, free food, free phones and freebasing. Conversely, conservatives focus on the issues that determine future prosperity, survival and freedom.
The biggest hoax socialists play on America is their claim that their policies are for the people, especially the children. Look what they are doing for those children. They are burdening them with massive debts, worthless educations, and false expectations. For those in the inner cities it's even worse as they face abandonment, violence and hopelessness. Obama and his politburo are creating a society of parasites based on dependency rather than productive citizens motivated by personal responsibility and meaningful opportunities.
Why would anyone believe a country can survive and prosper when it mandates educational ignorance, bloated unproductive bureaucracy and income redistribution, which means taking from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't? Why would anyone believe a country that rewards lethargy and immorality while punishing prudence and ambition will long endure? The Obamaites might as well just give Americans free heroine and tell them to enjoy it right up to the end. They are no different than drug dealers providing the people short term highs for long term pain and destruction. Feel good now, pay the price later. Like it's Halloween every night - free candy.
So no, I can't agree that it was a great election. I can't see the Obama administration making the spending cuts and entitlement reforms that are necessary. I do see them placing more restraints on private enterprise and free markets that will limit economic growth. I also see them making reductions in our defense capabilities that could prove suicidal. The only result of the policies Obama is pursuing is either internal destruction from economic meltdown and social chaos or defeat and subjugation at the hands of a belligerent foreign power. It's not just a fiscal cliff he is leading us over. It is a real cliff, and the fall will be fatal if he is not stopped.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Greece or Egypt?
Which country are we becoming, Greece or Egypt? Greece is the ultimate result of the welfare state. Greeks just sat back, enjoyed the free goodies from government as long as they lasted, and then imploded with violent protests. Egypt is the ultimate result of an elected president making an unprecedented power grab. Egyptians aren't buying the dictatorial decrees their leader is forcing down their throats, and the country is exploding with violent protests.
As usual, Barack Obama is controlling the debate about the fiscal cliff and the government's budget deficits by arguing about the small potatoes and ignoring the elephant in the room. The discussion is all about tax increases on the wealthy. I will not argue against tax rate increases on the top 2% or even 5% of income earners, but I would argue that eliminating tax preferences (loopholes) would be a much better solution. But no matter what the outcome of the argument, the changes would raise government revenues by a drop in the bucket. Spending is the real issue, and Obama is successfully delivering a head fake so he can continue to expand the socialist welfare state. Read the article referenced below if you are not convinced.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323501404578161162667441912-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNjEwNDYyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Obama is not negotiating and not compromising - he is demanding in true imperial dictator fashion. The latest demand, to do away with the debt ceiling limit, reveals his intention to continue to expand government spending as if money grows on trees. Obama is demanding to effectively eiliminate Congressional control of government spending, which is explicity one of the basic duties of Congress under the Constitution. Only 3 out of 10 eligible voters voted for Obama but he is now assuming autocratic powers. This is getting serious folks.
How will Americans respond? Do Americans really want to be governed by an autocratic dictator? It is time for any responsible person that may be left in the major media networks to get a grip and realize their mistake in promoting this tyrant and begin to question what is happening before things start to get real ugly. We may soon find out if Americans still have balls like the Egyptians or have been castrated like the Greeks. Just remember that whichever road we are starting down, they both end in violence.
As usual, Barack Obama is controlling the debate about the fiscal cliff and the government's budget deficits by arguing about the small potatoes and ignoring the elephant in the room. The discussion is all about tax increases on the wealthy. I will not argue against tax rate increases on the top 2% or even 5% of income earners, but I would argue that eliminating tax preferences (loopholes) would be a much better solution. But no matter what the outcome of the argument, the changes would raise government revenues by a drop in the bucket. Spending is the real issue, and Obama is successfully delivering a head fake so he can continue to expand the socialist welfare state. Read the article referenced below if you are not convinced.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323501404578161162667441912-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNjEwNDYyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Obama is not negotiating and not compromising - he is demanding in true imperial dictator fashion. The latest demand, to do away with the debt ceiling limit, reveals his intention to continue to expand government spending as if money grows on trees. Obama is demanding to effectively eiliminate Congressional control of government spending, which is explicity one of the basic duties of Congress under the Constitution. Only 3 out of 10 eligible voters voted for Obama but he is now assuming autocratic powers. This is getting serious folks.
How will Americans respond? Do Americans really want to be governed by an autocratic dictator? It is time for any responsible person that may be left in the major media networks to get a grip and realize their mistake in promoting this tyrant and begin to question what is happening before things start to get real ugly. We may soon find out if Americans still have balls like the Egyptians or have been castrated like the Greeks. Just remember that whichever road we are starting down, they both end in violence.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
It's Your Fault
Ever since Kansas City Chief's linebacker Jovan Belcher killed his girlfriend and then himself the liberal know-it-alls have been filling the media with excuses. Those who have picked up on the current fad of blaming the violence of football for causing head injuries have claimed that as the reason for this tragedy well before there has been any evidence. They have called for banning football. Of course the television moguls shudder at the thought of banning their meal ticket, so Bob Costas had to get on a soapbox during halftime of Sunday night's Cowboys - Eagles game and blame the long standing primary liberal target - guns. Since guns are the cause, they must be banned. (By the way, guns aren't the problem, nor are bullets. I'd say it's the trigger.)
Naturally, in today's increasingly feminized America, a growing popular cause of Belcher's action was to blame it all on being a man. Yes, it's true. Articles have been written and talk shows have discussed it. Somehow it is due to masculinity, machismo, virility, manliness. Supposedly men are programmed to kill. Never mind the fact that the act of killing a woman, and particularly the mother of your child, would be the most unmanly thing a man could do. Like everything else, liberals are changing the definition of what it means to be a man.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on the percentage of white, black, Latino and Asian men who murder people. It would also be interesting to see the number of each ethnic group who use guns to commit those murders. If the statistics indicated that a particular ethnic group had a significantly higher incidence of participation in those crimes, then a rational inference would be that perhaps the primary cause is genetic. Of course that would be so politically incorrect as to be preposterous and unthinkable.
Perhaps another conclusion could be reached if the analysis of murders and the use of guns was based on either socio-economic status or social environment, i.e., inner-city versus suburban versus rural. Those statistics might also prove to be politically incorrect as they are more than likely to show that the social policies imposed by the liberals over the last fifty years have not only been a major failure, but have made modern society more polarized, coldhearted and malicious. Personally, I would bet money that this is the primary cause of America's violent nature. Of course any evidence supporting this conclusion would also be swept under the rug.
Not that any of that really matters. It is becoming a new America we live in, one that may soon see the disappearance of guns, football and real men. Not only will that be an America I do not want to live in, it will be an America that cannot long survive. It's a competitive and dangerous world out there. The women and girliemen are taking over. We'll see how that works out for them.
Naturally, in today's increasingly feminized America, a growing popular cause of Belcher's action was to blame it all on being a man. Yes, it's true. Articles have been written and talk shows have discussed it. Somehow it is due to masculinity, machismo, virility, manliness. Supposedly men are programmed to kill. Never mind the fact that the act of killing a woman, and particularly the mother of your child, would be the most unmanly thing a man could do. Like everything else, liberals are changing the definition of what it means to be a man.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on the percentage of white, black, Latino and Asian men who murder people. It would also be interesting to see the number of each ethnic group who use guns to commit those murders. If the statistics indicated that a particular ethnic group had a significantly higher incidence of participation in those crimes, then a rational inference would be that perhaps the primary cause is genetic. Of course that would be so politically incorrect as to be preposterous and unthinkable.
Perhaps another conclusion could be reached if the analysis of murders and the use of guns was based on either socio-economic status or social environment, i.e., inner-city versus suburban versus rural. Those statistics might also prove to be politically incorrect as they are more than likely to show that the social policies imposed by the liberals over the last fifty years have not only been a major failure, but have made modern society more polarized, coldhearted and malicious. Personally, I would bet money that this is the primary cause of America's violent nature. Of course any evidence supporting this conclusion would also be swept under the rug.
Not that any of that really matters. It is becoming a new America we live in, one that may soon see the disappearance of guns, football and real men. Not only will that be an America I do not want to live in, it will be an America that cannot long survive. It's a competitive and dangerous world out there. The women and girliemen are taking over. We'll see how that works out for them.
Monday, December 03, 2012
What The Hell Happened?
For some time now the world has been turned upside down from the one I remember. Socialism is now in vogue while capitalism is under attack. Investors are throwing massive amounts of money at bonds at the lowest interest rates ever while selling all their stocks, including the high quality ones which remain profitable, have higher dividend yields than so-called safe bonds, and record levels of cash on their books. And interestingly, public employees now have some of the best compensation packages to be found. My father was a career employee of the federal government bureaucracy, and government workers in the 60's and 70's were among the lowest paid people in America. Now seven out of ten of the wealthiest counties in America surround Washington, D.C.
An article in the Wall Street Journal today, December 3, 2012, provided further evidence that things have definitely changed. It said that the average compensation for an employee of one of the 32 largest financial companies, primarily banks and securities firms, will be $128,089 this year, a new record. These jobs are not rocket science. Investment banks and brokerage firms don't need Ph.D.'s. They need people with good bullshit. Some folks in the business earn their money by trying to do their best for clients and customers, but most only care about how much money goes in their own pockets. They don't have to provide value-added service, they only have to be able to sell the product to make the big bucks. Bankers are not intellectually challenged much either. They just need people who understand a little math, can fill out forms, operate some computer programs, and figure out that they must lend money to borrowers at a higher rate than they pay depositors for that money.
When I had my first job right out of college working for a bank in the early 70's, bankers were among the lowest paid people of any industry. Now they are at or near the top. I would like someone to explain to me why folks who have relatively easy jobs but still manage to inflict devastation on the economies and financial systems of Western Civilization should make 2.5 times the $52,000 median income of all Americans.
Working for a bank or the government is now among the highest paid jobs in America. Forty years ago who would have known? It does makes you wonder, though. Why is it that folks who do the most damage to the country are the highest paid?
An article in the Wall Street Journal today, December 3, 2012, provided further evidence that things have definitely changed. It said that the average compensation for an employee of one of the 32 largest financial companies, primarily banks and securities firms, will be $128,089 this year, a new record. These jobs are not rocket science. Investment banks and brokerage firms don't need Ph.D.'s. They need people with good bullshit. Some folks in the business earn their money by trying to do their best for clients and customers, but most only care about how much money goes in their own pockets. They don't have to provide value-added service, they only have to be able to sell the product to make the big bucks. Bankers are not intellectually challenged much either. They just need people who understand a little math, can fill out forms, operate some computer programs, and figure out that they must lend money to borrowers at a higher rate than they pay depositors for that money.
When I had my first job right out of college working for a bank in the early 70's, bankers were among the lowest paid people of any industry. Now they are at or near the top. I would like someone to explain to me why folks who have relatively easy jobs but still manage to inflict devastation on the economies and financial systems of Western Civilization should make 2.5 times the $52,000 median income of all Americans.
Working for a bank or the government is now among the highest paid jobs in America. Forty years ago who would have known? It does makes you wonder, though. Why is it that folks who do the most damage to the country are the highest paid?
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Dear Boomers
Dear Boomers,
We regret to inform you that the country you inherited from your parents, grew up in, whose freedom and prosperity you have enjoyed, has passed away. It has moved on to join Rome and Ancient Greece, the other great Western civilizations of history. The country suffered its demise following five decades of continual assault from progressive forces that in the fall of 2012 finally defeated the principles, philosophy and values that had produced the greatest country in the history of the world.
A new culture has taken its place, one of capitulation to divisive multi-culturalism, personal dependency, unaffordable entitlements, social immorality, and economic destruction. The takeover has been accompanied by central government dominance and control of economic activity, mandated compliance with politically correct personal behavior, and the denial of individual rights. Special interest group favoritism and autocratic manipulation have taken charge. And we boomers let it happen.
Bob Dylan wrote the anthem of the baby boom generation, 'The Times They Are A-Changin', about the social revolution of the 1960's. It told the older generation, the one now known as The Greatest Generation that through unselfish personal sacrifice preserved freedom and democracy in brutal wars against cruel dictators, to get out of the way of what they don't understand. While America prospered and security was maintained thanks to the deeds of that older generation, the children were allowed to run wild. They embarked on an idealistic mission to create the perfect society, where everyone did what they want, lived in peace and harmony, sang kumbaya, and lived happily ever after. Unfortunately, like all good intentions based on fantasy rather than reality, it didn't work. Instead they created a society that lived beyond its means, resulting in a dangerously divided, security challenged, bankrupt country on the verge of implosion.
Today a new generation has what they think is a new social revolution underway in America. But it is not really new. Instead of learning from the previous experience, the new generation apparently believes we can double down on the ideology and policies that created this situation in the first place as a solution to work our way out of it. We continually spent more than we earned and created a colossal debt problem. So this generation thinks we need to create even more debt. We created too much dependency on government. So the brilliant young folks think we must make people even more dependent. We placed too much of the tax burden on those who are productive, so they think we must tax them even more. The only difference of the new revolution is that it is leading even faster down the road to national insolvency, dependence on government, social polarization and eventual self-destruction.
According to the exit polls of the 2012 election, the National Election Pool reported that voters 65 and older voted for the Romney-Ryan ticket over Obama-Biden by 58% to 41%, and the 45 to 65 age group picked Romney-Ryan by 51% to 47%. Maybe the voting age needs to be raised. But experience apparently means nothing anymore. By the age of 40 we have all seen and heard the outrageous lies, empty promises, blatant hypocrisy, creative campaign propaganda and demonization of opponents, and we no longer buy into it. We know it is all bullshit. Never-the-less, the younger generations who voted Obama back into office will still blame us down the road when they find themselves impoverished, oppressed, despondent, insecure and with no way out of their situation. They will blame us for not telling them. We did, but they weren't listening.
Certainly not all of our children turned out stupid. After all, 40% of those under 30 were smart enough to recognize the Obama scam and voted for Romney. But as parents, boomers are responsible for those who drank the Kool-Aid and handed the country back to an arrogant, inexperienced, left wing ideologue who has no clue about how to run any organization, let alone the most powerful nation on earth. Boomers gave their kids everything without making them earn it. That was a big mistake.
Maybe it is time for the baby boom generation to wake up and make a stand, to ignore Dylan and get in the faces of the self-centered, permissive, unethical, immoral society we created and finally discipline our coddled, spoiled, over-indulged offspring. If we would, maybe we could recover our own sense of responsibility and fulfill our obligation of maintaining our heritage by defending democracy and freedom from the assault of the autocratic self-proclaimed know-it-alls of the new age Progressives.
Unfortunately, given the results of the latest election, it looks like it is too late. We will more likely be known as the generation that lost America. Authority has passed from the experienced to the inexperienced, from competence to incompetence, from collaberation to confrontation, from what works in the real world to what intellectual eggheads fantasize in ivory towers and upscale urban drawing rooms. Too bad. We had a good thing going.
We regret to inform you that the country you inherited from your parents, grew up in, whose freedom and prosperity you have enjoyed, has passed away. It has moved on to join Rome and Ancient Greece, the other great Western civilizations of history. The country suffered its demise following five decades of continual assault from progressive forces that in the fall of 2012 finally defeated the principles, philosophy and values that had produced the greatest country in the history of the world.
A new culture has taken its place, one of capitulation to divisive multi-culturalism, personal dependency, unaffordable entitlements, social immorality, and economic destruction. The takeover has been accompanied by central government dominance and control of economic activity, mandated compliance with politically correct personal behavior, and the denial of individual rights. Special interest group favoritism and autocratic manipulation have taken charge. And we boomers let it happen.
Bob Dylan wrote the anthem of the baby boom generation, 'The Times They Are A-Changin', about the social revolution of the 1960's. It told the older generation, the one now known as The Greatest Generation that through unselfish personal sacrifice preserved freedom and democracy in brutal wars against cruel dictators, to get out of the way of what they don't understand. While America prospered and security was maintained thanks to the deeds of that older generation, the children were allowed to run wild. They embarked on an idealistic mission to create the perfect society, where everyone did what they want, lived in peace and harmony, sang kumbaya, and lived happily ever after. Unfortunately, like all good intentions based on fantasy rather than reality, it didn't work. Instead they created a society that lived beyond its means, resulting in a dangerously divided, security challenged, bankrupt country on the verge of implosion.
Today a new generation has what they think is a new social revolution underway in America. But it is not really new. Instead of learning from the previous experience, the new generation apparently believes we can double down on the ideology and policies that created this situation in the first place as a solution to work our way out of it. We continually spent more than we earned and created a colossal debt problem. So this generation thinks we need to create even more debt. We created too much dependency on government. So the brilliant young folks think we must make people even more dependent. We placed too much of the tax burden on those who are productive, so they think we must tax them even more. The only difference of the new revolution is that it is leading even faster down the road to national insolvency, dependence on government, social polarization and eventual self-destruction.
According to the exit polls of the 2012 election, the National Election Pool reported that voters 65 and older voted for the Romney-Ryan ticket over Obama-Biden by 58% to 41%, and the 45 to 65 age group picked Romney-Ryan by 51% to 47%. Maybe the voting age needs to be raised. But experience apparently means nothing anymore. By the age of 40 we have all seen and heard the outrageous lies, empty promises, blatant hypocrisy, creative campaign propaganda and demonization of opponents, and we no longer buy into it. We know it is all bullshit. Never-the-less, the younger generations who voted Obama back into office will still blame us down the road when they find themselves impoverished, oppressed, despondent, insecure and with no way out of their situation. They will blame us for not telling them. We did, but they weren't listening.
Certainly not all of our children turned out stupid. After all, 40% of those under 30 were smart enough to recognize the Obama scam and voted for Romney. But as parents, boomers are responsible for those who drank the Kool-Aid and handed the country back to an arrogant, inexperienced, left wing ideologue who has no clue about how to run any organization, let alone the most powerful nation on earth. Boomers gave their kids everything without making them earn it. That was a big mistake.
Maybe it is time for the baby boom generation to wake up and make a stand, to ignore Dylan and get in the faces of the self-centered, permissive, unethical, immoral society we created and finally discipline our coddled, spoiled, over-indulged offspring. If we would, maybe we could recover our own sense of responsibility and fulfill our obligation of maintaining our heritage by defending democracy and freedom from the assault of the autocratic self-proclaimed know-it-alls of the new age Progressives.
Unfortunately, given the results of the latest election, it looks like it is too late. We will more likely be known as the generation that lost America. Authority has passed from the experienced to the inexperienced, from competence to incompetence, from collaberation to confrontation, from what works in the real world to what intellectual eggheads fantasize in ivory towers and upscale urban drawing rooms. Too bad. We had a good thing going.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
War On Who?
Yesterday's Dallas Morning News (November 26, 2012) had an an article on the front page of the Metro section discussing changes that may need to be made to public contracting programs. The article concerned Dallas in general and DFW Airport in particular, but I would bet big money that it is applicable throughout the country. For years public entities, and some private ones, have followed affirmative action programs requring them to award contracts proportionally to specific bidders, meaning minority and women owned contractors. Dallas finally conducted a study to measure the progress of those programs. The results of the study were quite interesting.
The study found that for construction contracts minority firms were still relatively under-represented while women owned firms met the goals. Regarding architectural and engineering contracts both groups were adequately represented. In the professional services category, which includes attorneys, accountants, medical professionals, technicians and consultants, women and minority owned firms received 88% of the contracts, well above their proportional representation of contractors. If the women and minority owned firms were the most qualified and best providers of the services, then good for them.
Even though quotas are unconstitutional, they have become accepted practice and are probably here to stay. In addition to public contracts, affirmative action applies to education and hiring practices of most corporations. Perhaps they even do some good. The problem I have is that even though quotas have already achieved their objective, Democratic politicians and Barack Obama in particular continue to exploit disparities that no longer exist, misrepresenting the truth by declaring that white men are conducting a war on women and taking advantage of minorities.
America is supposed to be all about equal opportunity. Not anymore. How can anyone truly think there is a war on women or that minorities are disadvantaged when every public institution and many private sector ones have programs that require quota's for women and minorities in hiring employees and awarding contracts. Quotas mean that certain groups are favored over others, and those others are always white males. The quotas always ignore the fact that lots of white males are indigent too. Most government sponsored programs in America, from Obamacare to educational subsidies, favor women and minorities. Clearly the war in this country is on white males, both men and boys.
I personally am sick and tired of Democrats and their media propaganda machine lying about, ridiculing, denigrating and humiliating those in this country who dare to tell the truth. I am sick and tired of their pompous condescending superiority attitude. They smugly ridicule Mitt Romney for saying he lost the election because Obama gives away stuff to those who vote for him. Well, it happens to be the truth. Perhaps it wasn't the only reason, but there can really be no denying that it was a major one. Just because they supposedly (no scam, fraud, or cheating is outside their limits) won the presidential election does not give them the right to ignore the 69%* of eligible voters in America who did not vote for Barack Obama.
In 2008 Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she was proud as an American when her husband was elected. In 2012 I am still proud to be an American, but I am ashamed of the American people - not only ashamed but disgusted. Anyone can make a mistake once, but electing that arrogant, dishonest, incompetent empty suit twice is unforgivable. He won the election not only because he gives away free stuff to get people to vote for him, he won because he is driving a polarizing wedge between Americans based on wealth, gender and race, creating unhealthy hostility and resentment between rich and poor, men and women, and the various ethnic groups.
Regarding race, when you work or socialize with a black, Latino or Asian person today do you see a person of a different race or just another person? As for me, I see another person who more than likely is better than I am at some things but not at others. I see doctors, lawyers, teachers, acountants, technicians, engineers and other folks of solid achievement. I don't see black doctors, Hispanic lawyers, Asian teachers, green accountants, blue technicians or purple engineers. It seems to me the only folks who keep racism alive in this country are the ones who benefit from it, i.e., the Democratic politicians.
Furthermore, I would be bold enough to say that 99% of Americans believe in a safety net of public support for those who truly need it, although no one would ever know that from the left wing propaganda in newspapers, on TV and the liberal blogs. What many of us don't advocate is freebies for those who don't need them, mainly because they are unfair and the nation cannot afford it. Some of us also think it is not a good idea to grant public support that is so generous that it becomes a comfortable lifestyle, generating little incentive for recipients to take advantage of opportunities to learn how to support themselves.
Today in America 57% of college graduates are women. Today in America young women under the age of 30 in urban areas make more money than men. Three of the CEO's of the six largest defense contractors are women. African-Americans hold the top jobs at a substantial number of American corporations. African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans enjoy high paying jobs throughout the ranks of American business and professional occupations. Women and minorities have won whatever war they think they are fighting. But it appears they want more. Apparently they want total victory and won't be happy until all white men in America, who rejected long-standing global tradition and gave them the opportunity to improve themselves and gain equality in the work place, are ground into the dirt. That must be the reason they vote for Barack Obama, because he promises to do just that.
* Statistics from the 2012 presidential election -
There were 207.6 million eligible voters, and 127.0 million (61.2%) actually voted.
64.5 million people (31.1% of eligible voters) voted for Barack Obama, meaning nearly 69% didn't.
The study found that for construction contracts minority firms were still relatively under-represented while women owned firms met the goals. Regarding architectural and engineering contracts both groups were adequately represented. In the professional services category, which includes attorneys, accountants, medical professionals, technicians and consultants, women and minority owned firms received 88% of the contracts, well above their proportional representation of contractors. If the women and minority owned firms were the most qualified and best providers of the services, then good for them.
Even though quotas are unconstitutional, they have become accepted practice and are probably here to stay. In addition to public contracts, affirmative action applies to education and hiring practices of most corporations. Perhaps they even do some good. The problem I have is that even though quotas have already achieved their objective, Democratic politicians and Barack Obama in particular continue to exploit disparities that no longer exist, misrepresenting the truth by declaring that white men are conducting a war on women and taking advantage of minorities.
America is supposed to be all about equal opportunity. Not anymore. How can anyone truly think there is a war on women or that minorities are disadvantaged when every public institution and many private sector ones have programs that require quota's for women and minorities in hiring employees and awarding contracts. Quotas mean that certain groups are favored over others, and those others are always white males. The quotas always ignore the fact that lots of white males are indigent too. Most government sponsored programs in America, from Obamacare to educational subsidies, favor women and minorities. Clearly the war in this country is on white males, both men and boys.
I personally am sick and tired of Democrats and their media propaganda machine lying about, ridiculing, denigrating and humiliating those in this country who dare to tell the truth. I am sick and tired of their pompous condescending superiority attitude. They smugly ridicule Mitt Romney for saying he lost the election because Obama gives away stuff to those who vote for him. Well, it happens to be the truth. Perhaps it wasn't the only reason, but there can really be no denying that it was a major one. Just because they supposedly (no scam, fraud, or cheating is outside their limits) won the presidential election does not give them the right to ignore the 69%* of eligible voters in America who did not vote for Barack Obama.
In 2008 Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she was proud as an American when her husband was elected. In 2012 I am still proud to be an American, but I am ashamed of the American people - not only ashamed but disgusted. Anyone can make a mistake once, but electing that arrogant, dishonest, incompetent empty suit twice is unforgivable. He won the election not only because he gives away free stuff to get people to vote for him, he won because he is driving a polarizing wedge between Americans based on wealth, gender and race, creating unhealthy hostility and resentment between rich and poor, men and women, and the various ethnic groups.
Regarding race, when you work or socialize with a black, Latino or Asian person today do you see a person of a different race or just another person? As for me, I see another person who more than likely is better than I am at some things but not at others. I see doctors, lawyers, teachers, acountants, technicians, engineers and other folks of solid achievement. I don't see black doctors, Hispanic lawyers, Asian teachers, green accountants, blue technicians or purple engineers. It seems to me the only folks who keep racism alive in this country are the ones who benefit from it, i.e., the Democratic politicians.
Furthermore, I would be bold enough to say that 99% of Americans believe in a safety net of public support for those who truly need it, although no one would ever know that from the left wing propaganda in newspapers, on TV and the liberal blogs. What many of us don't advocate is freebies for those who don't need them, mainly because they are unfair and the nation cannot afford it. Some of us also think it is not a good idea to grant public support that is so generous that it becomes a comfortable lifestyle, generating little incentive for recipients to take advantage of opportunities to learn how to support themselves.
Today in America 57% of college graduates are women. Today in America young women under the age of 30 in urban areas make more money than men. Three of the CEO's of the six largest defense contractors are women. African-Americans hold the top jobs at a substantial number of American corporations. African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans enjoy high paying jobs throughout the ranks of American business and professional occupations. Women and minorities have won whatever war they think they are fighting. But it appears they want more. Apparently they want total victory and won't be happy until all white men in America, who rejected long-standing global tradition and gave them the opportunity to improve themselves and gain equality in the work place, are ground into the dirt. That must be the reason they vote for Barack Obama, because he promises to do just that.
* Statistics from the 2012 presidential election -
There were 207.6 million eligible voters, and 127.0 million (61.2%) actually voted.
64.5 million people (31.1% of eligible voters) voted for Barack Obama, meaning nearly 69% didn't.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)