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.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
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.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Postmortem
The bad guys won. Unfortunately, the tactics of lying about your opponent and then accusing the opponent of lying worked again. But just barely. Barack Obama may have easily won the Electoral College but received slightly over 50% of the vote compared to Mitt Romney's 48%. That is not a great vote of confidence in the Liar in Chief. More revealing of the electorate's attitude, Democrats gained seats in both houses of Congress, although most of those votes were extremely close as well. That should not have happened. Obviously there was more to it than Obama's rock star personna that carried the day.
The post election pundits almost universally claim that demographics were the primary determinant of re-electing Obama, and that demographic trends spell doom for Republicans. That certainly is a critical issue as the two fastest growing ethnic groups in America, Latinos and Asian-Americans, joined African-Americans in overwhelmingly voting for Democrats. Republicans will never win a majority of the black vote, but the allegiance of the Asians and Hispanics is not necessarily irreversible if Republicans use a little more common sense in attempting to attract them. Regarding Tuesday's election, I think there are a few other easily remedied mistakes that were also important in deciding the outcome.
The biggest problems Republicans have are self-inflicted. I would suggest they do three things differently in future elections -
1. Once anyone on the Republican Party ticket says anything really stupid about rape, kick them out of the party and replace them with someone who is not a moron.
2. Forget trying to explain economics to the American people. They are too stupid to understand it.
3. Stop opposing raising marginal income tax rates on folks making over $250,000 a year. A minor increase in the tax rate would have a limited impact on incentives for capital investment, much less of an impact than Democrats plans will. Be out front on the issue, not behind. Better yet, consider eliminating the income tax and implementing a consumption tax on all spending but basic food, clothing and shelter. Maybe even propose a wealth tax on those with assets in excess of $100 million. And don't stop pushing for the elimination of loopholes. Those would be ideas that resonate with voters and might help dispel to some degree the notion that the Republican Party is the party of the rich.
Looking at a national map (red vs. blue) of the districts won by Democrats you can't help but notice they are comprised of those with the highest incomes, the lowest incomes, and the heavily subsidized (welfare recipients, public employees, farmers). Those won by Republicans are the working middle class. It wouldn't hurt for Republicans to someday point that out.
The post election pundits almost universally claim that demographics were the primary determinant of re-electing Obama, and that demographic trends spell doom for Republicans. That certainly is a critical issue as the two fastest growing ethnic groups in America, Latinos and Asian-Americans, joined African-Americans in overwhelmingly voting for Democrats. Republicans will never win a majority of the black vote, but the allegiance of the Asians and Hispanics is not necessarily irreversible if Republicans use a little more common sense in attempting to attract them. Regarding Tuesday's election, I think there are a few other easily remedied mistakes that were also important in deciding the outcome.
The biggest problems Republicans have are self-inflicted. I would suggest they do three things differently in future elections -
1. Once anyone on the Republican Party ticket says anything really stupid about rape, kick them out of the party and replace them with someone who is not a moron.
2. Forget trying to explain economics to the American people. They are too stupid to understand it.
3. Stop opposing raising marginal income tax rates on folks making over $250,000 a year. A minor increase in the tax rate would have a limited impact on incentives for capital investment, much less of an impact than Democrats plans will. Be out front on the issue, not behind. Better yet, consider eliminating the income tax and implementing a consumption tax on all spending but basic food, clothing and shelter. Maybe even propose a wealth tax on those with assets in excess of $100 million. And don't stop pushing for the elimination of loopholes. Those would be ideas that resonate with voters and might help dispel to some degree the notion that the Republican Party is the party of the rich.
Looking at a national map (red vs. blue) of the districts won by Democrats you can't help but notice they are comprised of those with the highest incomes, the lowest incomes, and the heavily subsidized (welfare recipients, public employees, farmers). Those won by Republicans are the working middle class. It wouldn't hurt for Republicans to someday point that out.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
The Issue That Dare Not Be Discussed
I knew when I wrote the last blog ("Tearing Down The House") that some folks would take on the politically correct duty of calling anyone who even discusses the ethnic issue a racist. I have already received a couple of those accusations within just two days of writing it. But that charge would be difficult to prove. I grew up in an integrated Iowa. We had black and Latino classmates and I never saw anyone treat them any different than the rest of us (well, I have to admit one guy did that moved to my school in junior high from Tennessee). I have had many very good African-American and Latino friends over the years, both at work and socially. I would vote for a Thomas Sowell (if he ever ran for office), a Condoleeza Rice, and an Alan West in a heartbeat. And there is strong evidence my father, who was adopted at birth in 1914 in the Lakota Sioux territory of western North Dakota, was half American Indian. So it is more than probable that I could be classified as a minority too. By the way, both Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were Lakota Sioux, and I happen to be very proud of that fact.
My problem with Barack Obama is not his race, whatever he claims it to be. He could be green, purple, blue or even a fricking zebra. And I don't care where he was born. My problem is his communist politics, his known association with anti-American radicals, his blatant dishonesty, his condescending arrogance, his imperial manipulations of the Executive Branch, his dictatorial violations of the Constitution, his dismantling of free markets, his war on private enterprise, and his crippling of our national security capabilities.
Domestically we have been stuck in an economic quagmire because of Obama's anti-capitalist policies. Globally we have lost influence in every corner of the world as he offends our allies and practices his theory that appeasement will make those who want to kill us become our friends. Obama's supporters can buy into his bullshit and argue until they are blue in the face that this state of affairs is not his fault and he needs more time, but after four years of his leadership that argument is becoming stale and tiresome. The only time in our history that recovery from a recession has been anywhere near this weak was in the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt pursued the same policies. And while the media focus is on the Middle East and Iran, where clearly the situation continues to deteriorate no matter how they try to sugarcoat it, Russia and China build up their military capabilities with little notice from our fearless leader.
Obama's personal character is constantly revealed in his now worn out self-promoting standard operating procedures. He takes no responsibility for any actions or programs that have bad results and undue credit for the good things he has very little to do with. He creates fantasy straw men regarding his opponent's record and policies, then burns them down with empty but appealing cliches. He creates outright lies about his political adversaries and then accuses them of lying. He is all Hollywood fantasy. The scariest part is he almost seems to believe his own bullshit. One has to wonder if these delusions of grandeur indicate serious psychological issues.
I am not a Republican. I am an independent. I don't have a problem with raising marginal tax rates on those making half a million dollars a year. I agree that health care definitely must be reformed, although placing anything under total government control is not an optimal solution. I think we need to get our ground troops out of Afghanistan right now - three years ago would have been even better. I think the far right wing of the Republican Party is full of lunatics, just as the far left wing of the Democratic Party is. The difference is that the far right is not in charge of the Republican Party. If it was the party would not have a Mormon running for president. Meanwhile, the far left of the Democratic Party has an iron vice grip on it. It is my opinion these people are not liberals, nor are they traditional Democrats. They are autocratic dictators in the mold of Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez. They don't intend to listen to the people and they don't intend to compromise.
There are certain facts of life that the president and his politburo either don't understand or deliberately don't want to acknowledge in their delusional belief that they possess the brilliance to dictate the perfect world. Try as they might, the best efforts of human beings cannot outlive father time, outsmart mother nature, outproduce free markets, or outlaw income inequality. Nor can they eliminate the need for strong national security or create a more fair and just society than real democracy. Sadly, real democracy has become an illusion given the ignorance of so many voters and the lying and cheating of political parties.
Certainly the Republican Party has its share of folks who have no business being any nation's political leaders. But today's Democratic Party has become a monolithic force under the influence of people who are working to turn the United States upside down, destroying both our legacy and our future. They do it in the name of being the defenders of the poor and underprivileged even though the programs they legislate do nothing to improve the condition or opportunities of the people they pretend to champion.
Over the last fifty years the Democrats have had total control of both houses of Congress 32 years and Republicans only 14. Democrats have held the presidency at the same time they controlled both houses of Congress 16 years in the last fifty compared to only 8 years when Republicans had total control. In other words, Democrats have been in charge of the country more than twice the time Republicans have in the last half century. Yet the rich have gotten richer and the disparity in wealth continues to grow. Maybe voters should rethink who is responsible for that. How long can Democrats keep running their scam?
As I said in "Tearing Down The House", white men of European descent were prodominantly responsible for creating the unprecedented affluence the United States of America has achieved, and they were responsible for preserving freedom around the globe in two world wars. Notice I said predominantly, not solely, because obviously there were African-Americans and other ethnic groups that contributed, as did women. In fact, the Census Bureau records indicate that in 1800 the country was 81% white and 19% non-white, with that 19% being primarily black slaves. By 1850 it was 84% white and 16% non-white. As of 1900 whites comprised 89% of the US population, a number that did not change much through 1950.
Today non-Hispanic whites comprise nearly 70% of the population. America has been a predominantly white nation since its beginning and still is, although that is currently changing at a rapid pace. It is not a misrepresentation to claim that white people were the driving force behind building America into its dominant position as a world power, both economically and militarily, in the twentieth century. That is not a racist comment. It is a fact. But forget race. Substitute private enterprise, free markets, property rights, individual liberty, rule of law and limited government for 'white men of European descent' and you see what was really responsible for creating American preeminence among nations. It is just that white men of European descent had the foresight to adopt those principles, philosophies and values. Regrettably, those principles, philosophies and values are what our current Democratic Party leaders are working to repudiate and replace.
One comment I received for the last blog was that white men of European descent built America on the backs of slaves. In the early part of American history there is some truth to that, particularly in the agricultural sector of the economy that was prevalent at the time. But slavery ended nearly 150 years ago, and nearly all progress in America has occurred since that time. No one in at least six generations had anything to do with slavery. Slavery was clearly wrong, as was the brutal massacres and forced resettlements of the American Indians. But those wrongs occurred a long time ago, and it is way past time for people to move on.
Contrary to left-wing rhetoric, only a few white men of European descent were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Most everyone in America except the fortunate few have experienced bias, discrimination, rejection and despair in our lifetimes, admittedly some much more than others. Never-the-less, private enterprise and free markets have allowed all of us to greatly increase our standard of living, including those at the bottom of society's ladder. The United States of America is one of the greatest success stories in world history. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this country who do not understand what made us successful. Or maybe they are just easily conned and still can't recognize political snake oil when Dr. Feelgood comes around every four years.
My problem with Barack Obama is not his race, whatever he claims it to be. He could be green, purple, blue or even a fricking zebra. And I don't care where he was born. My problem is his communist politics, his known association with anti-American radicals, his blatant dishonesty, his condescending arrogance, his imperial manipulations of the Executive Branch, his dictatorial violations of the Constitution, his dismantling of free markets, his war on private enterprise, and his crippling of our national security capabilities.
Domestically we have been stuck in an economic quagmire because of Obama's anti-capitalist policies. Globally we have lost influence in every corner of the world as he offends our allies and practices his theory that appeasement will make those who want to kill us become our friends. Obama's supporters can buy into his bullshit and argue until they are blue in the face that this state of affairs is not his fault and he needs more time, but after four years of his leadership that argument is becoming stale and tiresome. The only time in our history that recovery from a recession has been anywhere near this weak was in the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt pursued the same policies. And while the media focus is on the Middle East and Iran, where clearly the situation continues to deteriorate no matter how they try to sugarcoat it, Russia and China build up their military capabilities with little notice from our fearless leader.
Obama's personal character is constantly revealed in his now worn out self-promoting standard operating procedures. He takes no responsibility for any actions or programs that have bad results and undue credit for the good things he has very little to do with. He creates fantasy straw men regarding his opponent's record and policies, then burns them down with empty but appealing cliches. He creates outright lies about his political adversaries and then accuses them of lying. He is all Hollywood fantasy. The scariest part is he almost seems to believe his own bullshit. One has to wonder if these delusions of grandeur indicate serious psychological issues.
I am not a Republican. I am an independent. I don't have a problem with raising marginal tax rates on those making half a million dollars a year. I agree that health care definitely must be reformed, although placing anything under total government control is not an optimal solution. I think we need to get our ground troops out of Afghanistan right now - three years ago would have been even better. I think the far right wing of the Republican Party is full of lunatics, just as the far left wing of the Democratic Party is. The difference is that the far right is not in charge of the Republican Party. If it was the party would not have a Mormon running for president. Meanwhile, the far left of the Democratic Party has an iron vice grip on it. It is my opinion these people are not liberals, nor are they traditional Democrats. They are autocratic dictators in the mold of Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez. They don't intend to listen to the people and they don't intend to compromise.
There are certain facts of life that the president and his politburo either don't understand or deliberately don't want to acknowledge in their delusional belief that they possess the brilliance to dictate the perfect world. Try as they might, the best efforts of human beings cannot outlive father time, outsmart mother nature, outproduce free markets, or outlaw income inequality. Nor can they eliminate the need for strong national security or create a more fair and just society than real democracy. Sadly, real democracy has become an illusion given the ignorance of so many voters and the lying and cheating of political parties.
Certainly the Republican Party has its share of folks who have no business being any nation's political leaders. But today's Democratic Party has become a monolithic force under the influence of people who are working to turn the United States upside down, destroying both our legacy and our future. They do it in the name of being the defenders of the poor and underprivileged even though the programs they legislate do nothing to improve the condition or opportunities of the people they pretend to champion.
Over the last fifty years the Democrats have had total control of both houses of Congress 32 years and Republicans only 14. Democrats have held the presidency at the same time they controlled both houses of Congress 16 years in the last fifty compared to only 8 years when Republicans had total control. In other words, Democrats have been in charge of the country more than twice the time Republicans have in the last half century. Yet the rich have gotten richer and the disparity in wealth continues to grow. Maybe voters should rethink who is responsible for that. How long can Democrats keep running their scam?
As I said in "Tearing Down The House", white men of European descent were prodominantly responsible for creating the unprecedented affluence the United States of America has achieved, and they were responsible for preserving freedom around the globe in two world wars. Notice I said predominantly, not solely, because obviously there were African-Americans and other ethnic groups that contributed, as did women. In fact, the Census Bureau records indicate that in 1800 the country was 81% white and 19% non-white, with that 19% being primarily black slaves. By 1850 it was 84% white and 16% non-white. As of 1900 whites comprised 89% of the US population, a number that did not change much through 1950.
Today non-Hispanic whites comprise nearly 70% of the population. America has been a predominantly white nation since its beginning and still is, although that is currently changing at a rapid pace. It is not a misrepresentation to claim that white people were the driving force behind building America into its dominant position as a world power, both economically and militarily, in the twentieth century. That is not a racist comment. It is a fact. But forget race. Substitute private enterprise, free markets, property rights, individual liberty, rule of law and limited government for 'white men of European descent' and you see what was really responsible for creating American preeminence among nations. It is just that white men of European descent had the foresight to adopt those principles, philosophies and values. Regrettably, those principles, philosophies and values are what our current Democratic Party leaders are working to repudiate and replace.
One comment I received for the last blog was that white men of European descent built America on the backs of slaves. In the early part of American history there is some truth to that, particularly in the agricultural sector of the economy that was prevalent at the time. But slavery ended nearly 150 years ago, and nearly all progress in America has occurred since that time. No one in at least six generations had anything to do with slavery. Slavery was clearly wrong, as was the brutal massacres and forced resettlements of the American Indians. But those wrongs occurred a long time ago, and it is way past time for people to move on.
Contrary to left-wing rhetoric, only a few white men of European descent were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Most everyone in America except the fortunate few have experienced bias, discrimination, rejection and despair in our lifetimes, admittedly some much more than others. Never-the-less, private enterprise and free markets have allowed all of us to greatly increase our standard of living, including those at the bottom of society's ladder. The United States of America is one of the greatest success stories in world history. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this country who do not understand what made us successful. Or maybe they are just easily conned and still can't recognize political snake oil when Dr. Feelgood comes around every four years.
Friday, November 02, 2012
Tearing Down The House
Democrats love to blame all of America's problems on white racism. Is it really racist to point out that America was founded predominantly by white people of European descent; that our independence was fought for and gained predominantly by white people of European descent; that our laws and governing documents were produced predominantly by white people of European descent; that our unprecedented economic affluence was generated through the free market principles and strong work ethic of predominantly white people of European descent; and that our legacy of liberty and justice for all was established by, fought for, and maintained predominantly by white people of European descent? Those are not racist comments. They are statements of fact.
White people of European descent built this country into the greatest country in the history of the world. The United States of America is the economic engine that helped countries around the globe increase their standards of living and came to the support, at great cost of American lives, of those countries whose freedom and independence was threatened by oppressive tyrants. We are proud of what our forefathers accomplished and want to see the principles and policies that produced their legacy preserved and sustained for future generations of Americans, including all ethnic groups who immigrated here to participate in our culture and take advantage of the opportunities our society generates.
But somehow over the last couple decades we have been undermined from within by those we fought a civil war to liberate and those we have allowed to come to our shores to share in the building of our wealth. We are now led by politicians who reject and repudiate our history and our traditional principles and are leading us into a much different country than the one our ancestors created. They have been able to do this because of the support of those groups who have benefitted from the opportunities our country offers. According to the most recent Wall Street Journal - NBC News poll, 92% of African-Americans and 70% of Latinos support Barack Obama and his ideological comrades who are turning the country upside down. Those lop-sided numbers are difficult to overcome as both groups keep growing as a percentage of the population.
White Americans built the foundations of this country. We are more than happy to welcome to it those of any race who come to assimilate and adopt the principles and policies that made the country great, as many African-Americans and Latinos have. How racist can the country really be when we have abundant examples of minority CEO's, doctors, lawyers, generals, politicians, educators, sports idols and even a black president? Unfortunately 92% of blacks and 70% of Hispanics now living here don't want to assimilate and adapt to our culture. They want to destroy it. Of course Whites are not happy about what is happening to us. That is not racism. It is a natural and just reaction to those who are working to take apart what took us 236 years to create.
White people of European descent built this country into the greatest country in the history of the world. The United States of America is the economic engine that helped countries around the globe increase their standards of living and came to the support, at great cost of American lives, of those countries whose freedom and independence was threatened by oppressive tyrants. We are proud of what our forefathers accomplished and want to see the principles and policies that produced their legacy preserved and sustained for future generations of Americans, including all ethnic groups who immigrated here to participate in our culture and take advantage of the opportunities our society generates.
But somehow over the last couple decades we have been undermined from within by those we fought a civil war to liberate and those we have allowed to come to our shores to share in the building of our wealth. We are now led by politicians who reject and repudiate our history and our traditional principles and are leading us into a much different country than the one our ancestors created. They have been able to do this because of the support of those groups who have benefitted from the opportunities our country offers. According to the most recent Wall Street Journal - NBC News poll, 92% of African-Americans and 70% of Latinos support Barack Obama and his ideological comrades who are turning the country upside down. Those lop-sided numbers are difficult to overcome as both groups keep growing as a percentage of the population.
White Americans built the foundations of this country. We are more than happy to welcome to it those of any race who come to assimilate and adopt the principles and policies that made the country great, as many African-Americans and Latinos have. How racist can the country really be when we have abundant examples of minority CEO's, doctors, lawyers, generals, politicians, educators, sports idols and even a black president? Unfortunately 92% of blacks and 70% of Hispanics now living here don't want to assimilate and adapt to our culture. They want to destroy it. Of course Whites are not happy about what is happening to us. That is not racism. It is a natural and just reaction to those who are working to take apart what took us 236 years to create.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Do Americans Really Hate Their Children?
When Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office in January of 2009 the unemployment rate in America was 7.3% (Bureau of Labor Statistics); 143.3 million Americans had jobs (BLS); the average household had annual income of $52,546 (Census Bureau); 13.2% of Americans were classified as living in poverty (Census); and outstanding federal debt was $9.97 trillion (Bureau of Economic Analysis), which was 69% of GDP (BEA). Today the unemployment rate is 7.8% (up .5%, and likely to be revised back above 8% next month); 143 million Americans have jobs (down 300,000); average household income has fallen nearly 5% to $50,054; 15.0% of Americans are living in poverty (up 1.8%); and by the end of this year federal debt will have grown more than 60% in four years to over $16 trillion, amounting to more than 100% of Gross Domestic Product.
Since Obama has been in office the economy (as measured by GDP) has grown at an average rate of 1.5% (BEA), well below the long term average of 3.4%; the federal budget deficit has averaged 9% of GDP (Office of Management and Budget), 50% higher than the 6% peak recorded in any one year since World War Two; and federal spending has averaged 25.1% of GDP (OMB), 25% higher than the long term average of around 20%. These numbers reflect an economy that is going nowhere, while creating debts that will impoverish our children and grandchildren. Of course why would anyone expect Obama to be able to create jobs and pursue policies that stimulate economic growth when he has never had any experience or education in economics. He is clueless and always will be.
During Obama's time in office the US has lost influence in every country in the world. International terrorists continue to plot attacks against America. Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and long range delivery systems. The Muslim Brotherhood is becoming stronger throughout the Middle East. Latin American leaders openly work against American interests. Russia and China are flexing their muscles, building up their military capabilities, and becoming more belligerent. Under Obama's watch the world has become a much more dangerous place.
The idea that Barack Obama could be re-elected, given his record both domestic and foreign, truly challenges comprehension. It just provides more evidence that a good salesman who can convincingly lie about his substandard product while disparaging his competitors can sell anything to a gullible public that doesn't do its homework and believes in fairy tales. Maybe Americans don't want to know because they can't handle the truth.
It might be instructive for Obama supporters to take off their blinders and see what group has thrived during the Obama years - those at the bottom or those at the top. They may notice the rich have gotten richer while the poor are worse off, even though the rich guys and politicians were the ones who caused all of our current problems in the first place. Democrats traditional rhetoric of looking out for the little guy has always been a bunch of crap, as evidenced by the last four years of bailing out the rich with government support for the financial industry through record low interest rates that punish the incomes and savings of the middle and lower classes. How long can Democratic Party voters be blind to the evidence and continue to fall for the bullshit?
Finally, one has to ask those who support Obama if they have children. If they do, they must really hate them. Why would anyone want to exponentially increase the financial burden on their children to support those who were not prudent enough to provide for their own retirement years? The vast majority of those over 65 will take substantially more out of social security and Medicare than they ever put in. We can't borrow money forever to make up this difference. Foreign investors have already stopped buying our government debt, with our own Federal Reserve now funding nearly the entire gap by printing money. Have we gone from the Greatest Generation to the most selfish in just one generation, or have liberal policies and multi-culturalism led to the loss of the traditional morals and principles that made America great? We will find out in about a week.
Since Obama has been in office the economy (as measured by GDP) has grown at an average rate of 1.5% (BEA), well below the long term average of 3.4%; the federal budget deficit has averaged 9% of GDP (Office of Management and Budget), 50% higher than the 6% peak recorded in any one year since World War Two; and federal spending has averaged 25.1% of GDP (OMB), 25% higher than the long term average of around 20%. These numbers reflect an economy that is going nowhere, while creating debts that will impoverish our children and grandchildren. Of course why would anyone expect Obama to be able to create jobs and pursue policies that stimulate economic growth when he has never had any experience or education in economics. He is clueless and always will be.
During Obama's time in office the US has lost influence in every country in the world. International terrorists continue to plot attacks against America. Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and long range delivery systems. The Muslim Brotherhood is becoming stronger throughout the Middle East. Latin American leaders openly work against American interests. Russia and China are flexing their muscles, building up their military capabilities, and becoming more belligerent. Under Obama's watch the world has become a much more dangerous place.
The idea that Barack Obama could be re-elected, given his record both domestic and foreign, truly challenges comprehension. It just provides more evidence that a good salesman who can convincingly lie about his substandard product while disparaging his competitors can sell anything to a gullible public that doesn't do its homework and believes in fairy tales. Maybe Americans don't want to know because they can't handle the truth.
It might be instructive for Obama supporters to take off their blinders and see what group has thrived during the Obama years - those at the bottom or those at the top. They may notice the rich have gotten richer while the poor are worse off, even though the rich guys and politicians were the ones who caused all of our current problems in the first place. Democrats traditional rhetoric of looking out for the little guy has always been a bunch of crap, as evidenced by the last four years of bailing out the rich with government support for the financial industry through record low interest rates that punish the incomes and savings of the middle and lower classes. How long can Democratic Party voters be blind to the evidence and continue to fall for the bullshit?
Finally, one has to ask those who support Obama if they have children. If they do, they must really hate them. Why would anyone want to exponentially increase the financial burden on their children to support those who were not prudent enough to provide for their own retirement years? The vast majority of those over 65 will take substantially more out of social security and Medicare than they ever put in. We can't borrow money forever to make up this difference. Foreign investors have already stopped buying our government debt, with our own Federal Reserve now funding nearly the entire gap by printing money. Have we gone from the Greatest Generation to the most selfish in just one generation, or have liberal policies and multi-culturalism led to the loss of the traditional morals and principles that made America great? We will find out in about a week.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
EuroComs
I ran across some interesting information the other day while looking up the accepted definitions of socialism and communism. Let me first say that, in my opinion, believing in socialist ideology does not make one evil or a politically radical villain. It does make me question one's sanity since socialism as it is defined in theory cannot ever work in the real world. Regardless, I have called Barack Obama a socialist and a communist a number of times over the past few years. I believe both of those terms still apply, but only in a general sense. Both socialism and communism have many derivative spinoffs, meaning they both contain a number of different ideologies embodied within each philosophy. Communism itself is a spinoff of socialist theory, but actually is more of a successor to socialism in that Karl Marx viewed socialism as the temporary stage between the destruction of capitalism and the triumph of communism.
Webster's American College Dictionary defines socialism as a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively by the people. As mentioned, there are a number of different branches of socialism, including state socialism, market socialism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, religious socialism and even anarchism. Each professes to be based on the idea of the people communally owning, managing and operating all sectors of economic activity.
One definition of communism is identical to that of socialism. But communism has more definitions. It is also a political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and developed by Lenin and others, seeking a violent overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a classless society. Another definition is a system or social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. In both socialism and communism all property is held in common, but the key difference is that in socialism property is owned collectively by the workers and in communism it is owned by the state.
Communism encompasses a wide range of more specific ideologies, such as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, etc., etc. Each authoritarian dictator and wannabe dictator practiced their own brand of communism with varying degrees of oppression. But other less personality directed forms of communism also developed in various parts of the world. The one I found interesting is called Eurocommunism, also known as Neocommunism or Western Marxism. The foundation for Eurocommunism was the work of an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937). Basically, Eurocommunism rejected the form of communism practiced by the Soviet Union and China and focused on adapting Marxist-Leninist theories to democratic societies.
Eurocommunism began to gather adherents and become popular during the 1970's and 1980's in Western Europe. Socialists in Western European countries realized that violent revolution to impose communism, as occurred in the Soviet Union and China, would not work in democratic countries. So they plotted to take over from within. The goal was to gain influence by embracing and infiltrating powerful activist special interest groups, such as public sector workers unions, environmentalists, feminists, gay liberationists and minorities. Society was to be led by a 'vanguard', or oligarchy of enlightened leaders. It was thought that the movement faded in the late 1980's, but it sure sounds disturbingly familiar. Perhaps it just went underground and crossed the Atlantic Ocean. Maybe we are experiencing a stealth revolution and don't know it.
There are certainly a number of troubling things that have occurred under our current political regime. One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president was to get HR3590.AS, Section 5210 passed by Congress, when the Democratic Party controlled both houses during his first two years. This legislation updated and increased the president's control over the Ready Reserve Corps, a constabulary force that can be called up at any time for any emergency the president deems necessary. Not only that, we are all aware of the number of Executive Orders and recess appointments Obama has issued to bypass Congress and the multiple instances of Executive Branch departments ignoring the Constitution to mandate rules and regulations. These actions are not unknown but none of our elected representatives seem to be doing anything about it.
The separation of powers that form the foundation of the American Constitution is being dismantled by our current president with the acquiescence of Congress. What is the intent? I can't imagine it would be happening in order to preserve a capitalist democracy. Nor could the intent be to establish a socialist society. I think Karl Marx is right, socialism is not sustainable. The problem with socialism is that, despite its claim to be a society where all of the people are equal and wealth is shared, that never happens. In fact, it cannot happen because there is always a need for someone to coordinate economic activity and maintain civil order. There is always a small privileged elite at the top who control and maintain limits on these activities, typically by instituting arbitrary, restrictive laws and a powerful police force. It is inevitable. Instead of generating widespread affluence that benefits many, socialism always results in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. That is communism.
In the end it doesn't really matter what Obama's precise ideology is. Whatever form of socialism Obama believes in, it is quite clear he and his closest colleagues despise traditional American principles and culture, because he is obviously doing everything he can to change it. Why these guys think they can create a better society than any of the other socialists have is the real question, since none have ever produced the standards of living capitalism has. The only rational conclusion is that they don't really want a society where everyone is equal because they must be smart enough to know that can't happen. They must want one where they are in charge and dictating all aspects of national policy.
Then again, I suppose it is possible Obama doesn't have a real ideology. He may just know what people want to hear and is happy to tell it to them to get their votes, and is an exceptionally good liar who doesn't have a clue or even care about providing responsible leadership to the American people. Maybe he just loves the attention, the adulation and the wealth that goes with it. Personally, I think that guy was Bill Clinton. I think Obama is smarter than that. But regardless of whether he is the product of a two decade conspiracy to bring Eurocommunism to America or just an unqualified amateur who doesn't know what the hell he is doing, his re-election for another four year term will not have favorable consequences. The coming election could be the last legitimate one we ever have.
Webster's American College Dictionary defines socialism as a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively by the people. As mentioned, there are a number of different branches of socialism, including state socialism, market socialism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, religious socialism and even anarchism. Each professes to be based on the idea of the people communally owning, managing and operating all sectors of economic activity.
One definition of communism is identical to that of socialism. But communism has more definitions. It is also a political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and developed by Lenin and others, seeking a violent overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a classless society. Another definition is a system or social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. In both socialism and communism all property is held in common, but the key difference is that in socialism property is owned collectively by the workers and in communism it is owned by the state.
Communism encompasses a wide range of more specific ideologies, such as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, etc., etc. Each authoritarian dictator and wannabe dictator practiced their own brand of communism with varying degrees of oppression. But other less personality directed forms of communism also developed in various parts of the world. The one I found interesting is called Eurocommunism, also known as Neocommunism or Western Marxism. The foundation for Eurocommunism was the work of an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937). Basically, Eurocommunism rejected the form of communism practiced by the Soviet Union and China and focused on adapting Marxist-Leninist theories to democratic societies.
Eurocommunism began to gather adherents and become popular during the 1970's and 1980's in Western Europe. Socialists in Western European countries realized that violent revolution to impose communism, as occurred in the Soviet Union and China, would not work in democratic countries. So they plotted to take over from within. The goal was to gain influence by embracing and infiltrating powerful activist special interest groups, such as public sector workers unions, environmentalists, feminists, gay liberationists and minorities. Society was to be led by a 'vanguard', or oligarchy of enlightened leaders. It was thought that the movement faded in the late 1980's, but it sure sounds disturbingly familiar. Perhaps it just went underground and crossed the Atlantic Ocean. Maybe we are experiencing a stealth revolution and don't know it.
There are certainly a number of troubling things that have occurred under our current political regime. One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president was to get HR3590.AS, Section 5210 passed by Congress, when the Democratic Party controlled both houses during his first two years. This legislation updated and increased the president's control over the Ready Reserve Corps, a constabulary force that can be called up at any time for any emergency the president deems necessary. Not only that, we are all aware of the number of Executive Orders and recess appointments Obama has issued to bypass Congress and the multiple instances of Executive Branch departments ignoring the Constitution to mandate rules and regulations. These actions are not unknown but none of our elected representatives seem to be doing anything about it.
The separation of powers that form the foundation of the American Constitution is being dismantled by our current president with the acquiescence of Congress. What is the intent? I can't imagine it would be happening in order to preserve a capitalist democracy. Nor could the intent be to establish a socialist society. I think Karl Marx is right, socialism is not sustainable. The problem with socialism is that, despite its claim to be a society where all of the people are equal and wealth is shared, that never happens. In fact, it cannot happen because there is always a need for someone to coordinate economic activity and maintain civil order. There is always a small privileged elite at the top who control and maintain limits on these activities, typically by instituting arbitrary, restrictive laws and a powerful police force. It is inevitable. Instead of generating widespread affluence that benefits many, socialism always results in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. That is communism.
In the end it doesn't really matter what Obama's precise ideology is. Whatever form of socialism Obama believes in, it is quite clear he and his closest colleagues despise traditional American principles and culture, because he is obviously doing everything he can to change it. Why these guys think they can create a better society than any of the other socialists have is the real question, since none have ever produced the standards of living capitalism has. The only rational conclusion is that they don't really want a society where everyone is equal because they must be smart enough to know that can't happen. They must want one where they are in charge and dictating all aspects of national policy.
Then again, I suppose it is possible Obama doesn't have a real ideology. He may just know what people want to hear and is happy to tell it to them to get their votes, and is an exceptionally good liar who doesn't have a clue or even care about providing responsible leadership to the American people. Maybe he just loves the attention, the adulation and the wealth that goes with it. Personally, I think that guy was Bill Clinton. I think Obama is smarter than that. But regardless of whether he is the product of a two decade conspiracy to bring Eurocommunism to America or just an unqualified amateur who doesn't know what the hell he is doing, his re-election for another four year term will not have favorable consequences. The coming election could be the last legitimate one we ever have.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Two Simple Questions
Perhaps most Democrats mean well. They just don't understand economics, math and history. If they did they could see for themselves that Barack Obama has us on a course of self-destruction. Democrats also must be exceptionally gullible. They believe everything the socialist propagandists tell them. Maybe that is because they want to. After all, blaming all of the country's problems on the other guy certainly has appeal, as does proclaiming the other guy was successful because he was taking advantage of you. Fact is, the only folks taking advantage of those who vote for Democrats are the people they are voting for.
Democrats win elections by promoting class warfare. I can understand that the have nots will always want what the haves have. That is human nature. What I don't understand is why people think Democrats can make everything better by taking from half the population to give to the other half. All that does is produce a society that degenerates into shared poverty, social division, ethnic hatred, and often chaotic violence. Everyone is a loser. Why would anyone want to doom their children to that kind of future just because today some others may be better off than they are?
Anyone paying attention should be able to tell by now that Obama's big government socialist policies of deficit spending and straight-jacketing private enterprise do not work and only sink the country deeper into economic decline and social polarization. His propaganda machine jumps on every minor positive blip in any economic indicator to trumpet that the turnaround is here, even though the blip represents nothing more than a brief hiccup or a short-lived anomaly in a flatlining economy. How much political propaganda can people listen to before they start believing what they see with their own eyes? How much damage can government do to America's commercial and industrial foundation before people realize we are witnessing the destruction of our nation's legacy and our own future?
I think the basic problem among conservatives is that none of them can really believe Obama is even in the ball game, let alone leading in the polls. Rational people just don't get it. His record in both domestic and foreign affairs indicates he should have a tough time being elected dog catcher, let alone president of the free world's leading power. The whole thing is surreal, leaving conservatives speechless and comatose in disbelief. They had better snap out of it and get their shit together now. If they don't, they will lose.
Conservatives had better believe that a large percentage of the elderly have been convinced by the Democrats propaganda that Republicans will take away their social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of those under 30 have been indoctrinated in environmentalism, feminism, income redistribution, America the global bully and the compassion of government versus the cold-heartedness of capitalism. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of women have been brainwashed into believing conservatives are waging war on women.
Reality does not matter in this election. People only respond to what they hear and see in the media. Republicans better get creative real soon to dispel the lies the Democrats have been spreading. They had better find some competent people who are capable of getting the truth and the facts out to the voters. Communication is the key to winning elections. One has to wonder why Republicans suck so badly at it?
If Republicans cannot get their message together, then at the very least they should ask voters to ask themselves two simple questions. First, what economic system powered the United States of America to become the most productive and affluent country in human history - socialism and central government control of the economy, or capitalism with private enterprise and free markets? Second, what social system allows the greatest freedom, security and opportunity for all citizens - one that mandates conformity to government determined politically correct behavior, or one that guarantees liberty and justice for all as stated in the Constitution? If Americans don't know the difference between those choices then the battle is already lost.
Oh, and by the way. In case voters haven't noticed, Russia's Vladimir Putin, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Castro's have all endorsed Barack Obama. Does that tell you anything? Hell, with no voter ID's required, maybe each of them will come on over and vote for Obama along with the illegal aliens and the dead people.
Democrats win elections by promoting class warfare. I can understand that the have nots will always want what the haves have. That is human nature. What I don't understand is why people think Democrats can make everything better by taking from half the population to give to the other half. All that does is produce a society that degenerates into shared poverty, social division, ethnic hatred, and often chaotic violence. Everyone is a loser. Why would anyone want to doom their children to that kind of future just because today some others may be better off than they are?
Anyone paying attention should be able to tell by now that Obama's big government socialist policies of deficit spending and straight-jacketing private enterprise do not work and only sink the country deeper into economic decline and social polarization. His propaganda machine jumps on every minor positive blip in any economic indicator to trumpet that the turnaround is here, even though the blip represents nothing more than a brief hiccup or a short-lived anomaly in a flatlining economy. How much political propaganda can people listen to before they start believing what they see with their own eyes? How much damage can government do to America's commercial and industrial foundation before people realize we are witnessing the destruction of our nation's legacy and our own future?
I think the basic problem among conservatives is that none of them can really believe Obama is even in the ball game, let alone leading in the polls. Rational people just don't get it. His record in both domestic and foreign affairs indicates he should have a tough time being elected dog catcher, let alone president of the free world's leading power. The whole thing is surreal, leaving conservatives speechless and comatose in disbelief. They had better snap out of it and get their shit together now. If they don't, they will lose.
Conservatives had better believe that a large percentage of the elderly have been convinced by the Democrats propaganda that Republicans will take away their social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of those under 30 have been indoctrinated in environmentalism, feminism, income redistribution, America the global bully and the compassion of government versus the cold-heartedness of capitalism. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of women have been brainwashed into believing conservatives are waging war on women.
Reality does not matter in this election. People only respond to what they hear and see in the media. Republicans better get creative real soon to dispel the lies the Democrats have been spreading. They had better find some competent people who are capable of getting the truth and the facts out to the voters. Communication is the key to winning elections. One has to wonder why Republicans suck so badly at it?
If Republicans cannot get their message together, then at the very least they should ask voters to ask themselves two simple questions. First, what economic system powered the United States of America to become the most productive and affluent country in human history - socialism and central government control of the economy, or capitalism with private enterprise and free markets? Second, what social system allows the greatest freedom, security and opportunity for all citizens - one that mandates conformity to government determined politically correct behavior, or one that guarantees liberty and justice for all as stated in the Constitution? If Americans don't know the difference between those choices then the battle is already lost.
Oh, and by the way. In case voters haven't noticed, Russia's Vladimir Putin, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Castro's have all endorsed Barack Obama. Does that tell you anything? Hell, with no voter ID's required, maybe each of them will come on over and vote for Obama along with the illegal aliens and the dead people.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Elephant In The Room
Yup! Mitt Romney stepped in it. It could be called an SIIC, a self-inflicted implosive comment. Not that Barack Obama ("corpse-man", "57 states", "I bowled a 129 - it was like special olympics", "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them", plus countless others), Nancy Pelosi ("we have to pass it to see what's in it"), Harry Reid ("the new Capitol Visitors Center means I won't have to smell the tourists anymore"), and Joe Biden (where to begin, such a target rich environment) have never said something inappropriate. But of course the media doesn't go ballistic when they do.
Romney's faux pas could and should have been stated better. The comment was an unfortunate generalization of government programs and voter loyalties. But we all know what point he was making. Out of control government spending on entitlements is the elephant in the room, the central issue that is what this election is all about. The issue must be dealt with or the America we have known will cease to exist. Romney's comment that nearly half the people in America don't pay taxes and/or are receiving government benefits should not have shocked anyone, because it is true.
According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans live in households that receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, and housing assistance, up from 30% in the 1980's. Of course the recipients contributed to the first three programs, but on average not nearly as much as they are taking out over their lifetimes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, up from 27% just twenty years ago, though many of those folks do pay payroll taxes and state and local taxes. Certainly much of government spending is appropriate, but the growth in such spending is beyond irresponsible. Everyone has to know by now that the country cannot sustain the rapidly rising costs of entitlement programs that are bankrupting us.
Our next president and Congress have two vitally important priorities that must both be addressed. The one to focus on immediately is the implementation of policies that stimulate economic growth to create private sector jobs and provide personal income for consumers to spend. Those new jobs would put more people on the tax rolls, producing an increase in government revenue that could go a long way towards reducing and eventually eliminating our staggering budget deficit. The current economic policy of maintaining low interest rates to get people to borrow money is not working. Too much debt is the problem, and creating more is certainly not the solution. People want to earn money, not borrow it, and the only way to do that is by unleashing private enterprise and free markets instead of restraining and punishing them with unnecessary rules, regulations, more paperwork and higher taxes.
Why do Democrats always get this backwards? Is it because they believe Americans will vote for them if they promise that government will continue to give them everything for free, or at least at what is effectively a big discount? Of course they would never admit it, so their favorite explanation is that capitalism creates income inequality. Yes it does. But it also makes life better for those at the bottom than any other economic system yet devised. That is the part Democrats either don't get or don't want the voting public to know.
The other equally vital priority is to reform all entitlement programs to reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary expenditures and improving operational efficiencies while maintaining the support services that are required in a modern society. Democrats have no interest in addressing this issue. Apparently they don't even see it as a problem. Not only that, they respond to any efforts by Republicans to deal with it by accusing them of planning to starve the hungry, abandon the elderly, ignore the homeless and eat the children. That is just plain absurd. But Republicans do not do a very good job of communicating what support they will provide to those who need it.
Republicans need to convince Americans they will maintain the social safety nets that are necessary in a morally responsible society, that they can take care of the needs of the poor and those left behind and help them build a better life for themselves. They need to advocate and demonstrate compassion for the less fortunate and display a desire to help those who are struggling. They must acknowledge they will preserve programs that feed the poor, care for the elderly, shelter the homeless, provide basic health care for the indigent and create opportunities for all to work to improve their lives.
But Republicans must differentiate their solutions to the problems of poverty and destitution from the Democrats. They must explain that throwing money the country does not have at the problem does not solve it. They must argue that their goal is to give people the tools to become more self-reliant and the skills to take advantage of opportunities to improve themselves rather than encouraging them to become permanently dependent on government. They must pledge to create real jobs to help the underclass escape the poverty and hopelessness they suffer and participate in productive society. And Republicans need to point out that the only way for those on the bottom rung of the ladder to improve their quality of life and living standards is through an economic environment that encourages private enterprise and free markets to grow businesses and create more jobs for all. That is what capitalism does.
The real question that Americans must ask themselves is what kind of president do we need right now? Should we choose a president who may be in tune with what half the people want today, even though satisfying that half leads to bigger government, high unemployment, negligible economic growth, falling incomes, declining quality of life, social polarization, reduced personal freedom, partisan justice, public sector insolvency and increased national security risks? Can we survive a president who opens up the candy jar and says take all you want because someone else will pay for it?
Should we reject a presidential candidate because he may be out of touch with many of the people because he was successful in his many occupations and maybe does not understand or participate in the hip hop music, the video games, the fashions, the violent movies, i.e., the whole hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle Americans pursue today. Or do we need an adult who understands we cannot perpetually spend money we don't have, that private enterprise is the engine that generates economic growth and prosperity, that our tax system must be reformed, that government directed allocation of capital and redistribution of income results in economic stagnation and social chaos, that we must maintain a strong national security capability to defend against foreign aggression, and that we have an obligation to turn over a healthy country to future generations.
Americans have never had a more clear choice. Do we need a president who acts like he wants to be everybody's sugar daddy, or one who can make tough decisions and put limits on access to the cookie jar? Do we want a society of spoiled children who have no clue or care about where their selfish behavior leads, or do we want to preserve and expand the vision of America's founding fathers that led to the most productive and affluent country in the history of the planet, affluence created by a melting pot of immigrants and their descendants who believed in personal freedom, individual responsibility, rule of law, hard work and equal opportunity.
Who is really out of touch? Seems to me it is the folks who think bigger and bigger government can create meaningful jobs and that growing budget deficits can go on forever.
Romney's faux pas could and should have been stated better. The comment was an unfortunate generalization of government programs and voter loyalties. But we all know what point he was making. Out of control government spending on entitlements is the elephant in the room, the central issue that is what this election is all about. The issue must be dealt with or the America we have known will cease to exist. Romney's comment that nearly half the people in America don't pay taxes and/or are receiving government benefits should not have shocked anyone, because it is true.
According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans live in households that receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, and housing assistance, up from 30% in the 1980's. Of course the recipients contributed to the first three programs, but on average not nearly as much as they are taking out over their lifetimes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, up from 27% just twenty years ago, though many of those folks do pay payroll taxes and state and local taxes. Certainly much of government spending is appropriate, but the growth in such spending is beyond irresponsible. Everyone has to know by now that the country cannot sustain the rapidly rising costs of entitlement programs that are bankrupting us.
Our next president and Congress have two vitally important priorities that must both be addressed. The one to focus on immediately is the implementation of policies that stimulate economic growth to create private sector jobs and provide personal income for consumers to spend. Those new jobs would put more people on the tax rolls, producing an increase in government revenue that could go a long way towards reducing and eventually eliminating our staggering budget deficit. The current economic policy of maintaining low interest rates to get people to borrow money is not working. Too much debt is the problem, and creating more is certainly not the solution. People want to earn money, not borrow it, and the only way to do that is by unleashing private enterprise and free markets instead of restraining and punishing them with unnecessary rules, regulations, more paperwork and higher taxes.
Why do Democrats always get this backwards? Is it because they believe Americans will vote for them if they promise that government will continue to give them everything for free, or at least at what is effectively a big discount? Of course they would never admit it, so their favorite explanation is that capitalism creates income inequality. Yes it does. But it also makes life better for those at the bottom than any other economic system yet devised. That is the part Democrats either don't get or don't want the voting public to know.
The other equally vital priority is to reform all entitlement programs to reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary expenditures and improving operational efficiencies while maintaining the support services that are required in a modern society. Democrats have no interest in addressing this issue. Apparently they don't even see it as a problem. Not only that, they respond to any efforts by Republicans to deal with it by accusing them of planning to starve the hungry, abandon the elderly, ignore the homeless and eat the children. That is just plain absurd. But Republicans do not do a very good job of communicating what support they will provide to those who need it.
Republicans need to convince Americans they will maintain the social safety nets that are necessary in a morally responsible society, that they can take care of the needs of the poor and those left behind and help them build a better life for themselves. They need to advocate and demonstrate compassion for the less fortunate and display a desire to help those who are struggling. They must acknowledge they will preserve programs that feed the poor, care for the elderly, shelter the homeless, provide basic health care for the indigent and create opportunities for all to work to improve their lives.
But Republicans must differentiate their solutions to the problems of poverty and destitution from the Democrats. They must explain that throwing money the country does not have at the problem does not solve it. They must argue that their goal is to give people the tools to become more self-reliant and the skills to take advantage of opportunities to improve themselves rather than encouraging them to become permanently dependent on government. They must pledge to create real jobs to help the underclass escape the poverty and hopelessness they suffer and participate in productive society. And Republicans need to point out that the only way for those on the bottom rung of the ladder to improve their quality of life and living standards is through an economic environment that encourages private enterprise and free markets to grow businesses and create more jobs for all. That is what capitalism does.
The real question that Americans must ask themselves is what kind of president do we need right now? Should we choose a president who may be in tune with what half the people want today, even though satisfying that half leads to bigger government, high unemployment, negligible economic growth, falling incomes, declining quality of life, social polarization, reduced personal freedom, partisan justice, public sector insolvency and increased national security risks? Can we survive a president who opens up the candy jar and says take all you want because someone else will pay for it?
Should we reject a presidential candidate because he may be out of touch with many of the people because he was successful in his many occupations and maybe does not understand or participate in the hip hop music, the video games, the fashions, the violent movies, i.e., the whole hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle Americans pursue today. Or do we need an adult who understands we cannot perpetually spend money we don't have, that private enterprise is the engine that generates economic growth and prosperity, that our tax system must be reformed, that government directed allocation of capital and redistribution of income results in economic stagnation and social chaos, that we must maintain a strong national security capability to defend against foreign aggression, and that we have an obligation to turn over a healthy country to future generations.
Americans have never had a more clear choice. Do we need a president who acts like he wants to be everybody's sugar daddy, or one who can make tough decisions and put limits on access to the cookie jar? Do we want a society of spoiled children who have no clue or care about where their selfish behavior leads, or do we want to preserve and expand the vision of America's founding fathers that led to the most productive and affluent country in the history of the planet, affluence created by a melting pot of immigrants and their descendants who believed in personal freedom, individual responsibility, rule of law, hard work and equal opportunity.
Who is really out of touch? Seems to me it is the folks who think bigger and bigger government can create meaningful jobs and that growing budget deficits can go on forever.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Change Is Not Always For The Better
I wonder if there has ever been as much change in the world as in my lifetime. I was born in 1949. Sixty years ago there were no personal computers or cell phones, and only three television channels. So there has been what most would call some progress since that time. But a few other things have changed that are a little harder to explain or understand.
Throughout all of human history until less than sixty years ago -
- marriage was between a man and a woman.
- men worked to support and protect their families. Some women worked outside the home, but men were the head of the household and the primary bread winner.
- people were self-sufficient and responsible for themselves rather than being dependent on government for their support.
- most children had a mother and a father and were raised in a traditional family environment.
- younger generations respected their elders and profited from their accumulated wisdom.
- religion had a strong influence in most peoples lives, and religious organizations were the primary source of charity for the poor.
Furthermore, sixty years ago in America -
- all but a few radicals knew that socialism and communism were tyrannical and oppressive forms of government, and that capitalism was the only economic philosophy that created prosperity for the greatest number of people.
- more men than women graduated from college, went to work and made money to support the family because somebody had to stay home and raise the children to become responsible members of society rather than gangbangers, drug dealers, dope heads and school drop-outs.
- we didn't all agree politically but were tolerant of other opinions of how to reach common goals.
- the economy depended on private enterprise and free markets providing incentives for entrepreneurs to create new products at prices people could afford, fueling job growth and improving everyones standard of living, even those at the bottom of the income scale. Today big government arrogantly claims it knows what is best for the American consumer, taking over whole sectors of the economy and placing more rules and regulations on the rest, deciding what favored industries receive new capital, killing incentives by redistributing income to its labor union benefactors, and burdening the country with an economy that cannot grow or create jobs.
- investing in the common stocks of American companies was the way to build wealth and security for the future, not buying low yielding Treasuries and complicated high risk derivatives or giving money to financial advisers, hedge funds and private equity managers to make money for themselves.
- government spent money on necessary and noble things such as defending the country from foreign aggression and rocketing men into space, expenditures that resulted in high technology by-products that benefitted all mankind, rather than spending money it doesn't have giving away freebies to buy votes.
- we knew we were the greatest country on earth, the defenders of democracy for Western Civilization and the economic engine of global prosperity, rather than the center of greed and the destroyer of the environment as we are constantly being lectured by socialist greenie extremists. In fact, sixty years ago no one knew there were any socialist greenie extremists.
- the Federal Reserve was an independent agency charged with maintaining full employment, low inflation and a stable currency rather than the fourth branch of government charged with bailing out the big bankers from their disastrous mistakes.
- people did not go to the hospital emergency room for head colds and stomach aches since the cost of doing so came out of their own pocket, and abortions and contraceptives were not free at taxpayer expense.
- the average white male had a much better chance to succeed in life since he wasn't fighting against government programs and subsidies that benefit women and minorities. There wasn't the war on men that is being conducted today by left wing politicians who disguise it by proclaiming the cruel joke of a politically contrived war on women.
- we were not forced to conform to politically correct behavior and the collectivist doctrines of the party in power. We could think freely, speak our own minds and disagree with others without suffering retribution and vilification.
- public schools taught history, english, math and science rather than environmentalism, gender and ethnic studies, politically correct revised history and indoctrination in the cult of Obama.
- children played outside with their friends all day without parental supervision instead of having every minute of every day planned and orchestrated for them by their parents living vicariously through them. Most kids were normal, not special, and they turned out more psychologically prepared for adulthood.
- the major media networks were not the propaganda arm of the progressive / communist movement to take over the American government.
- a man with no experience in the private sector, little experience in government, and whose closest associates were known anti-American radical subversives and self-proclaimed Marxists could not be elected president.
The changes in the last sixty years have been historical and profound. They have turned traditional culture and relationships upside down. I, for one, do not think they bode well for the future of our country. But even though many things have changed, it seems one thing never will. No matter how integrated and tolerant America becomes, no matter how many black corporate CEO's, black doctors, black lawyers, black university professors, and black presidents become wealthy and influential in America, liberals will always accuse white people of being racists.
Throughout all of human history until less than sixty years ago -
- marriage was between a man and a woman.
- men worked to support and protect their families. Some women worked outside the home, but men were the head of the household and the primary bread winner.
- people were self-sufficient and responsible for themselves rather than being dependent on government for their support.
- most children had a mother and a father and were raised in a traditional family environment.
- younger generations respected their elders and profited from their accumulated wisdom.
- religion had a strong influence in most peoples lives, and religious organizations were the primary source of charity for the poor.
Furthermore, sixty years ago in America -
- all but a few radicals knew that socialism and communism were tyrannical and oppressive forms of government, and that capitalism was the only economic philosophy that created prosperity for the greatest number of people.
- more men than women graduated from college, went to work and made money to support the family because somebody had to stay home and raise the children to become responsible members of society rather than gangbangers, drug dealers, dope heads and school drop-outs.
- we didn't all agree politically but were tolerant of other opinions of how to reach common goals.
- the economy depended on private enterprise and free markets providing incentives for entrepreneurs to create new products at prices people could afford, fueling job growth and improving everyones standard of living, even those at the bottom of the income scale. Today big government arrogantly claims it knows what is best for the American consumer, taking over whole sectors of the economy and placing more rules and regulations on the rest, deciding what favored industries receive new capital, killing incentives by redistributing income to its labor union benefactors, and burdening the country with an economy that cannot grow or create jobs.
- investing in the common stocks of American companies was the way to build wealth and security for the future, not buying low yielding Treasuries and complicated high risk derivatives or giving money to financial advisers, hedge funds and private equity managers to make money for themselves.
- government spent money on necessary and noble things such as defending the country from foreign aggression and rocketing men into space, expenditures that resulted in high technology by-products that benefitted all mankind, rather than spending money it doesn't have giving away freebies to buy votes.
- we knew we were the greatest country on earth, the defenders of democracy for Western Civilization and the economic engine of global prosperity, rather than the center of greed and the destroyer of the environment as we are constantly being lectured by socialist greenie extremists. In fact, sixty years ago no one knew there were any socialist greenie extremists.
- the Federal Reserve was an independent agency charged with maintaining full employment, low inflation and a stable currency rather than the fourth branch of government charged with bailing out the big bankers from their disastrous mistakes.
- people did not go to the hospital emergency room for head colds and stomach aches since the cost of doing so came out of their own pocket, and abortions and contraceptives were not free at taxpayer expense.
- the average white male had a much better chance to succeed in life since he wasn't fighting against government programs and subsidies that benefit women and minorities. There wasn't the war on men that is being conducted today by left wing politicians who disguise it by proclaiming the cruel joke of a politically contrived war on women.
- we were not forced to conform to politically correct behavior and the collectivist doctrines of the party in power. We could think freely, speak our own minds and disagree with others without suffering retribution and vilification.
- public schools taught history, english, math and science rather than environmentalism, gender and ethnic studies, politically correct revised history and indoctrination in the cult of Obama.
- children played outside with their friends all day without parental supervision instead of having every minute of every day planned and orchestrated for them by their parents living vicariously through them. Most kids were normal, not special, and they turned out more psychologically prepared for adulthood.
- the major media networks were not the propaganda arm of the progressive / communist movement to take over the American government.
- a man with no experience in the private sector, little experience in government, and whose closest associates were known anti-American radical subversives and self-proclaimed Marxists could not be elected president.
The changes in the last sixty years have been historical and profound. They have turned traditional culture and relationships upside down. I, for one, do not think they bode well for the future of our country. But even though many things have changed, it seems one thing never will. No matter how integrated and tolerant America becomes, no matter how many black corporate CEO's, black doctors, black lawyers, black university professors, and black presidents become wealthy and influential in America, liberals will always accuse white people of being racists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)