The Five Thousand Year Leap (Part 1)
(The Five Thousand
Year Leap, The 28 Great Ideas That Are Changing the World
is the title of a book that first was published in 1981. Written by W. Cleon
Skousen, founder of the National Center for Constitutional Studies in Boise,
Idaho, the book clearly outlines the historical precedents for and the founding
principles of American liberty. This column is the first in a multi-part series
summarizing the book.)
The Five Thousand Year Leap starts by
analyzing world government structures, with tyranny on the left (total government control)
and anarchy on the right (no government control).
The Founders believed in something halfway in
between, in People’s Law, which derived from Anglo-Saxon common law including
government by consensus, natural or God-given rights for the people, power
dispersed among the people, individual responsibility, rights being unalienable,
a system of justice including reparations for wrongs, and a system to solve
problems on the level on which they were created.
People’s Law was based in the system of the ancient Israelites
and thus the Old Testament can be referred to not only as a moral guidebook, but
as a foundation for our democratic system.
The original seal proposed for the United States by Jefferson,
Adams and Franklin featured on one side Hengist and Horsa, two 5th century AD
Anglo-Saxon leaders, and, on the other side, a depiction of the Israelites
struggling through the wilderness following God’s pillar of fire.
The Founders’ first attempt at writing a
Constitution ended on
In the Constitutional convention ended on
The Founders were well aware of the tendency for government to
drift to the collectivist left and to try and “take care of” citizens. But
Thomas Jefferson knew that this system always led to corruption, writing: “If we
can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the
pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”
They also were concerned about
taxation and debt.
The Founders also believed that the government must be
established to protect individual “rights” but not to distribute “things” or
wealth. Wrote revolutionary theorist Samuel Adams, “The Utopian schemes of
leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central
ownership of the means of production and distribution) are as visionary and
impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are
arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”
They also wanted an educated
electorate. And for those who claim that that means a public education system,
that is false. It means any effective system. Because while the public system
in
The 1st Principle for freedom, according to Skousen, is that the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.
Skousen considers the writings of the
Roman political philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), who believed that
the creation of a durable and free culture relied on the rules of ‘right
conduct’ that included belief in the power of a Supreme Being to give to good
men their “God-given” rights or Natural Law rights. He describes Natural Law as
‘true law’ which
Cicero came to believe that loving, respecting and obeying God
was indeed the first commandment for creating a lasting culture and that loving
thy neighbor indeed was the second, leading to justice.
He wrote that legislation to violate God’s prescriptions are
invalid. He also wrote: “Therefore Law (of the Creator) is the distinction
between things just and unjust, made in agreement with that primal and most
ancient of all things, Nature…”
Skousen completes his section about Cicero by concluding that
Natural Law is based on unalienable rights; unalienable duties; habeas corpus;
limited government; separation of powers; checks and balances;
self-preservation; the right to contract; marriage and family; justice by
reparation; the right to bear arms; and taxation only accompanied by
representation.
Which Way Home?
There is a new documentary film that has
But such a film leaves conservatives
wondering: Why have all these millions and millions of immigrants been flowing
into the
Rational people see that this indeed is
the problem. Because as any right-minded economist will tell you about
centrally-planned economies, growth is slow to nonexistent and corruption is
rampant.
And who are those elites?
They are Europeans who migrated into
In the last 10 years,
So why do we have yet another sob-story film like Which
Way Home? Why have all these Mexicans been leaving their socialist,
big-government Workers’ Paradise
behind and migrating into evil capitalism? After all,
Well, apparently even poor, uneducated Mexicans don’t read or believe the New York Times or MSNBC or Harper's magazine. Which is very telling. There is no other explanation. It exposes the media's lack of genuine credibility. Otherwise word would spread, and the illegals would not come, would they?
So here is another question:
Why, throughout the 20th century, were
not the world’s poor migrating to the socialist/communist
Workers’ Paradises like the
Answer: Because all of the mythology about socialism is false. Most people know the truth not from what they read in the media, but from what they know to be fact. Because these socialistic governments are always run by small cabals of leftists for the benefit of those leftists and their cronies only, and nobody else.
These governments do not “take care of”
people. Rather they destroy economies and make people poor. Just look at
Then, of course,
No, the illegals from around the world
just keep coming and coming and coming. We can’t stop them. In fact, the
Yet what did the communists in
They built the Berlin Wall to keep people
INSIDE their city and their country. Yes, the Berlin Wall was intended to keep the population
of
Which shows the difference between capitalism and socialism/communism and exposes the media lie about the system of socialism, which is propagated by people who will benefit when the leftist minority dominates a system that ultimately leaves the majority of the population in tatters.
Today anyone who tries to flee communist
Why did millions of black immigrants from
surrounding countries migrate into
For the same reasons that
Mexicans are coming to the
Nearby
Here are two quotes from an April 8 column by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times - head cheerleader for black rule in Africa - from two black residents of Zimbabwe: "When the country changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, we were very excited... but we didn't realize the ones we chased away were better and the ones we put in power would oppress us." Said another, "It would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come. It was better under Rhodesia. Then we could get jobs. Things were cheaper in stores. Now we have no money, no food."
Here are excerpts from newamericanmedia.org from an article entitled
...a leading South African
activist is in
How
African-American civil and human rights groups and elected officials -- who
staked their bona fides on protests and initiatives that led to blacks running
South Africa’s government -- will react to Mfanelo Skwatsha’s tour telling
American audiences that the current black government has left the majority of
its people worse off than under the white government will be interesting.
African People’s
Solidarity Day events organizer Wendy Snyder says, “Many people around the world
who supported the struggle against
Is
It could be, the way the Ancient Media (New York Times, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Newsweek etc.) have been treating the Japanese carmaker as if it were a terrorist.
It is impossible at this time to compare the so-called Toyota
accelerator problem to other defects in the past like the detonating Ford Pinto
gas tanks of the 1970s or dozens of other automotive failures that have caused
deaths and led to recalls.
The media are so anxious to run negative stories about corporations that the Dateline NBC TV show once even staged a phony ‘exploding pickup truck’ segment after an allegedly faulty GM vehicle would not fail on cue on camera. Are they now sabotaging Toyota?
Could be. Toyotas are said to be accelerating on their own. It has been blamed on everything from the floor mats to the gas pedal to the car's computer's software. But nobody, including Toyota, can pinpoint the problem. Isn't this suspicious? After all, they're pretty smart people at Toyota.
Tens of millions of Americans have
driven their Toyotas many trillions of accumulated passenger-miles with complete
satisfaction. Thus we should not allow this so-called acceleration problem to paralyze the company,
particularly since 200,000 Americans are employed either directly or indirectly
by
So what is really going on with this story?
The Ancient Media and its Democrat
friends in Congress and in the American auto unions certainly would be amenable
to targeting
And since
This is akin to the ongoing media attempts to collectively assassinate the
characters of perfectly decent people like Sarah Palin.
How many of the acceleration problems are actually elderly
people stomping on the gas when they think they are hitting the brakes, as we
see routinely in accidents across the country? Or is this acceleration trouble perhaps a real glitch in
just a few cars that is being
trumped up or falsified by Toyota-haters?
And don’t think for a second that the United Auto Workers
union and its friends would not do such a thing. They absolutely would. This
union is corrupt through and through and will stop at nothing to promote its
interests. Lying is just a baby step for the average hardball union functionary.
Think about Jimmy Hoffa and a thousand other union thugs who have suddenly, well,
ended up in the hospital or disappeared altogether.
Just think... the GM/Ford/Chrysler unions
would LOVE to drive
W
And if Toyota itself can't find and fix the problem - which they certainly would do as quickly as possible if they could - is it really the problem that it is being made out to be? Or is it just another highly embellished media fiction?
Anti-Toyota forces have seized on the work of David Gilbert, an auto technology professor at Southern Illinois University who told a congressional hearing February 23 that he re-created the acceleration problem in a Toyota Tundra truck by purposely short-circuiting the electronics.
But Chris Gerdes, director of
Stanford University's Center for Automotive Research, said that the experiment
is bogus. "There is no evidence that I've seen to indicate that this situation
is happening at all in the real world,” said Gerdes, adding that Gilbert’s work
"could result in misguided policy and unwarranted fear."
Toyota owners now are even filing class-action lawsuits against the company saying that the resale value of their cars has fallen.
So who would be handling those lawsuits? Could it be Democrat trial lawyers out to enrich themselves at the expense of a company that they and their political allies hate? And where have we seen this movie before?
Yes, in suits against the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, the tobacco companies, doctors, nurses, hospitals etc.
These falling-value lawsuits
are more ominous for Toyota than the accidental-death litigation because they
can spread to every single Toyota owner. Kelley Blue Book, a used-car
pricing bible, recently lowered the resale value of recalled Toyotas an average
of 3.5%.
Limbaugh, Beck Defeating Obama
On a regular basis so-called Republicans like Colin Powell
criticize Rush
Limbaugh, calling him too extreme, calling his core of listeners too
conservative, and saying that the GOP needs to "reach out" to moderate voters to
win elections. Meanwhile Tea Party activists have been
portrayed by some GOP moderates as too intransigent, and too wedded to principle.
Only problem is that Powell
voted for Obama. This in itself should tell us everything we need to know.
Because Powell is nothing but a political adulterer.
Glenn Beck is another conservative
commentator who is marginalized by some Republicans, while doing an exceptional
job in fearlessly explaining what is going
on with Obama's radical agenda. This is another reason why Americans are so well
informed today. One recent survey showed Beck to be the second most admired
figure on television after Oprah Winfrey.
Beck, Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity
and the rest of the conservative media are in fact the people who have held firm and taught us why and how we
must fight against the establishment of socialism in
And so they have.
After Obama’s win, however, moderate
Republicans like
Meghan McCain - John McCain’s daughter - were acting starstruck by Obama’s political
prowess. She even noted with awe that some pop singer named Kate Perry showed up
at the 2009 MTV music awards show in an Obama shirt.
To which we
conservatives responded: Who the hell is Kate Perry? Why do we care what they think at
the MTV awards? Then we recommended that
Because those of us who were not
impressed by the 2008 political fireworks warned that Obama was not nearly as
strong as he was being portrayed, and that people like Meghan McCain and Colin
Powell have been hurting our cause unnecessarily. Now Meghan’s mother Cindy even has
appeared in a pro-homosexual-marriage advertisement.
“Reach out and touch someone!” said
the old AT&T ad from the 1960s. That seems to be what the McCains and the rest
of the GOP liberals are doing – reaching out to the leftists who will bite their
hand at every opportunity.
We need people like Limbaugh and Beck and wonderful books like The Five Thousand Year Leap to explain to us what is happening because only principled people can explain the bankruptcy of unprincipled Chicago-style hardball leftist politics. Otherwise we might fall for those politics as many independents, and even some Republicans did in the 2008 election.
Glenn Beck’s recent shows have exposed
the left-wing ‘progressives’ who advocate a far-left “revolution” in
America, but in an “evolutionary” way, incrementally, step by step, which is
what Obamacare was intended to be. These progressives are largely intellectuals
in the universities and the media, think they know what is best for the nation, have contempt
for the 'little people' out there in Middle America, and have infiltrated not only
the Democrat party but the Republicans too. John McCain is a classic product of
American progressivism along with his dopey wife and daughter.
Who is the Democrats’ favorite
Republican president?
Teddy Roosevelt, who was a
‘progressive’, i.e., he agreed with a leftist agenda of radical
environmentalism, hostility to business, an income tax etc. Democrats love people like McCain
and Powell because they have been swayed by
the progressive agenda as much as any Democrat. Now they are bringing that agenda into the GOP alongside
people like Christie Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor, who is more prone to agree with
Democrats on any 100 random issues than she is likely to agree with Rush or Beck
or the Tea Partiers.
Indeed the progressives intend to
disseminate Obama’s agenda throughout the whole political spectrum to whoever will
listen. Beck has warned about this and so has Limbaugh. And the GOP had better watch
out because we have seen what happened to the Democrats when they embraced Obama’s
progressivism – they now are headed for a defeat at the polls that will be stunning in its scope compared to just one year ago when Obama seemed
indomitable.
Why?
Because Americans understand exactly what is happening thanks not to John McCain or Colin Powell, but thanks to Limbaugh and Beck and Cleon Skousen, the author of The Five Thousand Year Leap, and all the other rational commentators who are warning us day-by-day about Obama and his radical agenda.
Without anchors like Limbaugh and Beck and Sarah Palin explaining once again the genius of our Founding Fathers, America might simply have swallowed the nonsense that we need Obamacare; that we need cap and trade; that we should fear ‘global warming’ amidst the coldest winter in decades; that we should grant amnesty to illegals; that labor unions need more power etc., all part of an agenda that will undermine our nation and our economy and most importantly our freedom.
Look at what
happened in
“And let me say this... I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”
Strong, unequivocal positions like this won him the election, not mealy-mouthed compromise.
Even the
citizens of
We conservatives should be thanking
Barack Obama for putting into deep relief what the leftist agenda really stands
for. He has fired up our movement like nobody’s business in just one year. He is
causing more and more Americans to become informed. Now a
weakened Obama even went hat-in-hand to the Republican conclave in
What a difference a year makes...
Obama's show of political contrition at Baltimore was just
that - a show. You might not know it unless you continue to listen to our real
'educators' on the political right, people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who
are crucial to maintenance of freedom in America and who fearlessly will
tell us the truth. They should be embraced by the Republican party. Because when
we listen to them, we will become wiser again and again and again.
Romney for President?
(This is another in a
series of columns about potential Republican presidential candidates for the
2012 election. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is seen as the
front runner in some polls after he failed to win the nomination in 2008. Romney
has been making media appearances recently with his new book,
No Apology: The Case for American Greatness (St. Martin’s
Press), which seems to be setting the stage for his 2012 run as a patriotic,
no-nonsense, capitalist conservative.
Romney is touted for his career in private business through his investment
company Bain Capital which helped to grow companies like Staples, Domino’s
Pizza and others. In 2002 he served as CEO of the troubled Winter Olympics in
On the Massachusetts
health care overhaul, which Romney backed as governor, he writes: “All
of us knew the bill (establishing universal health care coverage in
Massachusetts) wasn’t perfect; nothing that groundbreaking could be. But it was
a big improvement over what we had. It would need to be fine-tuned as it was
implemented and it would undergo midcourse correction as time went on. From the
outset, I and my team knew that some of the features the legislature had added
would be expensive, including the full complement of coverage mandates such as
unlimited in vitro fertilization treatments and dental care, a small fee paid by
employers who didn’t insure their employees, and no opt-out provision for people
who wanted to forgo insurance and pay their own way. I was also concerned by the
implementation decisions of the administration that followed my own.’’
Comment: This plan could be Romney’s Achilles heel for many who will see
him as just another liberal Republican.
Romney writes: “Never before in American history has its president (Obama) gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable. There are anti-American fires burning all across the globe; President Obama’s words are like kindling to them.’’ Comment: Good. This is the kind of blunt talk that McCain avoided in 2008. This is the kind of talk that wins elections.
Romney writes:
"As President Obama proposes to once again reduce our
investment in national defense, I acknowledge the public fervor and widespread
wish that world peace will prevail nonetheless. …The truth is that we are at war
with a formidable enemy and that nations like
Romney writes: “Even so, because we significantly dismantled our military prior to World War II, the investment required for us to catch up and confront our enemies was massive. The defense budget reached 34.5 percent of the GDP in 1945, about nine times today's 3.8 percent, and the delay prolonged suffering and loss of life.” Comment: It is refreshing to hear real numbers. They bring our current situation into focus. This is a good strategy.
Romney
writes: "I can think of no social program that is more valuable than
the lives and freedom of our sons and daughters. Rather than scale our military
according to our hope for peace or out of a desire to shift funds to domestic
priorities, we should build it to be capable of fulfilling each of the missions
necessary for our sure defense. Only then can we be confident that we will
secure
Romney
writes: "I can remember only one time during my life when most
Americans presumed that we didn’t really have any great challenges. It was
during the period that largely coincided with the Bill Clinton presidency.
George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan had pushed the
Romney said about the
Romney said about Obama’s scapegoating of insurance companies: “Our health care costs are very, very high because we use a lot of health treatments. Hospitals, doctors, MRIs, surgeries and so forth are more extensively used and far more expensive in this country than they are in many other countries. It's not the insurance companies that are driving our health care cost up and up. The reason their premiums are going up is because doctor bills and hospital bills and usage and so forth is also going up." Comment: This is clear language that explains the situation. Americans must realize that excessive use of health care is driving up the cost.
Romney later said: "And
frankly, I'm very, very concerned that America is on a severely wrong track,
that if America doesn't change course that we're going to kill the American
dream for our kids and our grandkids, that we're going to get surpassed by other
nations. And that's why I wrote the book, which is to lay out precisely what I
think we have to do in everything from energy, education, taxes, deficit
spending, the debt we've racked up through entitlements. We're going to have to
make some dramatic changes in
Romney said: " And I continue to believe very
deeply, as I have in that last campaign described, that marriage must be
defended. I think it's under attack. I speak at great length in the book about
the importance of marriage prior to children. And I believe that being pro-life
is a very important feature of the American culture, and that's something I will
continue to defend.
Fantasy
Gardening in
There was a
clip on the national news recently about a black activist in
But this
activist had A Big Plan. She would turn all the empty housing lots of
Yes! Vegetable gardens! So that the
industrious, creative and self-reliant population there can make money selling
squash and lettuce and tomatoes in the summertime.
To which the rational skeptic
replies: "Yeah, right… In your dreams... Vegetable gardens…
So now that
To which the rational skeptic
replies: "Yeah, right… In your dreams...
Vegetable gardens…
In
Fantasy Gardening works like this. Some leftist activist looks at an intractable problem like the death of an entire city and sees a silver lining. Like vegetable gardens.
Then the activist files a ‘grant
application’, which is what liberals do instead of working. This world of ‘grant
applications' is one in which liberals sniff out, file for and win huge
monetary awards, usually from the taxpayer, by proposing ideas that have no
practical application. This is how university professors end up flying around
the globe studying headaches in
migrating squid or charting the effect of moonlight on sunbathers.
Someone then sees
this wonderful grant application for Fantasy Gardening and thinks it is a great idea. “Yes. They have the empty land. And the poor people have all day to work on the gardens because
they’re unemployed. Why not put the two together. Bingo! This will increase the
food supply. And reduce ‘global warming’...”
This is how it goes, folks.
Honestly. And you’ve gotta get that "global warming" part in. That is critical.
Because everything on the political left now ultimately comes back to GW.
Then the activist gets the million-dollar grant and immediately calls the local TV station and explains her plan. And being in the clueless media, the TV reporters think that this is a really good idea that will look good on the small screen. Upbeat. Optimistic. Yes! Vegetable gardens!
The media then portray the activist as a visionary and wonder why somebody didn't think of this before.
The clip runs
on the Detroit TV station. And since the station is part of a national network,
it is picked up and run on the national news and Americans across the fruited
plain see it and cheer, that finally we have a plan for
Then if some curmudgeon skeptic dismisses the idea saying “Yeah,
right.. in your dreams... Vegetable gardens…” some other
leftist activist in, say,
To which conservatives reply: "Build automobiles without labor unions."
Fantasy
Gardening is part of the vicious cycle of irrational socialism. Leftists create an
unsustainable economic climate and drive companies out of business. Then the
people suffer. Then some activist comes along and gets
taxpayer money to dream up some moronic scheme like Fantasy
Gardening in
If only they knew…
What Americans really need to understand is that socialism and its offspring are merely ways to entrench greed and stupidity. We would all be better off if we thought rationally about economics and growth and jobs. But since the media are promoting these silly ideas, it becomes a mantra for the people. And they are led down a path of economic destruction.
Protests from
Well, the college students are at it again.
Protesters took to the streets all over
Said one California graduate student who
plans to become a high school teacher, ""We're one of the largest economies in
the world, and we can't fund the basics. We're throwing away a generation of
students by defunding education."
Meanwhile, in
What do these phenomena have in common?
They both are leftist reactions (students or government
workers protesting, sometimes violently) to problems created by leftist policies
in the first place (exorbitant levels of government spending that no longer are
sustainable).
States across the
But are those teachers and professors going to see any pay
cuts or layoffs, or are the students simply going to be asked to pay more to
make up the budget shortfalls? Similarly, when the federal government has a
budget shortage, do government workers see pay cuts and layoffs or, on the
other side, does the taxpayer see his taxes rise first, just as the students are
seeing tuition hikes?
Truth is that government pay cuts and layoffs are always done as a last resort, and tax increases and tuition hikes are the first. So perhaps the students are directing their ire in the wrong place. Perhaps their anger should be directed at the unionized professors, administrators and staff for their exorbitant salaries and perks and bloated bureaucracies piled up after years of inertia.
And why aren't those students protesting the Democrat policies that have led the most liberal states to have the worst economic problems in the first place? Like, say, California...
Many of the demonstrations Thursday were being organized by
student groups, faculty associations and employee unions that often have a
contentious relationship with the universities.
Oh, interesting. Notice who is helping to organize the "student" protests... 'faculty associations and employee unions that often have a contentious relationship with the universities'. And many outside groups. These lefties are never going to take the blame, but will always point fingers at everyone else to shift the spotlight from their own complicity in creating the problem in the first place. Conservatives have warned about these people for decades.
Wrote Maria Petrakis on Bloomberg.com:
In
This is the type of violence that emerges
from the far left whether it be here in the
EU officials praised the... (government spending cuts) and Greek bonds gained on the measures, which include a 30 percent cut to three bonus-salary payments to civil servants. (end of excerpt)
Notice that in a time when tens of millions of private-sector
workers worldwide are losing their jobs that a '30 percent cut to three
bonus-salary payments' is seen as threatening the livelihoods of civil servants.
This is typical leftist featherbedding that has led these nations
to the economic brink in the first place.
Wrote Petrakis:
The main union for public workers,
ADEDY, called a three- hour work stoppage for tomorrow and a protest rally in
the city center that the country’s private-sector union group, representing 2
million Greek workers , will also join, according to spokesman Stathis Anestis.
Most unions representing public- transport services also called a 24-hour strike
tomorrow, affecting trams, rail and bus services in the Greek capital as well as
the
This all means that government and union leftists have the capability to hold entire nations hostage in
A Man’s View of Motherhood
A Scottish university
recently announced a hard statistic about childbearing - that women lose 90% of
their reproductive eggs by the age of 30. This certainly
is going to send shockwaves throughout the female population of
What should conservatives - both
men and women - say
about all this?
We should
state yet again how much we conservatives are the real pro-woman agents in
It is important to remember that the Republican party was the first to support women’s suffrage; that the first woman in the US Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin of Montana; that Republican Margaret Chase Smith of Maine was the first woman elected in her own right to the US Senate; that conservative Margaret Thatcher was the first woman to serve as prime minister of England; that the first woman to serve on the US Supreme Court was Sandra Day O’Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan.
Then just look at how brutally
Obama & Co. treated Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary campaign, or how the
left-wing media have trashed Sarah Palin without letup. And don’t think for a
second that these were not examples of pure leftist misogyny. Yet somehow those same liberals
have stolen the mantle of “women’s rights.”
Do they deserve it?
Heck no. Conservatives do. Hands
down. And it is because “women’s
rights” have been portrayed by the liberals and the media only as women having high-paying,
high-profile and powerful positions in society.
But we conservatives treat “women’s
rights” differently. In fact we treat "women's rights" and “men’s rights” as exactly the same thing,
that both men and women
should have equal opportunity to live fulfilled, happy lives in a decent, free society
based on Constitutional principles. That men and women should treat one another
with respect, not with the utter contempt that feminists have for men. And that
a good life for any person, man or woman, includes a solid, centered emotional
well-being that feminism has deemed insignificant. Because one thing you often
notice about feminists is how cold and unlovable that
they are.
No wonder all the lib guys hate
Palin. Because secretly they love her but can’t have her. They see her as warm
and beautiful and real, not like the frigid, power-mad witches in their own universe.
Because liberalism/socialism is a materialistic ideology that is based solely on the acquisition of power and wealth. And so the only path in the liberal mind to empowering “women” is intellectual and financial, to grease the skids through the universities and the government, through education and laws. No genuine warmth or human emotion is involved.
Nowhere in
liberal
Look at the Democrats’ radical agenda on abortion. Feminism is even based largely on the hatred of children. How can it go any lower? Millions of feminists think that unlimited access to abortion - any time, at any stage of pregnancy, at any age - is the most crucial step to feminist perfection. This is just cruelty. Then many of them end up old, unmarried and without children to make any real joy in their lives.
Today, the news even has come out
that women in America now have higher salaries than men on average. Yet we will rue the day
that this happened. Because it means that manly endeavors like mining and
construction and electronics and computers and mechanics now are being marginalized in a
society where the economy has been ‘feminized’ into functions like government bureaucracy,
law, education, health care and environmentalism.
But if we don’t have men out there
building things and inventing things and fixing things, who is going to create the hardware for the future?
That is a good question.
Men are losing out to women in many ways today. The reason is simple: Real men do not seek to appease others and to gain power, but to progress through the accumulation of real skill and knowledge, often just for the sake of having them.
And so do real women, people like Laura Bush and Lynn Cheney, who recognize that they are there to support their partner, not to try and compete with him as Hillary did to her husband, but to serve quietly alongside him, just as Todd Palin serves quietly alongside his powerful wife, not cheating on her like John Edwards or Bill Clinton.
Just look at history to see how
feminism accelerated itself, a result of the horrible treatment of women by the liberal
‘hippies’ of the 1960s. The 'hippies' treated women with contempt,
like sex objects. That is how Bill Clinton became the monster that he turned
into. And that is
why feminists are so cold – because they understand the real
relationship between liberal males and their female counterparts.
No, it is we conservative men who value and treasure women not as superiors (as feminism has made them) or inferiors (as the 'hippies' treated them) but as equals. Because that is the essence of a free society, that “all men” – and women – “are created equal”. Because only genuine equality can create the kind of freedom that is required to make a world that allows all people to pursue life, liberty and happiness under the watchful eye of a just, loving and all-caring God.
88 Public School Teachers Fired - Good!
A group of 88 unionized public school
teachers in
In the tiny town of Central Falls, which is one square mile in size and one of the state’s poorest communities that ranks in the lowest 5% of Rhode Island schools, the federal government cited the district’s failures and offered superintendent Frances Gallo four choices including shutting the school, having it taken over as a charter school, changing school policies from the ground up, or firing all the teachers.
Gallo chose the last.
And it's about time some drastic action like this was
taken…
After decades of teacher union propaganda always blaming failures on other people and particularly on the "lack of funding" – i.e., send more money to the teacher unions – the firing of these 88 teachers is a positive development in the crucial transformation of American public education from an untouchable, bureaucratic kingdom to a representative democracy where teachers are held to account for their performance.
In Central Falls, only 7% of
high school kids are proficient in math, while 52% drop out before graduation.
Many students are poor immigrants.
Naturally the teachers banded together and offered tearful sob stories about how the decision is going to disrupt their lives, and about how much they give to the kids. "I'm after school every day, I'm always available. I'm heartbroken. I'd do anything for this school system, I've done everything I can," said Frank Delbonis.
Blah, blah, blah…
This kabuki theater needs to
end. Public education is a disaster in America, while teachers get more and more
money every year, bigger benefit packages and, more and more often, early retirement
in their 50s while offering
an endless litany of how much more valuable they are to society than anyone
else.
Which they are not. Public
school teachers are no more valuable than welders or insurance salesmen or
waitresses. Except that welders and insurance salesmen and waitresses who fail
in their jobs can be fired while teachers virtually cannot be.
Public school teachers are
rarely fired
because many are protected by two of the strongest unions in America, the
National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. This is what the New York Times reported recently about efforts to fire
incompetent New York City school teachers:
[I]n the two years since the Education
Department began an intensive effort to root out such teachers from the more
than 55,000 who have tenure, officials have managed to fire only three for
incompetence. Ten others whom the department charged with incompetence settled
their cases by resigning or retiring…. The city’s effort includes eight
full-time lawyers, known as the Teacher Performance Unit, and eight retired
principals and administrators who serve as part-time consultants to help
principals build cases against teachers. Joel I. Klein, the schools chancellor,
said that the team, whose annual budget is $1 million, had been “successful at a
far too modest level.”
One incompetent teacher, Michael Ebewo, was found to have
misspelled words on a chart, to have ignored many of his special-needs students, and to have offered
answers to those students who could not respond to questions, confusing the
students. But
according to the Times, reporting on the proceedings to fire Ebewo:
Mr. Ebewo’s lawyer interrupted with
objections more than two dozen times, but the arbitrator overruled him in nearly
every instance. The hearing, which covered lessons dating to 2005, lasted four
hours... the hearing will probably go on for months, because of a rule the city
agreed to four years ago. (end of excerpt)
Teachersunionexposed.com gives some insight into teacher union
corruption.
Is Polanco going to be fired?
No, according to an article in the
The Los Angeles school board,
citing Polanco's poor judgment, voted to fire him.
But Polanco, who contended
that he had been misunderstood, kept his job. A little-known review commission
overruled the board, saying that although the teacher had made the statements,
he had meant no harm.
It's remarkably difficult to
fire a tenured public school teacher in California, a Times investigation has
found. The path can be laborious and labyrinthine, in some cases involving years
of investigation, union grievances, administrative appeals, court challenges and
re-hearings.
…The Times reviewed every case
on record in the last 15 years in which a tenured employee was fired by a
California school district and formally contested the decision before a review
commission: 159 in all (not including about two dozen in which the records were
destroyed). The newspaper also examined court and school district records and
interviewed scores of people, including principals, teachers, union officials,
district administrators, parents and students.
Among the findings:
* Building a case for
dismissal is so time-consuming, costly and draining for principals and
administrators that many say they don't make the effort except in the most
egregious cases. The vast majority of firings stem from blatant misconduct,
including sexual abuse, other immoral or illegal behavior, insubordination or
repeated violation of rules such as showing up on time.
* Although districts generally
press ahead with only the strongest cases, even these get knocked down more than
a third of the time by the specially convened review panels, which have the
discretion to restore teachers' jobs even when grounds for dismissal are proved.
* Jettisoning a teacher solely
because he or she can't teach is rare. In 80% of the dismissals that were
upheld, classroom performance was not even a factor.
Later the LA Times
reported that school district bureaucrats even have purposely sabotaged the dismissal
process on behalf of a unionized teacher:
But it is not uncommon for
districts to sabotage themselves with technical missteps. In Polanco's case, for
example, L.A. Unified administrators began firing proceedings before giving him
the required 45 days' "notice of unprofessional conduct" -- one factor in the
commission's decision to overturn his firing.
…Meanwhile, said Kendra
Wallace, principal of Daniel Webster Middle School on Los Angeles' Westside, an
ineffective teacher can instruct 125 to 260 students a year -- up to 1,300 in
the five years she says it often takes to remove a tenured employee.
And not only can bad teachers usually not be fired, but…get
this… good teachers who speak out against the unions can be targeted for
harassment. Reported the LA Times:
Cynthia Acerno was a
last-minute hire at an elementary magnet school in the San Diego Unified School
District, according to a summary of her case by a review commission. Though
known for being strict, the district veteran had had no previous problems.
But "vocal, politically
well-connected" parents accused her of being a "menace," and started unfounded
rumors that she was screaming at children, drinking and using drugs, the panel
found. Some pulled their children from her class.
"The case against her was a
cocktail of hearsay on hearsay with an ill-will chaser," the panel commented in
its ruling in favor of Acerno, who could not be reached for comment. ". . . Many
of these scurrilous and damaging things were said in front of the children of
this class by parents. This was shameful."
So just imagine a leftist union structure
allied with leftist parents in the community ganging up on a whistleblower
teacher. That is how corrupt the system has become. And that is why the
But don’t feel sorry for the
Tiger and the Ten Commandments
There have been two big stories in the media recently, both of
which have raised social issues.
The first is the tale of a
The second is the emergence from seclusion of golfer Tiger
Woods who got caught in a sex scandal and who made an
apologetic statement on February 19.
Problem is that these guys are relatively insignificant
figures in our culture except that they
are famous. And that is the problem. We have elevated some pretty low and
inconsequential people to some pretty high stations, and that is the crux of the
dilemma.
After Smith was thrown off the flight, he went on the internet and cursed out the airline and created a national media stir. Yet he didn’t seem to have much self-criticism for being a glutton.
Why not? Why can’t a
But no. Never. The narcissist is first and foremost a manipulator. And the first thing a narcissist does is to A)
blame somebody else for their problems, hopefully a conservative entity like a
private corporation (Southwest Airlines); and B) seek some advantage from his
victimization, like Smith is using the incident to promote his career.
In fact gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. So do you
think that that might be the reason that these leftist media elites like Smith
are always seeking to draw people away from concepts of right and wrong as
stated in the Seven Deadly Sins or the Ten Commandments?
Indeed. They want you to forget about the Big Picture of moral
and social decency so that you gravitate to their stupid Follywood movies or to
some dopey
golf match. Which is what is driving our nation off a cliff. Because we are
being drawn away from what is important in order to undermine our freedom.
What about Woods? Oh, there’s a real peach. A golfer… wow…
we’re all impressed. The media fuss around this cad is obscene.
Woods was involved in the most promiscuous types of relationship
with more than a dozen females, yet he came out ashen-faced and looking like a
corpse when he made his apology statement. His delivery was stiff. His small
studio audience looked like they were sitting before Saddam Hussein
waiting for the news about who would be executed next.
So you wonder why Woods was never so ashamed of his behavior
before. Could it be that… he was getting away with it?
Basically who really cares about Tiger Woods? He is a sleazy
guy who hid his true character for years. He’s worth a billion dollars. And we
are supposed to feel sorry for him?
I don’t think so. I think we all have
much bigger things to think about, like maintaining our prosperity
and our freedom at a time when both are under political assault from the wealthy elites
like Woods and the
The media made a big deal out of Woods’ statement. But why should we even care what Woods says in trying to redeem himself? What has Woods ever done besides entertain us? He is not some protector of our freedom, or a legendary scholar, or a leader of men in a dangerous world. He’s a golfer. Period.
But the media have built Woods into a legend. And oh, yes. Woods is half-black. So he's a half-god. Like Obama. And it's all done in the name of money. And all of Woods' sycophant friends and sponsors are wrapped up in this materialistic web of money, money and more. This is part of the leftist media culture which is based in greed and materialism.
And whatever anyone on the political left
can do to get more money, they will. Because despite all their verbal assaults
on “the rich”, the fact is that liberals are the richest and most materialistic
money-grubbers of all. Just look at the profane wealth concentrated in
Woods’ apology and Smith’s war with Southwest Airlines are about one thing: Putting them in the position to profit. Don’t think for a minute that Woods cares about what he did wrong. He is looking down the road for more profit, which he can’t have until he redeems himself.
It is also instructive and hilarious to watch the feminists seething at Woods
and sticking up for his cuckolded wife. These are your typical lefty witches - angry, confused
pseudo-intellectuals. Because modern-day feminism is nothing but a
manic-depressive psychosis where men get crucified for sexual harassment for
looking sideways at a female co-worker, while females are told on the
other hand that the world is one big whorehouse of sexual freedom – abortion,
birth control, lesbianism, adultery.
The traditional family? Forget about it. The feminists’
liberal friends in the media and in Follywood – people like Kevin Smith - mock
the traditional family every minute of every day. They disdain Christianity, strong
men, our military, traditional values, motherhood, patriotism. So the feigned outrage by
feminists at Woods is just so much blarney. These feminists should look at their
own hideous faces in the mirror to find out about Tiger Woods. Because feminism/socialism have
created cultures of amorality/immorality that allow Woods to thrive.
Socialist progressivism is devoted to legitimizing the
proscriptions that contradict a decent society. And if you
do not know what those proscriptions are – which would be no
surprise since popular culture has marginalized them - the Seven Deadly Sins are lust, envy,
gluttony, sloth, greed, anger and pride. (Note: pride means “arrogance”)
while the Ten Commandments are:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you
out of the
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor
serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who
hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My
Commandments.
Inhofe Wants Truth on ‘Warming’
Inhofe, who has been a staunch critic of the ‘warming’ theory,
has been a beacon for truth in a world of deception and nonsense. And good luck
to him in prodding the Obama administration to investigate. That certainly is
not going to happen and we will have to wait for a Republican Senate and a
conservative’s return to the White House in 2012 to have the potential for any
action at all.
Inhofe also is calling for Al Gore to be called back to
testify before the Senate to explain all the discrepancies between the
established facts and the assertions that Gore made in his 2007 testimony to the
Senate and in his film, An Inconvenient Truth.
Hooray for Inhofe. He easily is the most sensible leader in the
United States Senate today for standing firm on his principles, and who now is
being proven correct in the wake of several series of revelations about the fraudulence
of the so-called “settled science” of ‘climate change’.
Inhofe recently released a minority staff report from the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member,
requesting an investigation by the Department of Justice about whether
there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by ‘climate change’
advocates like Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James
Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The report alleges that many scientists may have violated fundamental ethical principles and even federal laws regarding research that has received taxpayer funds. This type of allegation is unprecedented in the history of the Senate. Inhofe also believes that e-mails hacked last Autumn from the computers of English climate scientists, along with other damning documents, prove that the alleged ‘consensus’ that man is causing so-called ‘global warming’ is not based in scientific fact.
Inhofe also is charging that
re-examination of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) 2007 AR4 report has forced IPCC to
retract some of AR4’s conclusions, including the prediction that Himalayan
glaciers would disappear by 2035. This prediction was not even peer-reviewed
science, but instead was the product of environmental activists. One of the editors
of AR4 has admitted that he knew that the
This is all absolutely stunning in light of the fact that
governments worldwide had planned to proceed with major economy-changing
legislation based on the false science. Thus Inhofe plans to ask the
Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its finding that carbon dioxide is
a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act and plans to ask Congress to
withdraw funding for further EPA action in this regard.
Inhofe's report describes some important issues revealed by the
hacked e-mails including the fact that some climate scientists were cooperating
to obstruct the release of evidence countering the 'warming' theory; were
manipulating data to reach desired conclusions; were acting to pressure
scientific editors to squash research opposing the ‘warming’ dogma; and were acting
more as climate activists than objective scientists.
The report also suggests that the Shelby Amendment, which
requires public access to the results of taxpayer-funded research, may have
been violated; notes the potential that the Federal False Statements and False
Claims Acts may have been violated, which can bring both civil and criminal
penalties; and includes the possibility for charges of obstruction of
Congress and obstruction of justice.
If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to criminal penalties and to bans on receiving any further federal research dollars.
As a result of questions raised in the e-mail controversy,
Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the
UK has been forced out of his post, while Mann is currently being investigated
by Penn State for potential misconduct. If other are threatened with criminal charges, Inhofe believes that some researchers may join his inquiry in order to save
themselves. Senator Inhofe believes that Hansen and Mann should be fired.
Of course, we can expect the Senate’s Democrat majority to block Inhofe.
Still Inhofe's report is part of a big step forward in uncovering not only the
junk science behind ‘global warming’, but the criminal nature of the
participants. Senator Inhofe is certainly opening up a big can of worms that
will lead to major questions about the nature of scientific inquiry today.
Thousands of careers and reputations certainly are at stake, as they should be.
But this is the type of fraudulence that we get when the drug-addled and self-deceiving 1960s generation grows up and gets into positions of power and leadership. The 1960s were a false myth about a better world, and indeed we have seen in this climate scandal that liberals from that era will say anything to fit a template that simply does not add up, just as they did 40 years ago.
Goodfellas
There is a movie from the 1990s called Goodfellas. It
has been highly praised over the years and stars Robert DeNiro, Ray Liotta and Joe Pesci. The director is Martin Scorcese.
It is a violent film about organized crime and murder and drug
dealing. It is nihilistic and angry. And oh, yes, it is made by and features
members of the Follywood elite who always claim how “pacifist” and peace-loving
they are.
Pacifist my foot. These people will do anything for money, and
often it involves violence. Just look at all the thug roles that DeNiro has
played.
What do these movies do?
They promote violence in society, that is what. These films
are vehicles that exploit violence and nihilism in order to make profits for all
those so-called humanitarians in Follywood.
You know, all those ‘caring’ Democrats…
Oh, no, say the lefties. These are just innocent movies
portraying real slices of life. They are just fun, and people pay to see them.
Truth is, they are not fun. They are incubators of violence
and violent ideas. These lefties could make other more innocent
movies. But no.
These movies often glamorize organized crime, which is what
you can expect from Follywood. Through labor unions and through its influence on
Democrat political machines, organized crime is an arm of the same
Democrat party that is woven into the fabric of Follywood.
The
Gee, that Scorcese sure loves violence.
And he is liberal to the core. And like all liberals, he loves violence as a way
to make money at the same time that he is an anti-capitalist socialist. And he
lives in a mansion tucked away on a guarded street while millions of people
across
Now a member in good standing of another sector of liberal
Entertainer America - Oprah Winfrey - has announced that she will end her talk
show in 2011.
Hallelujiah…
Unfortunately she will be concentrating on expanding her media
empire on cable TV.
Booo...
Winfrey is another ultra-wealthy liberal who has had a corrosive
effect on American discourse. She has pushed a leftist agenda at the expense of
any alternative point of view. She has given Al Gore a forum for his nutty
‘global warming’ theory but never has given anyone with an alternative view the
same consideration.
And while the media claim that a serious political commentator
like conservative Rush Limbaugh is “an entertainer” – and Limbaugh is sometimes
very entertaining - who obviously has too much money, they never have taken
Winfrey to task for being a genuine “entertainer” or for having a giant fortune
which is many times Limbaugh’s. And for promoting frivolous ideas and
lightweight entertainment and fraudulent ideas like ‘global warming’.
This is not to disparage Winfrey. She has
been successful at what she does. But she is a media person who has succeeded
only by being an engaging interviewer. And that is fine. Except that her wealth
comes as a result of the overall wealth of a prosperous
Like the entire entertainment industry, Winfrey is a “service”
to the American economy. She is a frill. But she is certainly not crucial to our
existences. We do not fundamentally need her like we need electricity and
gasoline and lumber to build our homes. Just like we do not need Martin Scorcese’s violent films.
Yet her overall advocacy of radical
environmentalism, for example, seeks to deny us the resources to sustain our
lives out here in
Which we conservatives have always warned about. And for which we conservatives have offered a simple solution – build nuclear power plants and tap our domestic energy sources.
Winfrey, on the other hand, was a huge Obama supporter. And
she advocates the myopic views of the world that always come from the elites in
their secluded mansions, insulated from the real world.
An economist named Thomas Malthus once wrote that mankind was
doomed because the amount of land needed to feed horses for the growing
population was going to outstrip the supply of land. And he was right.
Except that Malthus never considered that some new technology
might come to the rescue, something he never had thought about.
And who came to the rescue. Was it Al Gore? Or Oprah. Or
Martin Scorcese?
No, it was a common-sense capitalist named Henry Ford who made
automobiles available to the common man, automobiles that replaced horses and
severely reduced the amount of land needed for horse, making that land available
for food production.
Hmmm… that sounds like a perfectly world-saving idea.
But it was too good to be true. Now we
have people warning that our use of the automobile is going to kill the planet
just like the horses were supposed to. And Oprah Winfrey and all the wealthy
elite in
What is going to happen, however, and what already is
happening is that technology is going to create a better world and new energy
resources so that we can sustain our higher standard of living. Most of the
world is underexplored or unexplored for oil and natural gas. New drilling
technologies are making oil easier to find and extract. Nuclear fusion is a
promising technology to produce large amounts of energy. Nuclear power already
is the ‘miracle’ power source that we need.
But liberals like Robert deNiro and Oprah Winfrey and Barack
Obama do not want us to use these sources, or to find more oil. Because in their
fantasy world, we should be afraid of all this progress.
Yet at the same time we are supposed to enjoy their stupid TV
shows and pay to see their violent movies.
Which makes no sense at all.
Why Americans Lack Health Insurance
The big health-care summit at
Blair House in
How many millions of people without health insurance grew up
poor because they did not have a father in their home, since 1960s-style
Democrats and feminists have insistently maligned the presence of men in the
home, and advocated a lifestyle of single motherhood, with its vastly higher
rates of poverty and government dependence?
Many, friends, many millions.
How many millions of people lacking health insurance were
poorly educated in, or dropped out of the public education system - run lock,
stock and barrel by the Democrat party - because of the terrible schools and
failed educational policies established over decades by the left-wing teacher
unions?
Many, friends, many millions.
How many millions of people without health insurance have
seen their incomes taxed away by the heavy hand of the Democrats across
Many, friends, many millions.
How many millions of uninsured people cannot afford health
insurance because the trial lawyers, who are allied closely with the Democrat
party, have drastically increased the cost of all aspects of health care by
putting every single health-care provider (doctors, nurses, physical therapists,
ambulance services etc.) under legal duress and frightening them into paying
sky-high insurance premiums, into doubling or tripling up on testing and other
procedures, and leading doctors to use overly-expensive treatments to avoid any
possible legal liability?
Many, friends, many millions.
How many millions of citizens cannot afford insurance
because the health-care industry's Democrat labor unions like SEIU, particularly
nurses, are pushing for relentless pay increases, pushing up the cost of care
for all?
Many, friends, many millions.
How many millions of citizens cannot afford health insurance because busybody Democrat legislators in every state have mandated exactly what must be covered under insurance plans sold in those states, forcing people to pay ever-increasing costs for unnecessary and unwanted coverage?
Many, friends, many millions.
How many millions of our citizens cannot afford health
insurance because they live in Democrat-dominated states with devastated
economies like
Many, friends, many millions.
So what is the solution?
In order to make health insurance available to most people,
the first thing we should do is to expose the Democrats and socialists for who
they are and what they are doing to
Conservatives have the real solution: First, restrain the
Democrat party.
Media Covering for Libs'
Electoral Losses
If you recall January 20, 2009
when Obama was inaugurated and was being seen as invincible, that the Ancient
Media (New York Times, CBS, CNN, NBC, Time magazine etc.) were
portraying a nation gone left; a Republican party that was dead; that
Republicans were just a bunch of angry, white Southern men; that the leftist
majority finally had awakened etc. Even Newsweek magazine
said on its cover 'We Are All Socialists Now
Yet today some estimates say that Republicans could gain
as many as
13(!) seats in the United States Senate and more than 40 seats in the House of
Representatives in the upcoming elections, giving the GOP majority control in both houses of Congress.
What a difference a year makes.
And all this happened
because the manic-depressive Ancient Media were irrationally
exuberant one year ago declaring that Obama would transform the nation and that Obama would be Emperor for Life and
the next bust on Mount Rushmore.
What a difference a year makes.
Indeed the Ancient Media told us that health care was going to shower ‘free’ care on all; that unions finally would take control of every workplace; that illegal immigrants would all become productive, taxpaying American citizens; and, oh yes, Chicago would be preparing in just 6 short years to host the summer Olympics.
If only that were true. What a
difference a year makes.
What happened?
Well, first, it’s not over. Because the same Ancient Media
that were wrong about everything in the past
year now are doubling down on their conventional wisdom with a new
template like this: Yes, Republicans have won three huge
elections since last fall, the governorships in
If only it were so. Because they
even have this one backward.
Look at the truth about that race. In NY-23, Douglas Hoffman was running
on a conservative, third-party ticket, the ticket that usually gets 1% to 5% of
the vote in any given election.
Not only did Hoffman then rise up with
hardly any money or name recognition and force the liberal Republican off the
ticket, but then he got 46% of the total vote while his Democrat opponent got 49%. And
this is the real story – not of conservative weakness, but of astounding
conservative strength. He almost won a national election as a third-party
candidate which is virtually unheard of. And Hoffman is expected to win that
seat next November in a rematch.
And as the
media continue to misrepresent that story and others like it across the nation,
they are going to watch the Democrat majority in
Look at the
way that Republican US senator Scott Brown of
What really happened, though, is
that Brown ran specifically and strongly against Obama and he won. And this
is the most frightening prospect of all for the Democrats and their media
allies, that their invincible Emperor Obama has been exposed as having not only
no coattails, but no clothes at all.
What the
elections in
Now the media are taking on the
National Tea Party Convention and Sarah Palin’s appearance there. One CNN
commentator even falsely reported that Palin was going to accept a $100,000 speaking
fee several days after it had been announced that she would not accept that fee.
This is the way the media are seeking every advantage - by conveniently ignoring the facts.
No, the Ancient Media continue to
report that the Tea Partiers are just a bunch of fringe kooks, that they are
going to hurt Republicans as much as Democrats, that the movement never will
last, that the movement is fracturing.
This is nonsense and comes from the same media elites who declared the Republicans dead last year.
The Tea
Parties are another barb in the conservative anchor that has sunk its teeth into
the mind, body and spirit of the American electorate, holding firm to ideas and
concepts that are necessary to taking
Democrats’ War on Men
US Senate majority leader Harry
Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said on February 22: “Men when they're out of work tend
to become abusive. I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic
abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs. Women don't have
jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time. Men, when they're out
of work, tend to become abusive. Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are
jammed.”
Oh, really, senator? “Men” are abusive? That sounds like an awfully broad statement. Sexist even. Why are you picking on “men” and making such a sweeping charge?
This statement appears to be part of Harry
Reid’s personal mental crackup as he sees his re-election bid going down in
flames.
Keep babbling, senator. In the
10 months you have left in office…
Reid’s statement is blatant anti-man bias just like the unvarnished bias against white men by four liberal Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of a lower court ruling that a group of white male New Haven, Connecticut firefighters could not be promoted simply because no blacks had passed the promotion test.
Indeed Reid’s charge is part of
the Democrats' decades-long effort to marginalize strong and confident men. This had been going on since the 1960s when men
were turned from responsible father figures of the 1950s into demons and
oppressors.
Just look at the popular media today and bias is everywhere. In television, advertising, movies etc. white men often are portrayed as bumblers, adulterers, fools and criminals while females and minorities are portrayed as crime stoppers and honest problem solvers.
Of course Reid forgot to mention that "men"
traditionally have fought the wars, built the powerplants and houses, cut the
timber, mined the coal and, for millennia, have done all the brutal,
backbreaking work that has sustained mankind and built economies.
But now, according to Reid, men
are “abusive” in times of economic stress. Which makes you wonder: Does that
include powerful Democrat men like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and John Edwards
and their “abusive” attitudes towards women not in times of economic stress, but
just in their everyday lives?
The fact is that men indeed are losing out because the Democrat War on Men is succeeding. Women now are more secure and numerically superior in the American workforce, and actually are surpassing men in incomes.
America will rue the day that
this has happened, however. Because women have moved en masse into “armchair jobs” like health
care, media, education and law. More women today attend college than men. But as men and their
contributions are marginalized, our nation is becoming poorer because we do not expand
economically through health care, media, education and law, but when we do
“manly” things like building and manufacturing.
Yet across America today, if a white man is applying for any job, and the same job is being applied for by a black man, a gay male, a lesbian, a feminist, or other minorities, often the white man is eliminated first even if he is more qualified, as in the Connecticut case. If he is known to be conservative, he often hasn’t got a prayer.
In this recession, men are
being much harder hit than women. Here is an excerpt
from a report by Richard Fry and D’Vera Cohn, at the
… The national economic downturn is reinforcing these gender
reversal trends, because it has hurt employment of men more than that of women.
Males accounted for about 75% of the 2008 decline in employment among
prime-working-age individuals (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). Women are
moving toward a new milestone in which they constitute half of all the employed.
Their share increased from 46.5% in December 2007 to 47.4% in December 2009.
(end of excerpt)
Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, wrote in the New York Times recently:
For the first time, women have outnumbered men on the
nation’s payrolls.
The Labor Department revised on Friday its previous estimates
of nonfarm payroll employees, the monthly aggregate employment series that gets
the most media attention.
The most recent jobs estimates by gender are for January
2010. Before adjusting for seasonal changes, 64.2 million payroll employees last
month were women, and only 63.4 million were men. (end of excerpt)
So in other words, not only have women taken the jobs of men, but the higher incomes as well.
A larger share of men in 2007, compared with their 1970
counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own,
according to a Pew Research Center analysis of demographic and economic trend
data. A larger share of women are married to men with less education and income.
From an economic perspective, these trends have contributed
to a gender role reversal in the gains from marriage. In the past, when
relatively few wives worked, marriage enhanced the economic status of women more
than that of men. In recent decades, however, the economic gains associated with
marriage have been greater for men than for women. (end of excerpt)
This is all a result of Reid’s and
the Democrat party’s war on hard-working men, fathers, the military,
Christianity etc. That is why so many white men are finding themselves shut out of an
economy under legal strategies set up by the
Democrats as in the
The War on Men in the Democrat party is a very bad development and Reid’s comment is obnoxious. And it is time for men to strike back fearlessly at this terrible bias.
Living Beyond Our Means?
Are we
Well, yes and no. And this is the way people always have looked at the future which always is full of uncertainty, perhaps positive, perhaps negative. And uncertainty lies ahead for our nation.
We face economic uncertainty
because the Democrat party, along with world socialism, is following the path of
debt and economic stasis, which can
easily be remedied by sensible conservative economic policies.
We face uncertainty over our energy
supplies because there are man-made restrictions on
supply by environmentalists and governments. This situation can be remedied by
sensible conservative energy policies.
We face political uncertainty over
terrorism first because Democrats do not want to confront it head on, and second
because terrorists with nuclear weapons can kill millions of Americans, a threat
that never has existed before. These threats can be remedied only by conservative vigilance.
Yet while there is trouble ahead if we follow our current policies, conservatives know that America ultimately will make the right decisions.
And things are not so bleak. There is much to be thankful for. There is more liberty and more literacy in the world than ever before. More people are better fed and have a higher standard of living and medical care than ever in history, and the world is generally more peaceful than it ever has been. The internet is an amazing tool for expanding knowledge. So we also can look at the bright side and consider that we have much to build on for a better tomorrow.
But have we become too demanding in our modern lives that are often too easy and frivolously self-indulgent?
Indeed that is true in many cases. Consider our American lifestyle. Today we each consume huge amounts of energy and resources. We have
air conditioning for the heat, oil burners for the cold. Our houses can be kept
at a perfect, level temperature by thermostatic control. This was unheard of
throughout history when people suffered with the weather.
We have had good jobs and vast material
wealth. We have excellent
health care with breakthroughs extending our lifespans every year. We have every
educational tool available to better ourselves intellectually. And best of all we have our
Christian God and our Bible for our spiritual solace, which led us to this
point and will lead us into the future.
Yet today many
people seem to want more and more and more, as if we do not
already have enough. They need to go gambling in
They
In addition, millions of Americans often throw
away perfectly good lives by inventing traumas, addictions and pathologies,
evolving into the Therapy Culture that has submerged millions of minds into
confusion and chaos. Through the media, Therapy Culture liberals have so
corrupted our lives that psychoses surface in ways that never existed before.
This is evidence of a severely
superficial and materialistic culture in which we must be constantly be
entertained and diverted. Because we have lost sight of what we have. And as the
old saying goes, you don’t know what you’ve got until it is gone.
On a recent
television program about rich people in
This sentiment never would have been revealed in the good times. And it is
an indicator that perhaps this recession has a silver lining, that tough
times indeed can make us tougher and wiser, that a bad economy is
acting as a wake-up call for us all to recount our blessings in life. And
perhaps it is a summons to recognize the difference between the prosperity that
we have been blessed with; and the materialism that we have evolved into. And it is important to note the
difference.
Prosperity is
defined in The American College Dictionary as ‘prosperous, flourishing
or thriving conditions; good fortune; success’.
So prosperity is a good
thing and is what the Founders of our nation wanted for all Americans. Because
those wise Founders had seen governments controlling peoples’ lives for millennia,
usually causing those people to be poor. Prosperity means you can live your life at more
than the subsistence level, and find more meaning in that life through a higher
standard of living. You can own a
home, run your own business and have many of the essential comforts that man has been
denied throughout most of time.
Materialism, on
the other hand, is quite different and is described in the same dictionary as
‘devotion to material rather than spiritual objects needs and considerations’
Thus
materialism is a corruption of prosperity, just as many American lives have
become corruptions of the freedoms that the Founders wanted for us. Just look at
the materialist money-lovers in
Materialism is a liberal trait. Materialism originates in narcissistic and decadent lives in the cities of the world, where liberalism reigns. Just thumb through the New York Times or any of the other glossy New York publications to see all the advertisements for multimillion-dollar apartments, jewels, expensive cars, clothes, chic vacations etc. Yet the Times editorially is socialistic and says over and over how much it hates Rich People.
Hah...
Materialism is the love of luxury that has spread from the cities into the middle class in some parts of
Yet now, with the economic hard
times, many of those materialists are reappraising their
lives. And they are understanding that money - prosperity - is nice to have, but
that their obsession with material things is unimportant compared to the better things in the world that cannot be taken away
by a recession like faith,
family, scholarly knowledge and friends – you know, all the things that are “free”.
So we wonder: Have some Americans
simply been living far too high in the modern world, taking prosperity to the
point of unchecked materialism and losing themselves in it, damaging our nation
as a result?
Indeed that appears to be true.
Go look at history. Or look around
the world today where billions of people still live primitive lives. Should this
not make us thankful for what we have in our advanced cultures, even if we have
just the basics?
Apparently not for millions of
our fellow citizens. No, today women are sold little $100 tubes of wrinkle cream so that they
can feed their dermatological vanity. Men drive the most expensive sports cars
so that they can appear powerful and interesting. Children have all the latest
fashions
to appear to be in control of their ‘cool’ lives.
Now with the bottom falling out,
suddenly all Americans have to face up to themselves. And often the picture is
not a pretty one because many have ignored their basic humanity in favor of
unrelenting materialism. Yet we
conservatives who did not fall into the trap of urban materialism find ourselves much happier, healthier and better adjusted than those
who tumbled into the abyss.
Conservatism has consistently
favored prosperity for all, but has opposed gross materialism. Because
conservatives are wise people who know the old saying, that you can’t take it
with you. And so you might as well find something that you can take with you
into the next world like your honor and your belief in a life well-lived. Because those things do
not have a price tag on them no matter how hard you look for it.
Tide Turning in Terror War
The conflict once known as “the war in
The number of American troops in
In considering these hard-won victories it is important to remember that in 2006 then-Senate minority leader Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada said, “The war is lost.” And the whole Democrat party, along with its compliant media, joined in a chorus of doubt. Now, however, it appears that Reid is going to be voted from office in November, which shows that there is such a thing as poetic justice.
What a difference four years make. The
Democrats were more than ready to throw in the towel and concede defeat,
which would have been a huge blow to
Instead, we have a tentative victory in
As the tide in
But
Near Karachi,
Baradar's capture is likely to provide a treasure trove of intelligence
that will lead to more
captures and more death and destruction for the bad guys. Another major Taliban
leader in northern Pakistan was seized within ten days of Baradar's capture. And don’t
expect
Is the noose tightening on terrorism worldwide?
It seems so despite the
Democrats’ insistence that we could never prevail in such a war.
One of the most interesting developments
of all is the widespread deployment of pilot-less lightweight Predator 'drone'
aircraft that are flown by remote control. All over
In asymmetric warfare, the US plays by the rules against terrorists who don't. They use every underhanded tactic to attain their goals from targeting civilians, to suicide bombing, to using women and children as shields, to firing from mosques and cemeteries, to refusing to wear the uniform of any nation.
Yet now the drones are said to be striking as much fear in
terrorists’ hearts as terrorists strike in the hearts of innocent people
everywhere, which is a wonderful thing to behold. Imagine you are a terrorist sitting in a
house in a remote corner of
Such an attack is just as devastating and unexpected as a car bomb in a Baghdad marketplace. And that is its beauty. In fact it is just like a terrorist attack... on the terrorists themselves. And now accounts of these surprise strikes are spreading rapidly and they are instilling fear in the terrorists themselves.
So the question is: How will terrorists train and recruit others if they themselves are running scared?
Answer: They cannot. And increasingly the Predator strikes are putting huge psychological stress on the bad guys. This is great news for the civilized world. We are giving the terrorists a taste of their own medicine. We have developed our own form of asymmetric warfare.
As another indication that the tide is turning, even Muslims are being reported as increasingly angry with Al Qaeda for killing mostly Muslims with its assaults.
And who said we could never beat the bad guys, that terrorists were invincible in fighting a guerilla-style war against us? Who said that there is an endless supply of terrorists?
The Democrats did, along with our leftist media and the university professors who never, ever have fought in war or even cared about our freedoms.
Indeed it appears that we are finally turning the corner in the War on Terror
despite Obama’s dithering and the Democrats’ insistence on snatching defeat from
the jaws of victory. Even as restrictive American rules of
engagement have led to canceled kills when other innocents might have died as well, we
still appear to be turning the tide.
Because our mission always has been honorable – to establish decent governments in a region known for tyranny and violence. And only through sheer force of will and determination – along with far, far too much American blood - the world appears to be changing for the better.
While the job is still far from done, it sure looks better
than it did a few short years ago. And we all must be thankful to our armed forces for doing a job
that the rest of us never ever would do, but which has been absolutely critical
to preserve our own freedoms and to spread the concept of liberty around the
globe.
15 Reasons Health Care is So Expensive
A famous doctor named Atul Gawande recently said in a speech
that there are now 6,000 different drugs available along with 4,000 separate
procedures that may be combined to cure 13,000 identified human maladies.
So is it any wonder that health care costs are out of control?
The reasons are simple. Here they are, without obfuscation:
1) Today we can mend diseases and conditions that would have
killed the patient 50 years ago. Or even 10 years ago. And now that we all have
become accustomed to seeing every malady treated, we expect it. Indeed we are probing deeper and deeper into every corner of
human health, at higher and higher cost. For instance, we are spending large amounts
of money on research and treatment for “orphan” diseases that affect very few
people. This is wonderful, but the monetary return on research and treatment per
person cured is very, very low. And we all pay that cost.
2) At the same time, we are living longer and longer, and
retiring younger and younger and spending more of our lives consuming health
care rather than producing the wealth to pay for it. Thus the costs per person go up and up and up.
4) Then think about the black teenager gang-banger who gets shot and
sits in a hospital for a month getting well. Uninsured, the rest of the
consumers of health care pay his bill. Millions of people have no insurance and
we who pay must account for them. No wonder the costs are going up for us who
pay the freight.
5) Then think about the 90-year-old man who needs a heart
operation. Fifty years ago, that same operation was not available to even a
40-year-old man to help him live and be productive for the next 25 years of life
until his retirement. Yet today, that 90-year-old man could get an expensive
surgical procedure that may extend his life by just two years, showing very
little return for the investment. And we wonder why health costs are spiking.
Then bleeding-heart liberals counter, “You are hard-hearted,
thinking about everything in terms of return on investment.” To which the rational conservative replies: “Isn’t that what
the entire debate is about – costs?”
6) Think about the poor, uninsured, unmarried teenage girl who
goes into a hospital and has her child delivered for free. Free to her, that is.
While the rest of us pay for it. And the child’s father gets off scot free and
never sees the child and then goes off and impregnates another young, poor,
uninsured girl. And another. Then we wonder why health-care costs are going up, up, up.
7) Think about the accident victim who gets 30 surgeries and
hundreds of hours of physical therapy to get well. This is a large amount of
expensive health care consumed by one single person. And somebody has to pay for
it. Which we all do.
8) Think of all the elderly people who are summoned over and
over again to the doctor’s office, often unnecessarily, just to enrich the
doctor from insurance plans, for repetitive treatments and checkups that do little to improve health.
9) Think about preventative medicine which Obama claims is going to solve our health crisis. In fact, it makes things worse. Because millions of people end up getting treatments and tests that are unnecessary and costly.
10) Then we have liberalism, which says that somehow we must
cure everything, that every last malady, no matter the economic status of the
patient, is to be fixed, that even the indigent and idle poor deserve a
heart operation, that even a sleazy drug dealer is entitled to
emergency room treatment when he overdoses on his own drugs or is shot on the
street corner. And we all pay for it.
11) Then we have the trial lawyers, who are 98% Democrat.
Every single practitioner in the field of health care from doctors to nurses to
therapists may double up or triple up on
tests, treatments and procedures just to cover themselves so they won’t be sued.
Sky-high malpractice insurance costs are passed on to consumers. And as these
lawyers get rich and give their campaign contributions almost exclusively to the
Democrat party, they are pushing up the cost of health care dramatically. And
the Democrats protect them. No wonder the cost of health care is out of control.
12) SEIU, the Service Employees International Union,
organizes millions of health-care workers. These workers get artificially
high wages, pushing up the cost of care because those wages are paid by the
consumers of health care. You and me. The basic cost of labor is one of the
driving forces in the cost of any product. No wonder health costs are spiking.
13) Think about Democrat busybody legislators all over the
country, in every state, making laws that say that health insurance policies
sold in their state must cover this, this and that, maybe 100 different
conditions or more. This takes the choice
out of the hands of the consumer and pushes up prices.
Why should a person pay to insure for blemish
removal or toenail treatment if he/she does not want that coverage? Why not let insurance
companies compete across state lines and sell people exactly the policies they want
with only the coverage they want, like car insurance or homeowner policies? Why
can’t an insurance company offer any person
in any state a huge deductible policy like $30,000 or $50,000 to cover only catastrophic costs. The policy
would save consumers huge amounts of money.
Because if insurance should cover one thing, it should be
catastrophic costs, not everyday costs. But under the current system, under laws implemented by Democrats,
insurance must cover every doctor
visit from a headache to a broken arm to cancer. Thus costs are pushed through the roof
because every transaction has a fixed bureaucratic cost built in – also known as
insurance company paperwork and doctor paperwork. And the more transactions, the more insurance
costs.
14) Homosexual males have the highest rates of disease and death than all other Americans because of their lifestyle. This is paid for by all insured people. Why shouldn't homosexuals pay much higher premiums than even cigarette smokers do, to cover their much higher risk? Answer: Because Democrats and the media are covering up the truth.
15) The media promote endless health-care scare stories, planting anxiety into the minds of the people, leading them to seek our more and more health care unnecessarily.
We can easily solve the crises in our health-care system just by being honest about what is driving up costs. And the time is right to start today.
Saved or Created…
It is just amazing how liberals manipulate language. For
instance, president Obama has made the words “saved or created” part of our
lexicon as in “my economic policies have saved or created” such and such number
of jobs.
But this is a fantasy. There is no way to measure how many
jobs have been “saved”. Just because somebody does not lose his job, does not
mean that the job is “saved”. That would be like saying that everyone who didn’t
die was somehow “saved” by Obama.
So it looks like our president must have “saved” 300 million lives in the last year.
“Saved or created” is more media/liberal spin. It is
meaningless except in the world of words where anything can mean anything. And
the world of words is the liberal world or the theoretical world that exists on
college campuses and in newspapers where you can solve every problem with….
words, words and more words. And you can manipulate those words any way you
want.
Look at the phrase “single payer” health plan. Everyone knows
that “single payer” really means “nationalized health care” without saying it. But what
does “single payer” really mean?
If you think about it, it is a phrase of genius obviously
concocted by an intellectual. Because it means absolutely nothing at all like
the overwhelming majority of that which is spoken by today’s intellectuals. Does
not “single payer” mean that individual people have to pay for their own health
care? That sounds rational. But that is the complete opposite of what libs mean.
So you can make words say anything you wish.
“Single payer” truly is a phrase for the ages.
Liberals love to talk about “revenues” for the government. But
what are “revenues” but “taxes” to those of us outside of the Beltway Bubble.
Yes, indeed, we need to “raise revenues”, they say. Which means they are going
to “raise taxes”. But they can’t say that. After all, people understand what
“taxes” really are. “Revenues” sounds much sexier.
Obama always talks about “investing in” education or energy. But when he talks about it, you know that he is talking about “investing taxpayer money in” education and energy. If he were not, he would have to say “investing private capital in” education or energy, which he would never do.
“Investing in” job creation through the government sounds really appealing because it sounds like something an economist would say and that it would mean jobs for everyone. But the way Obama says it there is only one meaning and that is “jobs for Democrats, union members, college professors" etc.
How about the word “liberal”. No, they won’t even say that any
more because it is so wildly unpopular. Now they use the word “progressive”. But
what does that mean?
Who knows… It must mean “very liberal” because the people who
say they are “progressive” are always “very liberal”. Fact is, “liberal” would
be less harmful to their cause.
“Progressive” really means radical socialism and government
control of everything. “Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and he was a
Republican,” say the libs. But Teddy Roosevelt was about as Republican as Colin
Powell is. Which is not at all.
How about the granddaddy of all, ‘global warming’. What did
this mean?
Nothing at all. Because it described a set of circumstances
that are part of our natural world. The globe has warmed up many, many times in
our history. So they changed it to ‘climate change’. But we conservatives have
been saying all along that the climate has always changed. So in other words,
the ‘global warming’ kooks are now actually agreeing with us conservatives. That
must be very, very difficult for the kooks.
“Planned Parenthood” is a real zinger. It is another term for
“abortion clinic” as when some girl says “I had planned parenthood but I got an
abortion instead. Because my boyfriend left town on me, so now I’m living
with another guy who does not want my former boyfriend’s baby.”
Gee, honey, perhaps your former boyfriend should have used a
“latex flow interrupter” so that you didn’t have to get a “planned parenthood”.
Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano
referred to “terrorist attacks” as “man-caused disasters”. That’s an interesting
thought because most Americans have thought that “man-caused disasters” were
caused by Dad when he let the spaghetti sauce burn onto the bottom of the pan.
How about “Muslim-caused disasters” since Muslims are the ones
causing the disasters? Wouldn’t that be more accurate?
But isn’t “man-caused disasters” sexist? Let’s call them
“people-caused disasters”. But that would be insulting to… people. So why don’t
we just call terrorist attacks “cotton candy” and make everything nice, as in
“the cotton candy of 9/11 caused untold damage to America.”
And of course now “war on terror” has become “overseas contingency operations”.
Obama even managed to make “September 11” into a “day of
service”. What the heck does that mean?
It means that Obama wants us to forget the “man-caused
disaster” of 9/11. Which we already are forgetting by calling it a “man-caused
disaster”.
It is interesting to note that Obama frequently talks about
“volunteering” and “public service”. Yet who are the people LEAST likely to do
volunteer work?
You guessed it, Democrats. As in labor unions, public employee
unions (you can’t even get them to do their own jobs, never mind volunteer), the
idle poor, Democrat politicians, college professors, the idle Democrat rich etc.
Blacks are always talking about how they should get
“reparations” for slavery. I guess they sort of ignored the $10 trillion in
"handouts" that they
have received from the American taxpayers since the 1960s. So why don’t we just
say that that $10 trillion is “reparations” and call it even.
“Rich people” used to be called
“Republicans”. But that has changed. Most of the rich people in
Remember when Democrats said that
“dissent is the highest form of patriotism” in reference to opposition to Bush.
Yet when you dissent from Obama, it is the “highest form of punching bag”
because some SEIU union thugs will beat you up in the streets of
How about “illegal immigrants”. Si, senor, they are here
illegally, but they left their “documents” back at the house, you know, like
their forged American Social Security card and forged Houston birth certificate
that the Democrat party has provided for them free of charge. So we will call
them “undocumented cross-border transients”
“Tea baggers are inflamed because we’re winning,” former
president Bill Clinton said about the health-care bill and its progress through
Congress which Tea Party adherents oppose.
Isn’t it really beneath a former
president of the
Why did he have to resort to a disdainful characterization of
people who are in fact hard-working, honest and who are part of the foundation
of our nation, who contribute every day and want nothing in return from the
government?
Because
Yet you never hear this type of inflammatory language from
the upper echelons of the modern conservative movement because conservatives are
infinitely more mature than liberals. Surely you might hear rough language on
the internet, or from a provocateur like Ann Coulter, or jokes about Ted
Kennnedy from Rush Limbaugh. And that is fine. We expect that. And that is what
Republicans generally rely on – surrogates – to do the trash talking.
We celebrate the birth of George
Washington on February 22. He was born in
But it is his actual words that portray how wonderful he was. He was a leader of men, a philosopher, an observer of human nature, and very witty, in a dry, erudite way. Here are some of his timeless quotes taken, with appreciation, from the website notable-quotes.com, with my comment after each:
“It is with pleasure I receive reproof, when reproof is due,
because no person can be readier to accuse me, than I am to acknowledge an
error, when I am guilty of one; nor more desirous of atoning for a crime, when I
am sensible of having committed it.” Comment: Washington knew that willingness to admit
one’s fallibility is an essential ingredient for genuine success.
“Labour to keep alive in your breast
that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.” Comment:
Without conscience, we are but animals.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance
with any portion of the foreign world.” Comment: This may appear to be
isolationism, but it is more like common sense.
“Few men have virtue enough to
withstand the highest bidder.” Comment:
“A people... who are possessed of the spirit of commerce,
who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.”
Comment: This is true, and an advertisement for the free-market capitalism
upon which America was based.
“I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to
private affairs, that honesty is the best policy.” Comment: How often
have we said this without knowing who said it first?
“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to
bring it to light.” Comment: This is why so many people are destroyed by
seeking to hide or manipulate the truth.
“As a very important source of strength and security,
cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as
possible…” Comment: Why have we allowed our leaders to ignore this
wisdom?
“To contract new debts is not the way to pay old ones.”
Comment: Except to Democrats…
“There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well
prepared to meet an enemy.” Comment: Peace through strength. It is a
timeless credo.
“
“The cause of our common country calls
us both to an active and dangerous duty; Divine Providence, which wisely orders
the affairs of men, will enable us to discharge it with fidelity and success.”
Comment:
“Associate with men of good quality, if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.” Comment: Is that ever the truth.
“The right wing, where I stood, was exposed to and received
all the enemy's fire ... I heard the bullets whistle, and, believe me, there is
something charming in the sound.” Comment: These are the words of a
true patriot, soldier and freedom fighter.
“No People can be bound to acknowledge
and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the
People of the
“Government is not reason, it is not
eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” Comment:
This is the source of
“Should the States reject this
excellent Constitution, the probability is, an opportunity will never again
offer to cancel another in peace—the next will be drawn in blood.” Comment:
“I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of
patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present
contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be
supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest,
or some reward.” Comment: This is a brilliant observation about the
essence of human nature.
“To form a new government requires infinite care and
unbounded attention; for if the foundation is badly laid, the superstructure
must be bad.” Comment: This is universal, for buildings as well as
government. And everything else.
“To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill ... makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.” Comment: This is very shrewd and funny and a little demeaning. But hey, it's true.
“Soap is another article in great
demand--the Continental allowance is too small, and dear, as every necessary of
life is now got, a soldier's pay will not enable him to purchase, by which means
his consequent dirtiness adds not a little to the disease of the Army.”
Comment:
“I hate deception, even where the imagination only is
concerned.” Comment: This is deep. Very deep.
“Facts may speak for themselves.” Comment: How
often have we said this without knowing its origin?
“Example, whether it be good or bad,
has a powerful influence.” Comment:
“The best way to preserve the confidence of the people
durably is to promote their true interests.” Comment: This is Politics
101, although many political leaders seem to ignore it.
“It is easy to make acquaintances, but very difficult to shake them off, however irksome and unprofitable they are found, after we have once committed ourselves to them.” Comment: How true.
“Do not conceive that fine clothes make fine men any more
than fine feathers make fine birds.” Comment: Hilarious.
“Avoid gaming. This is a vice which is productive of every
possible evil; equally injurious to the morals and health of its votaries. It is
the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity, and father of mischief. It has
been the ruin of many worthy families, the loss of many a man's honor, and the
cause of Suicide.” Comment: This is brilliant, for all those advocates
who think that gambling is a good thing for their states.
“I have always considered marriage as the most interesting
event of one's life, the foundation of happiness or misery.” Comment:
Again, very witty, concise and true.
“When a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves, and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.” Comment: Wisdom for the ages.
Hannah’s Gold Needed Here
Hannah Teeter is an Olympic snowboarder
who won a gold medal in
Since her big victory in
So what is wrong with this picture?
Nothing, it seems. It truly is wonderful.
But maybe everything is wrong. Because Hannah’s Gold is classic youthful – and
liberal – misdirection coming from a super-liberal state like
Because the problem is this: While it certainly is
heart-warming to see Teeter helping out people halfway around the world, perhaps
she could direct her fame toward an end closer to home.
Like
Yes, perhaps Teeter could
channel her personal energy toward rebuilding the economy in her own state which
is suffering rapid decline at the hands of the same liberal socialists who would
induce her to put her energies into
Here is a reprinted 2009 editorial from
Nikitas3.com
Brandon, Vermont has been called “the art and soul of Vermont”
because of the work of a dynamic, vibrant, and varied collection of 50-plus
artists belonging to the Brandon Artists Guild whose exhibit space is open to
the public 7 days a week throughout the entire year.
- Statement of
Governor Jim Douglas Wednesday signed
legislation aimed at slowing the exodus of young people from
- Excerpts from a news article of
Vermont Getting in Gear: An old ski town finds new life as a
mountain biking destination... Ready to Rock: Abandoned quarries gain ground as
a mountain biking retreat... Thinking Autumn: A
scenic portfolio by Vermont Life contributing photographers... The Missisquoi
National Wildlife Refuge offers an oasis for nature lovers... Brush With
Destiny: A Vermont philanthropist is betting that by funding art, he can fuel
discussion about the future of the state
- Table of contents from Vermont Life magazine, Fall
2009
What do these above excerpts tell us?
They show that there are two
But with the
Yes.
And how has this happened?
It started in the 1960s. During that
decade of ‘back to the land’ socialism, educated liberals from the cities
and suburbs of the East Coast started settling in rural states like
There were struggles and conflicts
between the ‘locals’ and the ‘outsiders’ that now have been resolved. The
‘outsiders’ have taken over the state and drowned out many signs of the past.
Once a conservative agricultural state with local manufacturing industries
scattered throughout, today
On the other hand, the arts economy and the tourist economy
and the eco-tourism economy suggested in the Vermont Life table of
contents have come to dominate the state. Meanwhile many of the newcomers since
the 1960s established careers in small business or as independent contractors
(consultants, architects etc.) working from Vermont and serving clients far and
wide. The state also has attracted many wealthy retirees, largely
liberals.
And the people who have furthered this
'softening' of the Vermont economy are the same ones who have been making
manufacturing and even farming increasingly difficult. The Hill Country
Observer, a regional weekly newspaper in southern Vermont, did a big fear-filled feature
recently about a
Meanwhile more wealthy, educated 'flatlanders' move to places
like Vermont and find
ways to protest dairy farming – they don’t like the smell or they protest the
chemicals - while second-home and retirement-home development makes farming uncompetitively expensive by pushing up land values.
This is all part of the softening of the
state and the loss of jobs and income that is leading young people to leave.
To try to entice students like Huckstep and Dennis into
staying, state officials passed a $12 million Scholarship and Workforce
Development Bill into law.
The bill includes $6 million for scholarships and grants,
nearly $5.5 million for workforce training programs and a half a million dollars
for loan repayment.
So what is wrong with this?
Answer: Everything. Because it makes no difference if students
get a technical education if there are no technical jobs for them when they
graduate.
Since the university leftists began
moving to
I lived with a group of Ivy League obstructionists
in
Today, after 40 years of obstructionism,
Meanwhile, ‘right to farm’ laws, which
are supposed to legislatively favor farming, are popular among liberals in
places like
One caller to a national radio talk show said last year that
she was planning to leave Vermont after speaking with her state legislator who
said that the move to obstruct economic development has been intentional, that there were many
people in Vermont who want the state for themselves, unspoiled. This is classic
liberal narcissism - my way or the highway.
S
Dems Don't Redistribute their Wealth
A famous entertainer lives up here in
The question is: Why must she work too? He has lots of money.
So why must the wife take a job that someone else could use, particularly in
this very tough economy? Why can’t she enjoy her husband’s fortune like
most women would love to do, and maybe work as a volunteer in some
charity or arts organization?
We all know male liberals who have successful businesses and
careers. Yet their wives often work too, taking jobs that could otherwise go to other
people in the community who are unemployed or under-employed. Or the wife could
work and the husband could stay home.
But they don’t.
Republican wife Nancy Reagan never had a
big career. Neither did Barbara Bush or Laura Bush. Many conservative women have
let their husbands do the heavy lifting in the income department. They were happy in their
roles as wives and mothers and doing other productive things. But Democrat wife Hillary Clinton was a lawyer, as
was Michelle Obama who had a huge salary, much bigger than most Americans. But
still she said she was never proud of
Typical liberal… Grateful for zero. Even when they get
everything they want.
So among those leftists who always say they want
to “redistribute the wealth” most, these libs really seem to want to "concentrate the
wealth" - in their own hands, that is. Because liberals love money more than any
other people including capitalists.
This is just classic liberalism, where certain people
(Democrats) seek to publicly influence society to act one way while they
personally do the opposite. Like the Hollywood environmentalists who warn us
about impending climate catastrophe and oil shortages but who themselves have
the biggest carbon footprints of any single person, flying in private jets,
traveling the world, incessantly on the move, multiple houses, SUVs, boats etc.
Why must Barbara Streisand have a huge air-conditioned building to
house her career memorabilia? Isn’t that causing ‘global warming’?
Why must disgraced senator John Edwards live in a
sprawling, air-conditioned mansion in
Answer: Because they are are big-time liberals. They never can have enough money or prestige. Ever.
Their needs are endless. Because they are weak and insecure people. No, for liberals there is one set of rules for everyone else
and one set for them. Their rules are always this: Liberals first, money
first, me first.
If you ever have known one of these libs, you know that they
are all mixed up. And who wouldn’t be, with all those contradictions in their
lives, like Democrat US senator John Kerry and all his multiple mansions and
cars and his high-speed boat, while he supports the passage of radical cap-and-trade legislation.
Yeah, right. Cap somebody else’s energy use, not his.
How about Al Gore and his energy-guzzling
mansion in
Look at the Kennedys. They always have said how much they stand politically
for the Little Guy. Yet John F. Kennedy once said that “I learned about
the great depression at Harvard” because his father Joe’s money insulated the
family.
Yet what triggered the great depression in the first place?
The stock market crash of 1929 did, which happened because rich
investors like Old Joe Kennedy manipulated stocks and then pulled out so he
got rich while everyone else lost and the market collapsed.
How about environmentalist Robert F.
Kennedy Jr., who lives in
No, he is a Big Rich Liberal who does what he wants. Because
all this radical environmental legislation will not affect him because his grandfather gave him
all that ill-gotten wealth. Because liberals have two goals in life: Live well.
And then get other people to do what liberals want them to do.
Doesn’t it seem that the essential truth is that libs really
want all the money and all the energy for themselves? Aren’t they really the
rabid materialists in our society? Just think about any rich
lib you know and you will see how this is true.
Isn’t the point of urban socialism to funnel more and more
capital into the cities, where wealthy leftists like George Soros work in their offices getting richer and
richer, while throwing rural people out of work with environmental regs and tax
policies that put mining, timbering, ranching and manufacturing out of business?
Aren’t these wealthy black
entertainment-industry moguls
getting rich selling vile material to black
Heck, people need guns to defend themselves from the people
who get violent ideas from watching Robert deNiro movies…
If you know anyone on the conservative
right, however, you will notice one thing: They live by their principles and are
happier, more humble, less materialistic and more faithful to God than anyone else in
How can those people be so happy with so
little, the materialist libs wonder.
The total wealth of George W. Bush is
less than 1% of the wealth of Oprah Winfrey. How can he be so content, the libs
would like to know? Doesn’t he miss all that money? No wonder the
And where did she get her money?
She married into the capitalist Heinz food products family and then her husband was killed in a plane crash. So she inherited the money and she and her husband now use it to advocate socialism and radical environmentalism. Which never will affect them. Because they have Somebody Else’s Money to cushion them from the effects of radical eco-legislation which will push up the cost of energy for everyone.
Who Hates Wall Street?
In January
four bigwig Wall Street CEOs were hauled before Congress to testify about the
current crisis. These guys are always portrayed in the media as rich capitalist
Republicans who are sucking the life out of the "little people" of
If only it were so. Here are the actual campaign
contributions of two of those CEOs, in percents, as reported on newsmeat.com, a
contribution tracking website: Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO,
Goldman, Sachs (66% of contributions went to Democrats, 2% to Republicans, 32% to
special interests); Jamie Dimon, CEO, JP Morgan Chase (82% Democrats, 8% GOP, 10%
special interests).
And what did Obama say recently
about big bonuses for Blankfein and Dimon after fulminating against such bonuses for many
in the financial industry? He said he doesn’t begrudge bonuses of $9 million for Blankfein and $17 million for Dimon.
Said Obama: “I know both those guys ; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most
of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of
the free- market system.”
Oh really?
This is classic two-face Obama. He spouts endless trash talk in his attempt to gin up populist anger at Wall Street and banks, but then does not begrudge millions in bonuses – for his Democrat friends, that is. Obama's party and media allies then trash wealthy people endlessly, but say nothing about rich Democrats like Stephen Spielberg and Larry Ellison. Because rich people like Ellison and Dimon and Blankfein are Friends of Obama and friends of the Democrat party who will kick back their influence and part of their wealth in campaign contributions, guaranteed.
This
illustrates a perennial trick of the Democrat party which says it hates banks
and Wall Street when in fact a survey of the 2008
campaign showed that a whopping 60% of all contributions from employees at the top
And since Obama and his party tilt
to the radical left while John McCain was a moderate Republican,
every dollar donated to the Democrats and Obama contributes to a much more
extremist ideology compared to the centrist nature of much of the Republican party
today. Thus those Democrat Wall Street campaign contributions are
having a magnified impact in moving the nation to the left while Obama blames
the same firms for the economic meltdown in a
classic show of kabuki theater.
This truly is the Audacity of Nope,
as in Obama implying, “Nope, I don’t know those people.” Which he says to act like a populist when
in fact virtually all of the people who caused the financial collapse are Democrats and
liberals, many his close friends.
How has this happened?
Because today all the people who go into
Wall Street, into banking and into finance - including Fannie and Freddie - pass through the same university/college filter as everyone
else. And they are targeted for leftist indoctrination by the professors, even
in business schools, who want to turn the banking/finance industries into
instruments of socialist progressivism just as they have done with the
arts, the courts, the media, the public education system etc.
That is how hundreds of billions in loans were made by private banks to people with little documentation even beyond the disaster of Fannie and Freddie. Back when 'conservatives' ran the banks, you needed 20% down for a home loan along with a documented work history
But what did the media and the liberal elite say about those 'conservative' policies?
They said that they were racist and discriminated against poor people. So they replaced sensible credit policies with easy credit. And easy credit is truly what has undermined our economy. Easy credit is more dangerous to an economy than hard-to-get credit because it leads to vastly more bad debt. And debt has been the curse of individuals and societies throughout all of time.
Easy credit fed the housing bubble which was caused by too many people buying too many houses with cheap loan dollars offered when the government (the Federal Reserve) set interest rates too low. George Washington warned specifically against the government setting wages and prices. And allowing the Fed to set interest rates in essence set the "price" of loan money.
Meanwhile most of the economic collapse was caused by Democrat policies that forced banks to make trillions in loans to poor people who could never, ever pay it back, i.e., easy credit for those least able to repay it. Those loans, after being bought, packaged and sold by Fannie and Freddie, defaulted at sky-high rates, polluting the entire financial system through mortgage-backed securities.
By the way, Fannie and Freddie have held or do hold 40% of all the bad home loans in America, 11 million mortgages.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government agencies run lock, stock and barrel by the Democrat party, which also controls much of Wall Street and many of our banks and other financial institutions. So look no further than the puritanical Democrats when seeking to place blame for the current collapse.
Governor Christie is Bold in New Jersey
(Below are excerpts from newly-elected Republican governor Chris Christie's February 11 speech to the New Jersey legislature. Christie is a true reformer after decades of Democrat corruption, and his speech is a model for toughness and bold action that can serve as a template for conservatives across the nation, including the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. It puts the crisis in perspective, offers clear and unequivocal solutions, and is a blueprint to put all of America on a sound fiscal footing. Each excerpt is followed by my comments.)
Christie: "What do I mean exactly? This year’s
budget projected 5.1 % growth in sales tax revenue and flat growth in corporate
business tax revenues. In June of 2009, was there anyone in
Christie: "Our conscience and common sense require us to fix
the problem in a way that does not raise taxes on the most overtaxed citizens in
Christie: "The defenders of the status quo will start chattering as soon
as I leave this chamber. They’ll say the problems are not that bad; listen
to me, I can spare you the pain and sacrifice. We know this is simply not
true.
Christie: "This morning, I signed an executive order freezing the
necessary state spending to balance our budget. We will freeze the spending of unspent technical balances
across a wide array of state programs. This includes
everything from unspent funds to upgrade energy systems in state facilities to
those aimed at assisting local governments in their consolidation plans... Some projects will be
delayed or terminated, some services will be reduced. But in total, we can
reduce spending by over $550 million this year by lapsing these unspent balances
– by not spending these funds and applying them now towards our multi-billion
dollar budget gap.
Christie: "In total, deferral of these long term
projects and items to a less rainy day in
Christie: "By far the biggest category of spending we will need to cut, however, is that for programs which actually have merit, and in most cases make sense, but which we simply cannot afford at this time." Comment: This is how to balance a government budget - by talking honestly, fearlessly and boldly.
Christie: "For example, the state cannot continue
to subsidize
Christie: "The state cannot this year spend another $100 million contributing to a pension system that is desperately in need of reform. I am encouraged by the bi-partisan bills filed in the Senate this week to begin pension and benefit reform. ... These bills must just mark the beginning, not the end, of our conversation and actions on pension and benefit reform. Because make no mistake about it, pensions and benefits are the major driver of our spending increases at all levels of government—state, county, municipal and school board." Comment: For decades, unionized government employees - mostly Democrats - have been draining taxpayers across the nation dry. It is going to end now in one state.
Christie: "One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of
his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health
benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his
life and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits -- a total of $3.8m on a
$120,000 investment. Is that fair? A retired teacher paid $62,000 towards her pension and
nothing, yes nothing, for full family medical, dental and vision coverage over
her entire career. What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits
and another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime. Is it
“fair” for all of us and our children to have to pay for this excess?
Christie: "The total unfunded pension and medical benefit costs are $90
billion. We would have to pay $7 billion per year to make them current. We don’t
have that money—you know it and I know it. What has been done to our citizens by
offering a pension system we cannot afford and health benefits that are 41% more
expensive than the average fortune 500 company’s costs is the truly unfair part
of this equation.
Christie: "I am implementing a solution which insures that every school district has the resources to provide a thorough and efficient education to its students.... Suburban districts will sacrifice. Urban districts will sacrifice. Rural districts will sacrifice. Some, both inside and outside this chamber, will urge you to retreat to the corner and protect your own piece of turf. Our state is in crisis. Our people are hurting. Now is the time when we all must resist the traditional, selfish call to protect your own turf at the cost of our state. It is time to leave the corner, join the sacrifice, come to the center of the room and be part of the solution." Comment: "Sacrifice" used to be code language for "tax increases". No longer.
Christie: "In total, I am cutting spending in 375 different state
programs, from every corner of state government.
Christie: "So upon arrival, my administration had $6 billion of
balances to work with -- $6 billion of balances from which to find $2 billion of
savings. We had to cut 1/3 of our available funds with only 4 ½ months to
go in the fiscal year... We chose not to use gimmicks or band aids to hide the budget
gap or defer it until next year, when it would be even worse. We refused
to repeat the failures of the past. We chose to confront the problem head on by reforming our
spending habits, and laying the groundwork for reform so that we can repair a
structural deficit that will be even larger – many times larger – in the next
fiscal year, 2011.
Islamists Always Testing Us
Delta Flight 253 on the
Amsterdam-Detroit route was disrupted a total of three times, first on Christmas
Day by the Underwear Bomber Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab and again on the next day.
The third time was Tuesday, January 12 when four males, speaking Arabic, were talking loudly on the flight. Two air marshals
who understand Arabic said that the men were making “inappropriate jokes about
terrorism”. After being considered a potential threat, the Arabic speakers were
interviewed by Transportation Security Administration officials but no arrests
were made.
This certainly appears to
be just more fallout from the Underwear Bomber incident. But it is much more. Because this incident
is part of a pattern that brings to
mind the case of The Flying Imams, four Islamic preachers who say they were
discriminated against after they were removed from US Airways Flight 300 from
Minneapolis to Phoenix on November 20, 2006.
Those Imams had initially
attracted attention by praying loudly in the departure lounge before boarding
the plane. Then several passengers and crew members
felt that the imams were acting suspiciously on the plane before its departure.
That behavior included refusal by the imams, including Omar
Shahin, to sit in their assigned seats; requests for large metal seatbelt
extenders even though they did not appear to need them; three of the imams
traveling without checked baggage and with one-way tickets; and speaking to each
other in Arabic about bin Laden and condemning America for “killing Saddam”
(Hussein, the Iraqi leader)
The takeoff was delayed and the men were escorted off the
plane after they refused to leave. The imams were detained, questioned and
released.
A US Airways spokesperson said,
"We've done what we typically do in a situation where there is a removal or some
kind of customer service at issue.... We talked with crew members and passengers
and those on the ground.... We found out the facts are substantially the same,
and the imams were detained because of the concerns crew members had based on
the behavior they observed, and from reports by the customers.... We're looking
at it as a security issue and as a customer-service issue and where we might
need to do outreach."
On March 12, 2007, the Flying Imams'
lawyer filed a lawsuit on their behalf. The suit targeted US Airways and the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, along with some
passengers on the flight who had reported on the imams' behavior to the flight
crew.
So notice how the imams and their lawyers not only targeted the airline, but other passengers too. This is classic leftist strategy of intimidation, much like the strategy of Jesse Jackson and other black leaders to make any critic of black behavior to be seen as racist. This is a tactic of shutting down debate and criticism, just as the Islamists are trying to incrementally shut down scrutiny of potential terrorists to soften up the airlines for another attack.
Shahin had been involved in a
similarly provocative incident previously when two members of his mosque were
removed from an America West flight after making two attempts to open the
cockpit. The students filed racial-profiling lawsuits against America West,
which is now part of US Airways, with Shahin as their defense attorney. Shahin
also had been quoted after 9/11 saying that Muslims could not have perpetrated
the attacks because more than 1,200 Muslims died in the World Trade Center
attack (which is false).
The Flying Imams settled out of court
with US Airways.
What do these incidents mean?
Well, everything. Because any
rational and decent person knows that in this age of terror, that you should
behave yourself on airline flights because the system is under so much stress.
That is why Americans who have become drunk or unruly are often handcuffed and
charged with crimes.
But the January 12 incident, along with the actions of the Flying Imams and especially Shahin, is part of an ongoing scheme to constantly test the limits of the American airline system. This is how it works: Innocent Middle Eastern imams, young Muslim males, and Arab-speakers get onto flights and create a stir. Then when the stir is noted and acted upon, the fliers cry “discrimination” and are immediately defended by Islamist lawyers, along with American leftists. The settlement, like the one awarded to the Flying Imams, then becomes a warning to other airlines.
This all is intended to do one
thing – to make the airlines less likely to even to take note of
any suspicious activities by Middle Eastern males, Arabic speakers etc. This is
to instill fear in the airlines, just as members of our own US Army were afraid
to act on years of obviously radical Islamic rantings by the Fort Hood murderer
– an Army psychiatrist - for fear of appearing ‘discriminatory’ or ‘racist’.
So bit by bit, we are being
intimidated into ignoring suspicious behavior so that suspicious
behavior can morph into violent behavior when the moment is right. This is a
long-term process that is being joined backhandedly by the Obama administration
in its soft
approach to terrorism. And it is setting us up for another 9/11.
By dint of the fact that our attorney general Eric Holder is going to pursue CIA agents for their tactics in questioning terrorist detainees while seeking to give civilian trials to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows that we indeed are pursuing a policy of “moral equivalence” in which both sides are treated equally.
Normally we might think that “equivalence” seeks to level the playing field. But it does not. It tilts the field way over in favor of terrorists. Because we have seen many instances where unruly white passengers are handcuffed and arrested - or CIA agents are prosecuted - while Islamic passengers who act suspiciously are escorted to a lawyer’s office to file a lawsuit against the airline. Or the Underwear Bomber is allowed to board Flight 253 in Amsterdam despite many red flags.
This is called “moral INequivalence”. Because we know that the white passengers and our CIA guys are not involved in terror, but that the people always involved are Islamists, either peripherally, as interested parties, or intimately. This presents us with a clear and present danger that we must heed or pay a very big price down the road.
24 Inches of Global Warming
The Virginia Republican party
recently launched a web ad ridiculing two Virginia Democrat congressmen for
supporting ‘global warming’ legislation when 24 inches of snow was falling on
eastern Virginia and Washington, DC. It really was pretty funny.
MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan charged to
the rescue of the Democrats, however, saying that the heavy snow was exactly the
kind of extreme weather that ‘global warming’ alarmists have been warning about.
But notice that the warnings are
now mostly about ‘climate change’ and not ‘global warming’ (GW). Because it is
not getting warm. It is getting statistically colder.
This is classic extremist thinking on the confused political left. Scrambling to salvage their treasured GW theory amidst freezing winters, growing ice sheets in Antarctica and worldwide temperature drops that now have all rational scientists proclaiming that we are in yet another perfectly natural ‘global cooling’ period, the libs have pulled out all the stops. Al Gore is nowhere to be seen anywhere near anyone who might disagree with him.
In addition, the ClimateGate e-mail scandal and other fraudulent studies about melting glaciers have sunk the credibility of the GW alarmists to their lowest levels in the three years since the theory was dumped in our laps with Gore’s Nobel Prize.
So what is with these people?
It is this. They have a common trait of leftists, that they get behind some illusory intellectual theory like ‘global warming’ because it fits their political template, that only they, through massive government outlays, can save the world. Think of welfare or national health insurance. Same idea.
Then they latch onto some historical data - like a few warm winters in the 1990s - that support their point of view just as the climatologists said in the 1970s that we were entering a New Ice Age because we had many cold, snowy winters in the 1960s.
Then when the
facts on the ground shift against their ideas, they cannot tolerate it. Because
liberals can never admit that they are wrong. It is too embarrassing and
traumatizing, particularly when they have invested so much time and energy to the
cause. So they
double down like a gambler, saying now that cold, snowy weather is caused by
‘global warming’ which they now are conveniently calling ‘climate change’.
Yet ‘climate change’ is what
conservatives always have claimed is really happening, completely naturally. In other words, the
climate always is changing, with long and short periods of warming and cooling
fluctuating with no discernible pattern, and emerging from natural shifts in ocean currents and sunspot cycles.
So ultimately now the ‘warming’
alarmists are actually agreeing with conservatives... That is very painful for the
Klimate Kooks. Because they now know deep down inside, after years of evidence
mounting against them, that we conservatives are correct. So they need to slink around the facts and to proclaim, alas, that giant snowstorms
and falling temperatures are no indication that ‘global warming’ is any less serious that it
was, say, three whole years ago.
Now, however, they got together and cooked up a new approach. They are claiming that we should not confuse “weather” and “climate”. Oh, yes, have you heard that one? It is all over the news and the web.
This new
argument says that wintry “weather” like the snowstorm in
Is this confusing enough?
It should be. Because trying to
follow the thinking of leftist intellectuals is enough to make you crazy. Which
the ‘climate change’ alarmists are. Crazy. Loco. Demented. So don’t listen to them. Because
they will make you crazy too.
So why else are the alarmists sticking so tenaciously to their
apocalyptic theory?
Actually it is finally about MONEY. Because they have developed a template through which to funnel millions and billions of government and research dollars worldwide to anyone who propagates the GW or ‘climate change’ theory. It is the new Environmental Armageddon that they say only can be solved by partisans who get that money and then write reports and give speeches.
Confused?
Don’t be. Because all you have to
really do is to remember that five-letter word: M-O-N-E-Y. And then think about
what some people have done for money throughout the ages. They have murdered and
imprisoned and lied and enslaved and cheated and done everything possible. And
don’t think that this is not what this whole ‘climate change’ or ‘global
warming’ hysteria is about.
If somebody took away your job, you would be upset too. The alarmists are now upset that increasing numbers of people no longer believe their theory. Because this is their livelihood. Except that it is based on a lie. And that is how they get your money, and why they need to do everything to keep it. And why we need to do everything to get it back and to expose the truth.
Those Big Conspiracy Theories
There are many Big Conspiracy
Theories out there today, but three stand out at this point in time.
*The first is the widely-held
Conspiracy Theory that ‘global warming’ is heating up the planet, and that it is
caused by the oil companies, the coal companies, the United States, Bush/Cheney,
our high standard of living etc. This theory is widely promoted in the media and
in academia and is being used as the basis for advocating major changes in
American laws.
*The second
is the smaller 9/11 Truther theory which claims that the
*The third much smaller
theory – a tiny one really - is the Birther Theory which claims that president Obama is not an American citizen since neither he nor the state of Hawaii have
produced his original state birth certificate, but only a computerized version.
Two other original records exist however - an official hospital birth
record, and birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers. This Birther theory is
promoted by a
small bunch of people who have been
ruthlessly maligned by the Ancient Media, and exaggerated as a much bigger force than they
really are.
What is the difference among these three theories?
It is this: Two of the
theories – ‘global warming’ and the 9/11 Truther theory - have been debated
openly for years with evidence presented on both sides. Yet despite the utterly
fallacious nature of both – they are easily debunked with common sense – tens of
millions of American still believe in them. And both theories empower the
political left because they cast doubt on
Yet that tiny group of so-called Birthers that believes that Obama is not an
American citizen are outright slandered by the media. Ironically the Birther theory is the one theory of the three that can be simply and
unequivocally disproven by one simple act - by producing the original birth
certificate of the president.
But no, say the media, that is
unnecessary. These Birthers are kooks! Obama doesn’t need to show anything! Why
don’t these nuts just get lost!
Contrast that
with the story about John
McCain’s birth status in the
Yet the same New York Times
maligns the Birthers and then acts in concert with the rest of the Ancient Media to
make it seem like the Birthers are a much larger group than they really are, as if most
conservatives believe them. Which shows how little regard
that those media have for truth.
Because McCain’s birth status was easily proven, just as the Birthers can
easily be proven wrong when they see Obama's original birth certificate.
So why hasn’t the Times and the rest of the leftist media got behind the Birther story and simply urged that the original birth certificate be produced by Obama or the state of Hawaii in order to end the story once and for all?
Answer: Because of pure bias.
Because that would be far
too easy. Because now they can use the issue to tar the Birthers and to tie them
to Sarah Palin, the Tea Parties, Limbaugh etc., despite the fact that most on
the political right have dismissed the story as well.
Meanwhile, those same media never, ever
even deign to question Al Gore. No, when it snows in all 50 states in the era
when Gore is screaming “Global warming!” somehow that is not preposterous or
even suspicious to the
media, while those same media then allow the Birthers to continue calling for
Obama’s birth certificate in order to keep the story alive and make them a media
target.
If it were Dick Cheney’s birth certificate
that was in question, however, there would be endless media calls to see it. The New York Times would be
commanding condescendingly: “If the original birth certificate exists, then
why don’t we just end this controversy right now. We call upon Mr. Cheney to produce the birth certificate immediately.”
Only problem is that Cheney would
have produced it himself long ago because Cheney is a conservative who is dedicated to
the truth, and would have issued the birth certificate just to show what that truth
is.
This story
illuminates how the Democrats operate. Leftists always operate in the shadows,
in Hollywood fantasy like 'global warming' and the 9/11 conspiracy. In backroom
deals. In closed-door meetings. In shady, illegal labor-union transactions. In
junk science. In payoffs, kickbacks and bribes like everyday in
But the truth? No that is something that is not important to them. Don't expect to see the original Obama birth certificate. Ever.
GOP Poised for
More
Up here in
At the dinner
we hosted three great candidates for office in the
Our keynote
speaker was Charlie Baker, who is very likely to be the next governor of
His
website is
www.charliebaker2010.com
Here is an excerpt about Baker:
In 1988, Baker helped start the
Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, an independent, nonpartisan state
think tank. Baker left Pioneer in January, 1991 to join the newly elected Weld/Cellucci
Administration as Undersecretary for Health in the Executive Office of Health
and Human Services. As Undersecretary, Charlie played pivotal roles in Medicaid
reform, facility consolidation, and the expansion of a number of key public
health programs. He became Secretary of Health and Human Services in the fall of
1992, and led the Administration’s efforts to enact welfare reform.
Wow... His speech to BCRA was one of
the most common-sense talks you can imagine. He described the massive spending and debt that the 90% Massachusetts Democrat legislature has foisted
on the state with, for example, future pension liabilities for unionized state
employees of $33 billion(!)
He warned
about the business-hostile climate in
Baker has a
clear, logical approach to fighting corruption and debt spending in the same
manner that Chris Christie is doing it in
Baker could
well have at his side another of our Lincoln Day speakers, Mary Connaughton, who is running for state auditor. Normally you don’t think much
about such a post, but today, with fiscal crises mounting all over, Connaughton
is the type of person we need in
Connaughton was trained at Ernst & Young, has acted as chief financial officer of the Massachusetts Lottery and was a toll payer’s advocate on the Mass Turnpike Board. In that last position, she was known as a whistleblower who exposed some of the backroom deals that the Democrats were cooking up, and was described as a thorn in the side of the bureaucracy.
According to
the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, “If board member Mary Z. Connaughton
of
And that’s
just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine when she is elected auditor… Her website is
www.maryforauditor.com
Running for
state representative and speaking at the dinner is a guy that we all can
trust. Mike Case, from the tiny rural town of
Mike is a
These great
candidates are exposing the corrupt left-wing socialism that is endangering us
all, and showing that the only response is sound, honest Republican/conservative fiscal policies. Charlie Baker, Mary Connaughton and Mike
Case are a good start for
3.6 Million Miles Per Gallon
The old story among environmentalists goes like this: Some guy tinkering in his garage invented an electric car. He patented it and presented it to industry, planning to make a fortune. So General Motors, in collusion with ExxonMobil, seeing a threat to their auto/petrol monopolies, bought the patent and promptly burned it. End of car.
This is good fodder for the enviro left and is repeated year after year. Only problem is that the story is nonsense, and there is no efficient electric car for the reason of simple physics: Because automobile transport is the "wrong use" for a highly-refined energy source like electricity. Just ask anyone who has electric heat in their home how expensive it is. It would be much moreso with an electric car.
Electricity should be used for things like lights, computers, refrigerators, pumps etc. for which there is no alternative. On the other hand, efficient internal combustion engines are a proven method for powering cars.
But no, the enviros continue to claim that the electric car could prosper in the free market. But it cannot. General Motors did not need to kill the electric car. It kills itself. It is simply unfeasible. Electric cars are available today and they still have hardly any market except among a few idealists who use them for show.
On the other end, however, in electricity production, we have the equivalent of a car that gets 3.6 million miles per gallon. But certain entities have essentially “bought up the patent and burned it.” No, not oil companies or the coal companies that wish to maintain their monopolies. No, it is the environmentalists who have destroyed the system that gets this incredible efficiency.
And that system is called nuclear power, which is literally up to 3.6 million times more efficient than our current coal-fired electricity generating plants. Because according to one industry statistic, a refined uranium pellet one gram in size over its lifetime in the reactor will produce as much heat energy as 4 tons of coal – in other words, it is 3.6 million times as efficient as coal by weight.
Imagine if we could stretch our oil supplies by a factor of millions, if every barrel of oil in the ground today could be multiplied to 3.6 million barrels. Would that not be a wonderful idea? We would have limitless energy for millennia just on the basis of the oil supplies we have today, never mind those we have not even found.
But who would try to stop that efficiency from happening?
Environmentalists would. Because environmentalists do not favor energy efficiency. They favor energy IN-efficiency. That is why they are fighting super-efficient nuclear power - the most efficient energy source ever - and advocating highly inefficient windmills everywhere.
Nuclear power will produce vast amounts of electricity for a given investment of resources and capital. Wind power, on other hand, will produce less than one-third the electricity for the same investment. And that is the point.
To understand it, imagine this scenario: Over the next five years, America builds 800 new nuclear reactors, each at 1,000 megawatts. This could be done easily. That means that 800,000 megawatts of installed capacity will be added – about 75%of the total installed capacity that we have today, which is 1.1 million megawatts.
This would provide plenty of energy for our needs, and the cost of electricity would remain stable because the supply would be high. And Americans could continue to have a high standard of living with very low levels of pollution. Most nuclear fuel can be recycled, and that which cannot is relatively benign and can be safely stored. Nuclear power produces zero air pollution.
But wait. There’s more. And this is the best part. Those 800 reactors could replace all the coal-fired and natural-gas-fired power plants in America. The United States then could convert all that DOMESTIC coal and natural gas (1.2 billion tons of American coal are consumed per year in electricity-generating plants; 5 trillion cubic feet of American natural gas are consumed per year) to transportation fuel and other types of fuel with enough energy output to completely replace all oil imports into the United States (15 millions barrels of oil per day).
Pretty good deal, right? That would solve all of our energy problems for the next several hundred years. Only problem is that environmentalists do not want us to have energy independence. That is why they are opposing nuclear power – because they do not control it. And that is why they are fighting in favor of windmills – because they will get rich on them. Only problem is that the windmills all need to be subsidized by the government. They are so inefficient that they cannot sustain themselves in the marketplace like nuclear power can.
So imagine that we installed that 800,000 megawatts of capacity not in nuclear power but in windmills. What would this mean?
This would mean that we would only have one-third of the electricity production of nuclear, because wind energy is incredibly inefficient for two simple reasons. First, the wind does not blow all the time so we would need to triple up the capacity just to get the same output. This would waste hundreds of billions of dollars in precious investment capital and cause electricity prices to skyrocket.
Second the scattered small-scale megawatt-by-megawatt production of electricity through windmills is very inefficient according to the most basic economic law of Economies of Scale that says that when you do something on a large scale, it is vastly more efficient than doing it on a small scale. For instance, if you bake 200 cakes at a time in a huge oven for your bakery it is vastly more efficient than making and baking 200 separate cakes, one at a time.
So with all these windmills our energy supplies would fall substantially, leading to sharp and massive price hikes. But don't expect enviros to ever work toward genuine energy efficiency because they really want IN-efficiency, and it is always is coerced by government subsidies. Meanwhile real efficiency, like nuclear power, is thwarted by the same people.
At the same time the type of efficiency that happens naturally in our economic system - like nuclear power - is a good thing that was not produced by environmentalism but by the free market. The American economy today produces twice as much GDP per unit of energy invested as it did in 1950, which all is a result of the natural striving for efficiency inherent in our open capitalist system.
If we want real energy efficiency, we should look to the free market. Environmentalists will take us down the wrong road, and into disaster.
Jimmy Carter’s Iranian Revolution
February 11 marks
the 31st anniversary of the fundamentalist Islamic takeover of
So who was
president of the
Oh, yes. It was Jimmy Carter. And if you look at the pattern, our
enemies since World War II always have been emboldened and have made significant
geopolitical advances under weak Democrat presidents.
JFK and LBJ,
both Democrats who together served from December 1961 to December 1969, started
and escalated the disastrous Vietnam War that drained our national energy and
emboldened the
During Jimmy
Carter’s tenure from 1977 to 1981,
During Bill
Clinton’s presidency, the United States failed to respond to terrorist attacks on New York
City in 1993, on US embassies in Africa in 1998, and on the USS Cole in Yemen in
October 2000, leading to the perception that America was ripe for a Big One. George
Bush got an empty briefing book from
And now Obama is treating
terrorists with kid gloves. This will lead to another
attack.
Now look at
Jimmy Carter. He hates Bush and often has broken the rule of presidents, that one
does not criticize the policies of any of his successors. Yet Bush kept us
safe. On the other hand, Carter booted
How did Carter blow it?
By being a left-wing foreign-policy
weakling, that’s how.
In a speech
that Carter gave on New Year’s eve in
The brief history of the Shah is
this: He came from a powerful Iranian family and rose to
power in 1953 with American backing. At that time,
The Shah ruled with harsh measures in a place that was indeed "one of the more troubled areas of the world". But the important part was the positive things that the Shah was doing to bring stability and progress to his nation.
Here is an excerpt from
wikipedia.org about the Shah’s rule:
The Shah made major changes to curb the power of certain
ancient elite factions by expropriating large and medium-sized estates for the
benefit of more than four million small farmers. In the White Revolution he took
a number of major modernization measures, including extending suffrage to women,
much to the discontent and opposition of the Islamic clergy, the participation
of workers in factories through shares and other measures, the improvement of
the educational system through new elementary schools and literacy courses set
up in remote villages by the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces. The latter
step was called "Sepāh e Dānesh", "Army of Knowledge". As part of the White
Revolution, the Armed Forces were engaged in infrastructural and other
educational projects throughout the country as well as in health education....
Moreover, he instituted exams for Islamic theologians to become established
clerics. As a further step, in the seventies the governmental program of a free
of charge nourishment for children at school was implemented. Under the Shah's
reign, the national Iranian income showed an unprecedented rise.
Doesn't this look preferable to what we see in Iran today? Or what we see in any communist nation?
If we had stood by the Shah, Iran would have evolved into a peaceful, pro-Western
democracy just as other pro-Western dictatorships became democracies after
insuring stability in places like
But there were
leftists all over the world and in
Here is a quote from the Shah
himself about how his demise happened.
“I did not know it then, perhaps I did
not want to know? But it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out.
Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted.
What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under
Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on
Indeed. And
today we are in a panic about
NASCAR Politically Maligned
Sunday is the Daytona 500.
It is the most important race of the NASCAR
season but comes not at the end but right at the beginning. We race fans are all cranked up,
and our underdog favorite is 51-year-old Mark Martin, who is the oldest active
driver but who has never won the Daytona 500 or a season championship but has
come close to both many times. Go Mark!
Have you ever noticed that NASCAR stock-car racing is virtually all white, that there are hardly any black faces on the track, in the pits or in the grandstands? And could this possibly be the reason that NASCAR is so often targeted for insult by sports media, general media, intellectual elites and liberals? These people publicly call NASCAR a dumb sport, say it is just a bunch of stupid white rednecks going in circles with a crowd of drunk hillbillies come down from the 'hollers to watch.
But I don’t seem to recall any basketball game ever being disparaged as just a bunch of dumb blacks running up and down the same court time after time after time.
Why?
Answer: Because basketball is a largely
black, urban sport and is subject to the tyranny of political correctness.
Yet according to many in the media those evil NASCAR fans are Southern bigots and rural hayseeds with their guns and their pickup trucks. They're conservatives, dammit! And NASCAR races feature – heaven forbid - military personnel as honored guests, and include Christian religious invocations!
So now we get it. Those obviously
are signs of pure malignancy to the media establishment including most of the
sports media which is as liberal as the rest of the media and which treat NASCAR
as a crazy uncle. Even though NASCAR has been the fastest-growing sport in the nation over the last 20 years.
So if you want to
find discrimination in
The
Association of Washington Business, a
Gee, do they openly disparage basketball
up there?
Here is a sample from something called the Snadandjohn.blogspot talking about a big NASCAR race near their home in Tennessee: "Well, 'The Big One' has come and gone. I'm talking about the event of the year for all the big-belt-buckle-wearin', backy-chewin', boot-scootin' boogyin', American-flag-wavin', farmer's-tan-showin', NRA-sticker-totin' NASCAR fans out there. The Bristol Motor Speedway Sharpie 500 took place just over the mountains from us this weekend."
So when was the last time you read
about all them rappin’, baggy-pants wearin’, baseball-hats-on-crooked negroes at a New York Knicks
basketball game?
Here is how a website called Game
Vortex described a new NASCAR video game called Dirt to Daytona:
"Hicks and gamers collide, with
generally favorable results in both camps. Not to disparage NASCAR or suggest
that it's just a hick thing, because there's some mighty fine racin' to be had
in NASCAR Dirt to Daytona.
Gosh, I’m having a really hard time
finding the last time that black football players were called “hicks”.
Now here is another question: Have you ever noticed how many
black people are on television these days? It is just astounding. They either
have their own programs, are hosts, are guests, star in or appear in commercials, do
voice-overs or soundtracks, are commenters and commentators, star in football or basketball, are interviewed,
are featured on awards shows for music, acting, sports etc. By unscientific
observation it appears
that 50% of the people on television today are black. Just look and
count. You will see that this certainly cannot be that far from the
truth.
What does this have to do with
NASCAR?
It goes further. Here is what black TV commentator Bryant Gumbel said in 2006 on an HBO program called Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel, about the Winter Olympics: "Count me among those who don't care about them and won't watch them... So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention."
Really Bryant? Well, folks, there you have it - a black media liberal publicly disdaining white people. How perfectly racist! Imagine the firestorm if a white commentator dismissed the summer Olympics as "too black".
Did Gumbel lose his job over such comments the way football commentator Jimmy 'The Greek' Snyder lost his job with CBS for making remarks about the athletic abilities of blacks relating to slavery?
Don't think so.
Did you see it when black entertainer Kanye West grabbed the microphone from caucasian singer Taylor Swift at the MTV Music Video awards last year after Swift's grand prize win, and shouted that the black singer Beyonce had a better video than Swift?
When was the last time you saw a white entertainer grab a microphone from a black entertainer and seek to upstage and belittle her in front of a national television audience?
Never that I can recall in the last 50 years. That white entertainer would be fired immediately.
Friends, public racism is rampant in America and is directed at white people.
Just to let you know. And to tell you to point it out boldly when you see it.
And one last thing: Have you ever noticed how the Democrat party has only had
three black US senators in its history (Carol Moseley Braun, Roland Burris and
Obama, all from Illinois) for a total of just 12 years’ tenure? Shouldn’t there
have been dozens and dozens of blacks with hundreds of years of tenure since
Democrats claim to be the party of African-Americans? Is this perhaps a sign
that the Democrat party itself has its own racial prejudices?
Obama’s Die is Cast
“I would rather be a really good
one-term president, than a mediocre two-term president,” Barack Obama said
recently in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer
CNN reporter Candy Crowley then
said, “He’s one-quarter of the way through his administration. I don’t think we
can kiss it off yet.”
Quotes like these about a potentially shortened or hobbled presidency are not just idle talk. Public perceptions of Obama are shifting and his die increasingly is cast. He looks more like Jimmy Carter every day, with nothing he can do about it.
In the good old days of invincible
Obama just one year ago at his inauguration he would have simply predicted with
utmost conviction, “I am going to be a great two-term president.” Because he
believed that the presidency simply was a matter of mastery of the friendly
media and his big majorities in Congress.
How wrong he was. His hundreds of speeches and public statements have not endeared him to the public, but have alienated him. And while he should have seen it coming, his arrogance and overconfidence did not allow it.
After the
Democrats’ famous loss of control of the House of Representatives in November
1994 after just two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency,
Yet after just one single year in
office, Obama’s relevancy is astonishingly faded. He is not the self-assured, media-savvy Master of the Universe that he
was just one
year ago.
On the first anniversary of Obama’s
inauguration, both Time magazine and Newsweek featured him on
their covers not in a happy color photo with a smiling Michelle at his side, but alone,
in black and white, with ominous headlines like ‘The Inspiration Gap’, normally
the negative type of treatment reserved for Bush, Cheney and other Evil
Republicans.
Just look at
the
Obama apparently is not going to go down without a fight. A leftist ideologue named Saul Alinsky has inspired Obama. Alinsky’s famous book is Rules for Radicals and it is a red-meat guide to establishing a left-wing state. Alinsky says that when you are in a position like Obama’s, where you think your power may be ebbing, you don’t moderate your course but you charge ahead at even higher speed. Step on the gas! Because it is the agenda that matters and nothing else.
During his recent state of the union speech, Obama seemed to be taking Alinsky's advice. He seemed unconcerned about suggesting a new more centrist agenda after recent Democrat losses at the polls. He seemed shrill and combative and he talked too long, as if another speech would make things better. In addressing his fellow Democrats at their February winter meeting, he even re-stated his commitment to passing health-care legislation.
Obama certainly understands well that he has just a
few more months this Spring to possibly try to salvage something before his
party gets beheaded at the polls in November.
He now cannot even
make an innocent remark without retribution. When Obama compared rampant
government spending to a gambling trip to
Ouch! Even Obama ally Harry Reid, the Senate
Democrat majority leader from Nevada, got in the act, saying, "The President
needs to lay off
Is Obama’s die permanently cast? Is there
anywhere for him to go?
The president’s plan for the economy has failed. His health care deal is dead. His strategies to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, to pass cap and trade, and to usher through pro-union card-check legislation all are gone. He even misspoke in his state of the union address, about foreign corporations. His decisions on terrorism - from closing the Guantanamo detention facility, to civilian trials for alleged terrorists in New York City, to the mishandling of the Christmas Day underwear bomber – are conspiring like a perfect storm to haunt him and to remind America that Obama really never was ready for prime time.
Is Obama’s die cast? Are the god
Enviro Elitism on Display
Every once in
while, a TV program comes on about climbing
They say that 3,000 people now have
summited Everest but that 200 dead bodies are strewn around the peak from those
who have failed. This is creepy. And to think of those dead all clad in that
non-biodegradable nylon climbing gear and frozen solid. Yikes. What a mess…
A non-biodegradable ecological
mess, that is, in a once-pristine place.
Hikers from
all over the world pay guides as much as $50,000 to take them up to
Then you start to think about what
kind of people attempt to climb Everest, and what kind of people run the guide
services that seek to escort climbers to the top. And generally you can assume that
most are environmentalists, as are most of
those involved in mountaineering around the world.
Yet look at
what they are doing to
Wouldn’t it be more reassuring to an
environmentalist to know that Everest is pristine and to leave it alone, the way
they always lecture the rest of us that we need to keep so much of the world in
wilderness? Why do
they always make exceptions for… themselves?
Now think
about what is required to get to
It requires huge amounts of energy,
to fly in on jetliners from around the world and then to get up to the mountain.
And to fly in all the equipment. Yet you can assume that most of
these participants are the same quaking ‘global warming’ alarmists who tell us
that we need to buy new spiral light bulbs, or that we cannot drive to work
because it wastes too much of the world’s precious resources.
This
arrogance, elitism and sense of privilege is rampant in the
environmental movement. Because in environmentalists’ minds, it is only they
who are saving the world. So obviously it is they who can use all the
energy they want, and create all that pollution in the pristine environment of
Everest. Then it is always someone
else who is causing all the world’s ecological problems.
Yet if you really think about it,
does it not seem quite likely that these environmentalists as a group probably use
more discretionary energy per person than any other group in the world?
Well, sure.
Just think
about the elites at the mountaineering schools and all the readers and writers
at those snobby outdoor publications flitting off to
Think of all
the rich eco-pretenders who live in cities and suburbs – man-made places far from nature
– and read conservation magazines, give large amounts of money to enviro causes,
but then fly halfway around the world in order to watch whales in the South Pacific.
That sure takes a lot of energy…
Think of all the bleating,
perpetually indignant enviro-snobs in university towns like Boulder, Colorado who
preach environmental purity but who themselves are constantly in the mountains
of the world on their expeditions, using large amounts of petroleum to
travel back and forth.
And while even their very own nylon
outdoor gear - from sleeping bags to insulated gloves - is made from
petroleum-based compounds, they are the first in line to sermonize against oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or to sign petitions to stop ‘global warming’ through radical
and restrictive legislation.
Thus it
certainly appears anecdotally that these eco-nuts use more energy per person
than any other people in
So why don’t they live according to
their own ethos?
Answer: Because then they would
have to face up to what their ideas really represent. Because then maybe they
would have to stay home like us boring conservatives who keep the world running
while the ecologists pass their indulgent lives away in the mountains,
telling us how much they love Mother Nature. Until it is time to go home, that
is. To their modern homes and their computers and their air conditioners and
their Volvos in the driveway…
And who are today’s environmentalists?
Many are
adults who spent their youth as left-wing 1960s ‘hippies’. Yet today they have
accumulated small, medium and large fortunes and now are using their money to
fly around the world climbing mountains and studying lions on the Serengheti
plain of
Now many of their children -
biologically or intellectually - have prominent jobs in universities, with
enviro groups, or in many other elite occupations where they make good incomes
and spend their disposable wealth to travel around the world, wasting all that
energy while preaching 'energy abstinence' for the rest of us.
Next time you
hear an environmentalist lecturing about our profligate lifestyle, ask
them why they themselves use so much energy. There are literally millions of
examples of this in
Palin for President? – Part 2
(In two
recent appearances, one a speech to the National Tea Party Convention in
She told the National Tea Party Convention (NTPC): “I’m so proud to be an American. Thank you so much for being here tonight. Do you love your freedom? If you love your freedom, thank the vets. Any of you here serving in uniform, past or present, raise your hand. We’re going to thank you for our freedom. God bless you guys! We salute you! We honor you! Thank you! I am so proud to be American!” Comment: When was the last time you saw Barack Hussein Obama or his wife expressing such strong patriotic sentiments? Answer: Never.
She told NTPC: “Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan!” Comment: Indeed, one of the most successful presidents ever. She thinks like Reagan. And that is a good thing.
She told NTPC:
“Well, a special hello to the C-SPAN viewers. You may not be welcome in those
health care negotiations, but you have an invitation to the Tea Party.”
Comment: Good for Palin! This is the type of blunt language that we need to
show Obama for who he is, with a little sarcasm thrown in. She is masterful and
really speaks to people with this approach.
She told NTPC: “And I am
a big supporter of this (Tea Party) movement. I believe in this movement. Got lot’s of
friends and family in the lower forty-eight who attend these events, and across
this country, just knowing that this is the movement and that
She told NTPC: “Now, in
many ways, Scott Brown represents what this beautiful movement is all about. You
know, he was just a guy with a truck and a passion to serve our country. He
looked around, and he saw that things weren’t quite right in
She told NTPC: “A lot of great common sense candidates—they’re going to put it all on the line in 2010. This year, there are going to be some tough primaries. And I think that’s good. Competition in these primaries is good. Competition makes us work harder and be more efficient and produce more. And I hope you’ll get out there and work hard for the candidates who reflect your values, your priorities, because despite what the pundits want you to think, contested primaries aren’t civil war. They’re democracy at work, and that’s beautiful.” Comment: Palin is doing two things here: Stating that the Tea Party movement will not be ignored, but conceding that it plans to work within the system. This is a sigh of relief for the Republican party, which feared a third-party movement.
She told NTPC: "And in that spirit, I caution against allowing this movement by be defined by any one leader or politician. The Tea Party movement is not a top-down operation. It’s a ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way they are doing business, and that’s beautiful. This is about the people! This is about the people, and it’s bigger than any king or queen of a Tea Party. And it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter." Comment: Notice that Palin is doing the opposite of Obama or Bill Clinton. She is NOT seeking to co-opt the movement. She even gave back her $100,000 speaking fee. Imagine Clinton doing that. Never…. Democrats like Clinton and Obama are too greedy and self-centered.
She told NPTC: "Now in recent weeks, many of us have grown even more uneasy about our administration’s approach to national security, the most important role ascribed to our federal government. Let me say, too — it’s not politicizing our security to discuss our concerns, because Americans deserve to know the truth about the threats that we face and what the administration is or isn’t doing about them, so let’s talk about them." Comment: Two things. First she said that national security is the most essential duty of the federal government, which liberals want us to forget. And second she is calling out Obama for minimizing the threats. Good.
She told NTPC: "And in
that we spirit, we should acknowledge that on Christmas Day, the system did not
work. Abdul Mutallab passed through airport security with a bomb, and he boarded
a flight hell-bent on killing innocent passengers. This terrorist trained in
She told NTPC: “There
are questions that we would have like answered before he lawyered up. Like
'Where exactly were you trained and by whom? You’re bragging about all these
other terrorists just like you. Where are they and when and where will they try
to strike next?' The events surrounding the Christmas Day plot reflect the kind
of thinking that led to September 11th. That threat then . . . as the U.S.S.
Cole was attacked . . . our Embassies were attacked . . . It was treated like an
international crime spree, not like an act of war. We’re seeing that mindset
again settle into
Question from Chris
Wallace of Fox News Sunday: "I mean who else comes to mind...? (for dereliction of duty in the
Obama administration). Palin answered: “Well right now... (attorney general Eric) Holder is giving poor advice on how we
are to treat these terrorists, to bestow upon these terrorists the
Constitutional rights that our men and women in uniform fight and die for. These
terrorists do not deserve these protections. And yet we are choosing, according
to the White House, we are to choose to give them these protections. That's
nonsense, they do not deserve these protections.” Comment: This is
black and white, right and wrong. She is fearless. You know exactly where
she stands.
Question from Wallace: “Did you say anything then...?” (about Obama’s joke about the Special Olympics)? Palin, who has a Down Syndrome son replied: “I sure did, I did. I was the governor then and I made a statement saying you know, insensitive, come on, coming from the most powerful man in the free world, you should do better than that, Mr. President. Yeah I made a statement about that and was criticized for that too, but I don't care – I’m not gonna sit down and shut up.” Comment: This is the type of courage that terrifies Democrats.
Wallace asked:
“Now, where do you see the future of the Tea Party movement and your role in it
as well?” Palin replied: “The tea party movement is beautiful.
It's a grassroots effort -- not a well-oiled machine that is replicated with the
Dems or the Republicans thank goodness, because hopefully personalities and
power struggles and titles won't get in the way of just doing what is right for
this country and that's what the tea party's all about. Let's do what's right
for this country, let's let our voice be heard on reminding Congress that we are
taxed enough already. There are constitutional limits to what our federal
government is trying to do, we're gonna remind them of that, and we are going to
respect our Constitution and do all that we can to protect it.” Comment:
Awesome... A leader who is willing to put the good of the nation before her
own political ambitions.
Wallace asked: "This
poll said by I think a margin of about 4-1 among Republicans they thought you
were more qualified to be president than Obama. Do you think you're more
qualified to be president than President Obama? Palin answered:
"The whole qualification issue still perplexes me, because in the campaign we
tried to bring attention to the fact that Obama had really not a lot of
experience. And I do say that my executive experience, as an administrator, as a
team manager if you will was, and so was John McCain's as a matter of fact, was
stronger and we had more experience than Barack Obama did in terms of managing
huge multi-billion dollar budgets and thousands of employees that I had just
come from a position of that and that hasn't changed. Comment: Now that
America has seen Obama’s inexperience, statements like this make sense. It will be a good year for Republicans.
Palin
After Scott Brown stole the political spotlight for two weeks with his historic win in Massachusetts, we need to return to the phenomenon of Sarah Palin.
She is traveling far and wide, wrote a best-selling book, is being mobbed by admirers, addressed the Tea Party convention in Nashville, will speak at Republican fundraisers and other Tea Party events, and will participate actively in conservative causes. She is the most visible Republican in the nation.
The question is: Why is Sarah Palin such an important figure? How has someone who has been known for such a short time generated so much political enthusiasm? Why will she redound to the benefit of the Republican party for years to come, perhaps even as president?
It is an amazing spectacle...
Obama and the unpopular Democrats are currently taking a huge political beating. And as Palin rises, many Republicans are emerging to offer their services to a party deemed politically dead just one year ago.
Here are some of the US Senate candidates who can definitely win for the GOP in November, people who weren't even being talked about just a few months ago: Popular former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson could take away the seat of lefty Democrat Russ Feingold (of McCain-Feingold); former Indiana GOP US senator Dan Coates appears poised to possibly re-enter the Senate by winning Evan Bayh's seat.
Conservative Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania seems likely to take party-switcher Arlen Specter's Democrat seat; Democrat majority leader Harry Reid is going down to defeat in Nevada(!); Democrat Blanche Lincoln is toast in Arkansas; and Obama's former seat in Illinois is likely to go to Republican Mark Kirk with Kirk's opponent already being tied to corruption. Estimates are that 7 seats to as many as 13(!) US Senate seats could go from Democrat to Republican in November.
In addition, the Michigan governorship is seen as vulnerable with the current Democrat term-limited out. Many other offices are looking good for the GOP.
This truly is
looking bad for the Democrats and Obama, just one year into his presidency.
But still, with all the increasing excitement about the GOP, we have Palin rising above it all. Why?
The reason is that Palin represents the mirror opposite of Obama, his
nemesis and his demise. In fact, it is the same force - the media- that
created them both, but in opposite ways. The media created Obama with
sycophancy, and have
at the same time attempted to destroy Palin. But this is backfiring and making
Palin more famous than ever. She is rising as Obama is falling, and she is diametrically different from Obama in the following ways:
*Obama is an
emotionless intellectual who is hiding his real feelings under a veneer of
‘cool’ left-wing elitism. People do not find that likeable. They want to see
some passion. Palin on the other
hand is like your next-door neighbor. She is animated, open, emotional, loving, caring
and she says what she thinks, not what she has read somewhere, or what is
written on her teleprompter.
*Obama is a
socialist who has “plans” to fix everything in
*Obama comes
out of the corrupt urban politics of
*Obama is a pathological liar. He took both sides of virtually every issue in the campaign (see www.massdiscussion.blogspot.com ). This was driven by politics. He said he would televise the health-care debate on C-Span and then reneged. He said he would not have lobbyists in his administration, but now has more than 40. He has spoken repeatedly out of both sides of his mouth. Now it even has emerged that several TV chefs claimed they were using produce from the White House garden for a special cooking program when in fact the produce came from stores. This certainly sounds like a minor point, but it reinforces yet again the myriad ways in which Obama and his presidency are based on deception and media spin, even in small ways.
Sarah Palin,
on the other hand, is someone who says what she means and means what she says.
If Palin had said that the vegetables came from her garden, you could bet that they
came from her garden. There is no politics involved. She is the type of person
that
*Obama does not want to take responsibility for his own actions. He constantly blames Bush for everything. Americans do not like this. They want a leader who takes responsibility. Palin, on the other hand, stands by what she says and does, and does not try to pass the buck. This is a very important trait to many Americans. Because most of our fellow countrymen believe in the significance of personal responsibility. They increasingly see Obama as a crybaby.
*Obama came
out of Harvard, while Sarah Palin went to the
*Obama is a
fake Christian. He attended a political church, not a religious one. He received
left-wing indoctrination from an angry, anti-American pastor. Since he has been
in
*Obama
operates in secret after promising transparency. Everything is done in
sweetheart deals and behind closed doors. This is classic liberalism. Payoffs,
bribes, kickbacks, lies. Sarah Palin had an open government in
*Obama is a ‘grievance liberal’. Everything he does is intended to settle a score. American do not like this. He wants to “get back at” the bankers (who are largely his Democrat friends), the car companies, the insurance industry, i.e., any productive capitalist entity. Palin on the other hand, does not operate on an ideology of vindictiveness. And she lives by this personally. Despite the media onslaught of attacks on her, she still smiles and offers people an optimistic outlook. She does not seek to "get back at" her media tormentors. She accepts it for what it is and understands that it will work against the media in the long run.
*Obama has
not worked in the real world. He has only been a student and then a
community organizer. Americans prefer someone like Sarah Palin and her husband
Todd who has been a commercial fisherman and an oilfield worker in
*Obama has led the nation astray. And he was supposed to be so damned smart. Yet Palin is charged with being dumb. But the nation right now would be much better off if Palin were president and had put in place policies for growth, and a strategy to deal with terrorists realistically. Increasing numbers of Americans know this and no longer believe the media narrative that Obama is the genius and that she is dumb. They understand that she is a person of common sense and that it is Obama who is the clueless one, despite his silver tongue.
Indeed Sarah Palin matters. And this is going to haunt the Democrats for years to come. Palin is still very young. She will be a force in American politics for years. And someday she will be president of the United States, possibly sooner than we think.
Tea Parties: Bigger than Anti-war Movement?
There is a perception developing
that the Tea Party movement is more significant than it
currently appears. In fact some see the Tea Parties as the most transforming movement
since civil rights of the 1950s.
Are the Tea Parties over time going to have a larger impact than the anti-Vietnam War movement?
They will. In fact in less than one year of existence, they already are having an impact far beyond their membership numbers, as seen in the recent election in Massachusetts which was heavily influenced by Tea Party members from inside and outside the state.
Yet the Tea Party movement is the opposite of the anti-war movement in many respects:
*The Tea Parties are fueled by a
fundamental frustration and anger with our government’s essential intervention in our
lives, primarily taxation and reckless spending, as warned about by our Founding Fathers and
the documents that they left us - the Declaration of Independence and the US
Constitution.
The anti-war movement, on the other
hand, was aimed at one specific policy of the government in a time when the
nation was prospering economically and Washington was much less involved in our
lives.
*The Tea Party
movement is a genuine, nationwide grass-roots movement that does not have a fixed
leader, but has bubbled up from the people. This is unique. It is an authentically democratic
force based on Constitutional principles that wants a peaceful transformation for America. It was not dreamed up in
*Tea
Party activists are well-informed, well-behaved, clean cut, middle-class
tax-paying people from every state who
are trying to prevent the nation from slipping further into the type of decay and debt that the Founding
Fathers warned against.
Anti-war rallies, on the other hand, were often drug-fueled protests attended by radical, propagandized college kids and ‘hippies’ that sometimes descended into chaos. Many were simply social occasions for young people who really knew very little. Meanwhile the media built up the anti-war movement to be a national one, when in fact was largely a California/East Coast phenomenon.
*The Tea Party movement is not
nearly so far to the political right as the anti-war movement was to the left,
which gives it much more credibility to a wider audience, which is why it is
growing in influence faster than in actual numbers. And while there are some outspoken and controversial adherents in the
Tea Parties, they are not nearly as extreme as the anti-war movement, although
the media are making them out to be.
The anti-war movement was marked by a lot of bad behavior – violence, anti-Americanism, drug use, bad language, promiscuous sex, demonic rock music and dissolute, radical leaders spewing extremist rhetoric.
The Tea
Parties are simply citizens acting within the law and voicing their displeasure
and concern. In fact leftist agitators even visited some of the original Tea
Party protests on
*From files
since released by the
The Tea Party movement, on the
other hand, is being funded by people's own
hard-earned money from within the United States, and by citizens and ideas that are
totally American.
These participants know that
when the people have a grievance with their government that they have the right to
change that government as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
When did you ever see the anti-war movement referring to our founding documents?
Never.
'Safety and Happiness'? ... 'deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed'? These are powerful and
uplifting sentiments of freedom, far from the destructive, negative and
angry tone of the anti-Vietnam protesters. And that is
why the Tea Parties are going to have a more
longer-lasting life and impact on
*The Tea Parties are being disrespected and even maligned by the Ancient Media (New York Times, CBS, NBC, Follywood etc.). Yet these same media supported and showcased the truly extremist and demagogic anti-war movement. Those media magnified the anti-war movement and made it seem much larger than it really was while they are now seeking to make the Tea Parties appear smaller and less significant than they really are.
The media portrayed
the 'hippies' as the enlightened wave of a better future. Even in 2008, the
media did everything they could to cover up for Obama’s association with William
Ayers, the anti-war radical who detonated three bombs in the 1970s (one at the
Pentagon, one at New York police headquarters, one at a military recruiting
station) but who was never convicted in those bombings.
Those same
media then ruthlessly and relentlessly attack a Tea Party favorite like Sarah Palin when she has been a law-abiding, hard-working,
family-oriented, honest, Christian person who believes
in the basic goodness of
Now, after
less than one year in existence, one arm of the Tea Party movement has held a
convention in
The Ancient Media and their leftist allies are just angry, jealous and bewildered that the
Tea Parties have grown so
quickly and already are having such a significant impact on
Indeed the Tea
Party movement is going to change
How should conservatives proceed now that president Obama’s
polls are sinking and his
agenda is being exposed for what it is – a huge financial and power grab by the
government that is unpopular with most productive Americans?
First, events will continue swaying existing independent voters, which already is happening naturally. The
But more crucially, we on the “right”
side of the issues must start registering new voters, particularly in the
suburbs, small towns and rural areas. We must begin to prepare for the coming
conservative resurgence which is going to continue in the 2010 elections and
after.
Over the last 50 years, the Democrats have been running huge
voter registration drives in cities and on college campuses, most recently
through the corrupt ACORN organization and other groups, often using government
money. And they have signed up millions of voters who vote Democrat every
election, often in a straight swap for government handout cash.
Today the Democrat registration agenda is largely tapped out
compared to the conservative drive which is hardly started. And it is time for
conservatives to go out and start to register people who want to see our nation
proceed into prosperity and freedom, not poverty and government control.
How?
The foundation already has been laid by
conservative groups like the Tea Party movement; a growing audience for Rush
Limbaugh and Fox News; Glenn Beck’s 912ers; and Sarah Palinites and others who are
alarmed about our nation’s drift to the collectivist left. This is a huge and
energized population as evidenced by the recent elections, including one in
which a conservative third-party candidate almost won a congressional race in
Today many conservatives are chomping at the bit and wondering when they can make a difference. And that time is coming. It is called the mid-term elections of November 2010.
And since we know that energized
conservatives are in the millions, all that need happen is that each one must be called to go out and register one single voter - or more -
as their contribution to the cause. That will amount to millions of new votes
for our side. And it would produce more political change than all the
And it must start now. And it can happen very quickly. Our political leaders and commentators – Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc. - must step up with a Vote Right registration campaign and website. Other conservative celebrities, entertainers and politicians need to get involved too like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Norris, Lee Greenwood, military figures like Oliver North, fiscal conservatives and others.
There are tens of millions of unregistered
voters across
Just think of your own friends and acquaintances. Certainly
among, say, a few dozen people, you know one or two people who are not
registered to vote, or who have not bothered to vote. Or if you ask your friends
you can learn about one person. It is important to identify these people and to
talk to them.
If just 3 million activist conservatives
registered just one person each at this stage, the political landscape of
Conservatives need to explain to new voters what is happening with our
national debt, perhaps publishing on a Vote Right website the projections of the
debt for the future under Obama and the Democrats. Conservatives need to explain that
Democrats may give people “free” health insurance
- paid for by someone else, of course - but that those same people may
never work again because Obama policies are killing the economy.
On a Vote Right website - which could be mounted
independent of the Republican party, or as part of an official, new Republican
party system that links every county in America on a single, interconnected site
- people could be encouraged to tell their
stories about how they identified a potential voter and how they got that person
registered. This will give other people ideas on how to proceed. The website
could offer a series of one-page printouts on various issues with bullet points for people to explain about
conservatism, and to give to potential voters.
Just think of young people or 20-somethings in suburban, small-town and rural areas who are, at heart, conservative, but who don’t think their vote counts. They are in the millions. Conservatives also should be going onto college campuses. Because young people already are abandoning Obama and are going to be getting hit hard by Obama policies, like those that would have forced young, healthy people to buy health insurance, or those Democrat policies that are killing jobs.
Just think of middle-aged people who are not voting, or who
are on the fence. Conservatives need to go and talk to them and to be courageous. The tide
has shifted to conservatives after just one year of Obama. And if you get some
liberal trying to intimidate you, ignore him. That is usually their only strategy.
Older folks too. In small-town and rural areas, it is
important to explain how environmentalism is ruining peoples’ livelihoods as
happened recently when the government shut off the water in the Central Valley
of California, disrupting farming on behalf of some endangered species.
Conservatives must go and do anything to get this drive going
including giving a speech in somebody’s house to
invited guests. Word will spread. Conservatives
can energize large numbers of people that way.
It is time for those of us on the political right to use the tactics that liberals have been using for decades. And to simply use our common sense and our sense for what is right. Because those are our ultimate weapons.
Keep Policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
The Obama
administration is calling for a change in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that requires that gays hide
their homosexual orientation while serving in the
This change would be a bad idea that would not only harm military morale and cohesion, but would subject our armed forces to endless legal challenges. And don’t think for a second that leftists like ACLU do not want to target the military with this issue. They have been waiting for decades for such an opportunity.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
(DADT) gets its name from its
requirement that the military does not ask service members to
divulge their homosexual/lesbian orientation (don’t ask) while gays are required not to reveal to the military their
homosexual/lesbian orientation (don’t tell).
More than 13,000 homosexuals and
lesbians who have abridged DADT since it was established in 1993 have been mustered out of the
military. So why should we
maintain Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Because if it is
scrapped, two things will happen:
1) Openly homosexual male soldiers
will be sharing close living quarters with other
males in the military. This will be extremely disruptive to many male military
service members who are opposed to homosexuality to start on the
grounds of personal or Christian morality. They will be forced to live
in close quarters with, shower with and share bathrooms with gays who can and
will be sexually excited by them. There is no way that an openly homosexual
male will be perceived in the same
way as everyone else by heterosexual male soldiers under the conditions in which military personnel
live and serve.
2) Openly lesbian female soldiers
will be sharing close living quarters with other
females in the military. This will be extremely disruptive to many female military
service members who are opposed to homosexuality to start on the
grounds of personal or Christian morality. They will be forced to live
in close quarters with, shower with and share bathrooms with lesbians who can and
will be sexually excited by them. There is no way that an openly gay
female will be perceived in the same
way as everyone else by heterosexual female soldiers under the conditions in which military personnel
live and serve.
That is the whole issue in a nutshell. Military life is different from civilian life.
According to one poll, 10% of personnel say they will quit the military if homosexuals and lesbians are allowed to
serve openly. This would be a huge blow to our armed forces and shows how this
policy will hurt us just by being implemented.
Homosexuality has been considered a
mental disorder throughout the ages. Only in 1973 did the American Psychiatric
Association stop describing it as such. Despite
media insistence otherwise, acceptance of homosexuals is not nearly as
widespread in
And this comes after the massive and ongoing media and
medical cover-ups of the grim health and mortality statistics among gay males,
which, if exposed like the statistics about cigarette smoking or obesity,
would turn many more Americans against homosexuality. Anyone who looks up
the health statistics will find the terrible truth. Here is just one excerpt from one source, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
about gay males:
*“The number of new syphilis infections in the United States
rose last year for the first time in 11 years, with large increases occurring
among men who have sex with men…”
*“In the
*“AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM.”
*“Over 300,000 MSM have died since the beginning of the
epidemic.” (This translates mathematically into a proportional death rate of
30 million people in the general population, or about 1 million deaths per year.
– Nikitas)
*“MSM made up more than two-thirds (68%) of all men living
with HIV in 2005.”
*“In a large CDC study, conducted in sexually transmitted
disease (STD) clinics in five major cities, researchers found the rate of new
HIV infections among MSM to be nine times higher than among women and
heterosexual men.”
So the military also might be accepting an expensive health problem if gay males suddenly flocked to military service.
Now consider the so-called ‘sex abuse scandal’ in the Catholic Church. It was actually a ‘homosexual abuse scandal’ that allowed just a few hundred promiscuous gay priests, using their entrée into the Church under permissive Christianity, to molest thousands upon thousands of young buys, destroying those boys’ lives and disrupting the Church in a significant way.
Yet today, after decades of proof of homosexual promiscuity, disease
and death, and statistically high rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide, we
are supposed to extend their reach into the American military.
We should not.
Homosexuality has progressed incrementally in stages. First gays wanted tolerance, which all Americans should grant them. But then they desired acceptance. Then legitimacy. Then sanctification. But they do not stop there. Because once homosexuality has been codified by law, the next stage kicks in - they want to marry and adopt children and indoctrinate young school kids into their way of thinking.
Then it goes further - they now want cross-dressers and sex changers and drag queens and transvestites to be seen as normal and acceptable, and will use laws to push that agenda and to punish people who disagree. This would work its way into the military if gays openly served. It is a slippery slope.
All this explains why homosexuality was proscribed for
millennia; because it is just a starting point for lifestyles that societies throughout history have deemed undesirable
and unsustainable.
Now gays want open and unfettered access to
our military. To which we should Just Say No.
Crazy Talk from the Media
Conservative
Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, a whipping boy for the liberal media and
university elite, recently blamed the
“(S)omething
happened a long time ago in
“But ever since, they have been cursed
by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That
“They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.” (end of Robertson quote)
So we have a devout Christian expressing a traditional Biblical proposition that those who act contrary to what is perceived as God’s will, or those who act contrary to what might be perceived as that which is righteous and good, may be punished by unconnected reprisal (like plagues of locusts) through spiritual retribution alone. This is simply an expression of religious dogma that has been spoken in a billion different ways by people of all stripes throughout history.
Remember the ‘hippies’ talking for years about the Hindu concept of 'karma', that you get back in life what you put out? Or the old secular saying, “What goes around, comes around”? Or the idea accepted universally across the globe that “you reap what you sow”?
Yet Robertson was absolutely savaged in the media. And this quote will be resurrected every time the media wish to trash him.
Now a nutty Follywood actor named Danny Glover
said about the earthquake: “When we see
what we did at the climate summit in
This also is an expression of religious zeal in saying that mankind will be cursed for not reaching an international agreement on so-called 'global warming' at the Copenhagen climate meeting. Because it represents the pagan religious belief of the Church of Climate Armageddon that when we treat Mother Nature – who is God to the enviro left - wrongly, that we will pay a price.
But Glover's thought really is much
more insidious
than that. Because a thought like Glover's represents the intersection of junk science
and junk religious paganism, neither of which is based in either science or
genuine religious spirituality, but instead is an expression of the false say-anything intellectual
deceit that animates the enviro movement today. You know, the stuff Al Gore
tries to pass off as fact (sea levels will rise 17 feet, all the glaciers
are melting, planet has "a fever" etc.)
Yet Glover’s comment will be
forgiven and has received much less media play than Robertson’s even though it
was infinitely more stupid.
Now we have another quote from
another leftist, the dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, whose every word is
somehow quickly passed through the American media’s nonsense meter like Omar Abdulmutallab going through the screeners at Amsterdam airport. Chavez said that
the Haiti quake was a result of American underground nuclear bombs that are
intended to be used to destabilize Iran.
But the reaction from many in
the American media was essentially to ignore Chavez as if to say that Chavez is
not nuts. Which is trying to prove a negative. Which you can’t do unless you
are in the American media defending a dictator.
In the same week that these quotes came out, we had another quote from another screwball. But this time it was not from a flaky dictator or a washed-up actor, but from a cable news commentator. This is what Ed Schultz of far-left MSNBC said before the Massachusetts election that threatened to replace Democrat US senator Edward Kennedy with Republican Scott Brown:
"I tell you what, if I lived in
Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times. I don't know if they'd let me or not,
but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right, I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I
would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
Look at his words. Isn't that illegal to "try to vote ten times"? Is Schultz promoting lawbreaking? Should he be arrested for provocation?
Then he says, "I don’t know if they’d let me or not..."
Gee, Ed, you better check with your precinct boss. If
it is a Democrat, he will
Will Schultz be thrown off the
air for promoting voter fraud? Will his comments be replayed over and over as an example of Democrats'
nonchalance about stolen elections?
No. The media will bury it. But his
quote is much more serious than Robertson's, or than his jesting tone lets on. It is too close to truth to
be even vaguely funny because voter fraud is a very serious issue in America
today, particularly with the exposure of ACORN corruption, the
suspiciously close win by Al Franken in Minnesota in the 2008 election, or
suspected Democrat fraud in the 2002 US Senate race in South Dakota or the 2004
gubernatorial election in Washington State.
But hey, they’re Democrats.
They’re used to this stuff.
"You know in the old days...if the Democrats faced this kind of a disaster in the works (a potential loss of Edward Kennedy's seat to a Republican) you'd go back to your ones, the people you were sure are going to vote Democrat, and you`d make sure they got to the polling place...
"You`d get them lunch, you`d get them a
car. You`d make sure they got there, and in some cases you`d be buying people to
get them... But I hear talking to somebody today there aren`t people up there in
Look at this quote: "...and in some cases you'd be buying people to get them..." ??
This isn't just stupid. This is illegal. But to Democrats, you do anything to win. And then admit it. Ha-ha-ha...
But you've got to feel sorry for
poor Matthews when he said of his old-fashioned Democrat party... "But I hear talking
to somebody today there aren`t people up there in
Darn it... Whatever happened to the good old days when Democrats could steal elections fair and square, like the Kennedys did?
Remember how the media savaged Dan Quayle over every mistake he made? Or George Bush over every malapropism he spoke? Yet when Democrats talk about voter fraud, these same media think nothing of it.
Barack Obama said he had
campaigned in “57 states”. Vice president Joe Biden talked about “a
three-letter word, J-O-B-S...” Those goofs were buried in the media and ascribed
to politicians who were “tired”. Because these liberals, always portrayed
as ultra-smart, indeed make more dumb statements than conservatives, and the
media must cover that up.
In fact the Haiti earthquake hit just in time to save the skin of Democrat US Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada who was quoted as having said that Obama did not have a “negro dialect”. Or Bill Clinton’s alleged statement to Ted Kennedy that black people like Obama would have been “getting us coffee” just a few years ago?
No, those statements now are dead and gone, buried under the rubble of Haiti just as the prospects of the Democrat party in the November 2010 elections are buried under the rubble of Democrat stupidity like Ed Schultz and Danny Glover and Barack Obama himself mocking the pickup truck of US Senate candidate Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Except that that was Brown’s real truck. Because Brown is a real person who is now a real United States senator, not "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees” as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann described him.
So who really are the nut cases in the American media? Pat Robertson speaking Biblically? Or Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Danny Glover?
You decide.
Socialism’s Intentional Destruction
If you want to
know where
After
So you have a contrast. A communist system in the North that theoretically was supposed to care for all of the people, while a capitalist system in the South never promised to theoretically take care of anyone. Yet the South is rich and the North is poor. The South has an annual average income 18 times that of the North. For those bad at math, that would be like comparing a $54,000 annual income to a $3,000 income.
And today,
while
Oh, no, you might say, that is
overstating the case.
But if we continue to pursue Obama
policies, we will end up much poorer. The
Democrat party is taking us into the circumstances that the Founders
warned us we would face if we allowed the government to take over our lives and our
tax money and our freedom. Which is exactly where we are headed under Obama.
Obama is pursuing policies that are antithetical to growth. That is why the economy is not recovering and will never recover despite all of Obama’s meetings and speeches.
And what caused our economic
collapse in the first place?
Socialism did. First, the word
'conservative' has been vilified for decades by the Democrats and the media, and
the banks abandoned sensible 'conservative' lending policies at the nagging of
liberals. The government
since has forced banks to loan trillions of dollars to poor people with no means to pay it
back. When they could not pay it back, the economy collapsed under the strain of
all that bad debt which was spread throughout the economy via various
financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities.
Now what is Obama doing to fix
things?
He is spending more and more and
more money. Which makes no sense. Because any rational person who is in a
financial crisis reduces his spending so as not to build up more debt. Yet Obama and his Democrats
cronies are building more and more debt.
What will all this debt, along with
expensive new government programs, ultimately do to our economy?
Well, just
imagine you lost your job and your spouse goes on a spending spree with your
credit card. You still have to pay back that money even if you don’t work ever
again. Or you go bankrupt. Which is where Obama is taking
And if your bank account is empty,
how are you ever going to recover?
Answer: You won’t.
Look at all
the nations around the world with big debt loads, and all of them have depressed economies. The
This is intentional.
Many of the
Democrats in Congress have been running as ‘moderates’ yet they are all voting
for more and more debt and bigger and bigger government programs like the health
care bill. This is going
to permanently harm
Intentionally.
Look around
the world at places like the
Imagine the American economy is $14
trillion, which it has been in recent years, and that the political power is split evenly
between Republicans and Democrats. Now imagine that the economy is reduced to
$10 trillion, that tens of millions of people are permanently out of work, but
that the Democrat party has total control.
Would the Democrats want that?
You bet they would. Because that is
what they are doing. And it is intentional.
It is what
happened in
Look at
Remember when unemployment was 5%
under George Bush? And what did the Democrats say every single day?
They caterwauled about “tax cuts for the rich”
and tried to make prosperity look like a bad thing.
Yet now that we have 10% official
unemployment (it is 18% really when you count all the people out of work) and no
relief in sight, the same Democrats are pushing for more taxes and more debt which have historically been
proven to stunt economic growth. And once millions of Americans
get used to being poor, the Democrats will have all the power by giving them
government handouts. Or at least that
is the theory.
Today states
like
Do the Democrats care that people
are suffering, even their own voters like blacks and hispanics?
No. The blacks have been suffering
increasingly in the inner cities for the last 50 years as the Democrats have
increased their grip on those communities. Murder, illegitimacy, awful schools,
joblessness - these are the hallmarks of Democrat social policies.
These are intentional policies
to undermine the people in order to have power over them.
Yet when you point out what is
really going on, the Democrats repeat the usual nonsense, that it is all George Bush’s fault. And
capitalism’s fault. And millions of people believe it and continue to vote
Democrat as they continue to do in places like Michigan and Vermont, both
of which have rapidly declining economies because they already are controlled by
Democrats.
There is a growing backlash against
the Democrats’ intentional destruction of our economy. People are catching on.
The Republicans are going to win big time in the November 2010 elections.
Because Americans knew what prosperity is. We can regain it if we act in the
next election cycle.
But the Democrats may do so much
damage that we cannot fix it for years or decades to come. And that suffering
will be an intentional outcome of Democrat policies.
Khalid Sheikh Bloomberg
As we seek to prosecute Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts for the 9/11 attacks, we certainly should be
looking for a venue other than New York City, which apparently is finally being
reconsidered as a trial site by the Obama administration. This reversal came
after vehement protests from city residents and businesses who knew that the
trials would essentially put large areas of lower Manhattan under police
lockdown for months at a time.
There are several parts to this
evolving trial story that need to be told, however. It is not so cut and dried
as the media let on.
First, we conservatives immediately
protested long and loud about holding the trials in New York for many
reasons including security, the exorbitant cost, the folly of giving American trial
rights to enemy combatants, the foolhardiness of giving alleged terrorists a megaphone for their
grievances, and the inanity of divulging
Chalk a big one up for our side.
Second, the
media myth is that attorney general Eric Holder wanted to stage the trials in
This is
pure baloney. Holder's real intent was to harass the people of
Because Holder
is a leftist who has intellectually defended terrorists as people with a
legitimate grievance against the
In other words Holder wanted to create chaos because progressivism/liberalism are systems that create mayhem with their irrationality and extremist views.
Former
Bloomberg is truly a political ghost posing as a rational leader. He
became a multi-billionaire with his Bloomberg financial services TV network, and so he is at
heart a liberal media mogul who is out of touch with reality and the “little
people” of his city.
So first
Bloomie
approved the terror trials because he calculated that anyplace as
liberal as
But he was
grossly wrong. Because he did not consider that
Another side
of the story is that maybe the people of
Perhaps these trials would give
them a taste of
their own political medicine. Or perhaps they already have tasted it because 9/11 itself was a result of Manhattan-style elitist laxity on terrorism.
The 9/11 attacks never should have happened and never would
have happened if conservatives were in charge. During the time that the
attack was being planned, however, Bill Clinton, ever popular in the salons of
the Upper West Side, was chasing Monica Lewinsky
around his desk; the CIA and FBI were banned from communicating with each other
by years of leftist restrictions; and terrorists saw a lackadaisical America refusing
throughout the 1990s to respond to attacks on American interests
around the world and even at the World Trade Center in 1993. And nowhere was this isolationist/pacifist mindset more pronounced than in
Then the same
New Yorkers who were hammered on 9/11 trashed George Bush every day for treating terrorists harshly and holding them without
trial.
In order to sway public opinion back to the military tribunal route we should ask every American city or town: Will you accept the trials in your locale? And in response you will not get any towns seeking to bring the trials in. Because after all the chatter, Americans are really conservatives at heart on terrorism and many other issues.
What we are
discovering about Obama and his cronies is that
Then you
get a distant, out-of-touch mayor like Bloomberg shifting with the political winds and you
really start to put the pieces together, that we still live in a dangerous
world, and that most Americans understand that fact except some very powerful but
aloof people
in the White House, the Justice Department and the mayor’s mansion in
‘All In’ Democrat Ploy Backfires
The Democrats have gambled
everything and they have lost. Big time. They were urged by their far-left
progressive flank into an 'all in' strategy, like a poker game where one player
pushes all his chips into the center of the table to bet on the cards he has.
And when that player ends up with a losing hand, he goes home broke. Just as the
Democrats are gong politically broke today.
How did all this happen? It seems
like a dream, does it not?
Just look at
the political landscape today. Who woulda thunk it? The Democrats are wounded and cannot buy an election,
Compare that
to just one year ago, January 2009, when Obama was seen as an invincible force.
He had 70% approval ratings, big majorities in both houses of Congress, a
glamorous can-do image, and a dispirited Republican electorate that was ready to
throw in the towel on the future of
So what happened?
Well, after a few good hands, like
a blackjack player on a hot streak in Vegas, the Democrats did what many
conservatives predicted: They overreached and starting betting heavy. Since
Obama came from the far left in Chicago and Harvard, he tried to implement a
far-left agenda, taking the November 2008 election victory as a mandate for
change. And who could blame him? On the surface it looked like a perfect
political storm that was set to realign the nation once and for all.
But Obama & Co. seemed oblivious to
the fact that his election was more cosmetic than the media portrayed
it. After all McCain was a horrible candidate, was far outspent by Obama, and
the political cycle favored the Democrats. Obama even took many conservative
positions in order to get elected. Yet on election day 2008, Obama still only
won by 6 points, which is called a ‘modest’ victory in American electoral
parlance. And as it turns out that some elected congressional Democrats were more
conservative than Obama could count on for his agenda and so he had a false
sense of political superiority.
Then Obama started off on the wrong
foot, with the bungled oath of office at his inauguration. This might seem
insignificant, but to those of us who look at symbols, it was an omen of things
to come.
Obama then
confidently promised to close the
Despite poll after poll showing
increasing public displeasure with Obama and his policies, the president and his
congressional cronies forged forth as if public opinion did not matter. Town
halls turned into shouting matches between angry citizens and arrogant
legislators. But the Democrats’ plan was this: Push it through. Push all our chips
to the middle of the table. We have the votes. This is historic. Ignore public
opinion. This is too important. And we will deal with the consequences later.
What they did not predict was
that not only would their agenda fail, but that they would have to deal with the
dire consequences as well, sooner rather than later. In other words, they gambled
not once but twice, and lost.
Consider Harry
Reid, the Democrat US Senate majority leader from
But Reid was as arrogant
as the rest of them. He figured they had it all in the bag. Even after he came to realize that he indeed could lose his Senate
seat, he figured that the cherished goal of national health care would
be worth it. And that he could become a multimillionaire lobbyist once he was
bounced from office.
So what happened?
Not only did
Reid so disrespect and anger his
Lose, lose, lose. Reid gambled it
all and lost. He went ‘all in’ and came up with nothing.
Look at US
senator Christopher Dodd of
Now the
election of Republican Scott Brown in
No, Dodd went ‘all in’. And he
lost.
Most significantly president Obama
himself went ‘all in’ and lost. He is badly weakened. Americans are tired of his
endless speeches which he believed, through a friendly media, would give him
total power. But the election of Scott Brown, the loss of Dodd and Reid , and
the overall mood of the nation has hurt Obama significantly.
So he had a
'midnight conversion' and
went over to humbly address congressional Republicans at their retreat in
But this sudden change of heart is
not going to save Obama or his party. Americans may not have eternal memories
and may be forgiving people,
but the arrogant, strong-arm tactics of the Democrats in 2009 are going to be fresh in
voters' minds in November 2010 when the elections are going to be “a bloodbath”
for the Democrats even according to a pro-liberal commentator like CNN
curmudgeon Jack Cafferty.
Indeed, the
Democrats played like gamblers in a back room in
Game over...
Is Recession Over, or Just
Beginning?
The Commerce Department announced
Friday, January 29 that the economy grew at an annualized rate of 5.7% in the
fourth quarter of 2009. This sounds like good news for the Obama administration, the
biggest quarterly growth rate since 2003.
But is this really something to cheer
about?
No. Because this growth
is like a dying patient who suddenly feels better. In other words, the economy
was so low that anything is an improvement over the alternative. And although it indeed
is a positive sign in a sea of negatives, the question is: Will the patient
continue to improve, or was this just a spike fueled by the morphine of seasonal
Christmas spending, inventory spending and temporary government stimulus?
There still is a vestige of natural resilience in our
economy that surely helped the fourth-quarter numbers. But that last gasp of capitalist
buoyancy is being thwarted by punitive Obama policies against taxpayers, banks
and businesses both large and small.
The bad news is that the national debt load
being
incurred by Obama policies is going to undermine any chances for
growth. On the same day that the 5.7% quarterly result was announced the US
Senate - with all Republicans voting ‘no’ and all Democrats voting ‘yes’ - voted
to increase the national debt ceiling by a whopping $1.9 trillion, the largest
such increase in history.
Does not this news in itself
negate the hoopla over the big growth spurt?
Indeed it does.
Here are the details about the fourth quarter 5.7% rate: It is the second positive quarter in a row after four negative quarters (third quarter 2008 through second quarter 2009). Third-quarter 2009 growth was 1.5%. So this all appears to be a good sign – two quarters of growth, which usually marks the end of recession. But 60% of the 5.7% growth was attributed to companies’ refilling depleted inventories, a trend that will dissipate unless the overall economy picks up and makes it a permanent trend as part of a national economic expansion.
Business
spending on equipment and software jumped 13.3% in the fourth quarter. Christmas
spending gave the economy a jolt. Exports also rose 18.1%.
Again, however, these figures are compared
to very depressed figures in the past year.
So can Obama point to the 5.7%
figure and claim that his policies are finally working?
No. And the reason is simple.
There are many factors acting on the economy today and only one factor at a time seems to be pointing
upward. Real growth means that all the indicators are rising.
Look at our national debt figures
and you can see trends that point to a stalled economy for
years to come.
From 1980 to 2010, we have seen
fluctuations in spending and taxes, according to a graph in The
Wall Street Journal. In 1980, government spending was 22% of GDP (Gross
Domestic Product, or the total national wealth of goods and services) and
receipts were 19%. The difference (-3 points) is the deficit.
The two
lines crossed, where spending and receipts were the same (budget balanced)
around 1997. In 2000 there were substantial budget surpluses of +3 points because
By 2005, receipts were 16% of GDP while outlays were 19%, or -3 points again. For 2010, however, it is estimated that spending will be 25% of GDP(!) while receipts to the government are only 15%(!). This is a whopping -10 points difference attributable to Obama’s incessant spending while the economy is hobbled.
Meanwhile the gap between receipts
and spending is expected to be 15% and 24% or -9 points for
2011. Projections for 2012 and beyond are in the area of -7 points. These deficits are unsustainable.
Within a few
years, our national debt is going to be 100% of our annual GDP ($14 trillion+).
This is a distressing figure because
When we look
at
Today,
however, there are many structural problems that can
only be solved by policies that Obama is unwilling to pursue like drastic
government spending cuts, and tax cuts on individuals and businesses. And so in the long
run, until our policies change, the fourth-quarter 2009 growth rate of 5.7% may
be seen as just a positive blip in a recession that is not ending, but that may just be beginning
and that may last for years and years to come.
Thinking About Transportation
President Obama went to Florida recently to promote a big,
multibillion passenger railroad project. Because he is one of those environmentalists
who is always telling us how inefficient automobiles are. But not so fast. In many ways, cars easily are
the most efficient way to move people around.
Consider the Triangle Theory: Imagine you
live in
Now imagine that when you drive directly
on the diagonal leg of the triangle, it is 250 miles total from
So if you drive directly in a car, you are only driving 250
miles. But if you take mass transit, you need to cover 350 miles (150 south + 200
west).
Is that efficient, to travel 40% extra miles in order to take the train? Is that not a waste of energy? That sure seems to debunk the theory that cars are inefficient.
So indeed in many, many cases the automobile is very efficient. Yet you never hear environmentalists praising the automobile as an energy-saving device. Al Gore even wrote in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance that man should focus on "eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period."
That means that we need to find an alternative to cars by... 2017.
Now think about how we travel. If you
were just one person who needs to get from
But what if two people are traveling? Or two adults and three children? Wouldn’t they all cost a lot of money to move by mass transit, with five tickets required? And what if that family is taking a bunch of packages along for Christmas? Doesn’t the car seem much more sensible?
Indeed it does.
Now think about how we use our time. Because environmentalists always see
transportation only through the lens of energy consumption. They never think
about time.
So if it takes you, say, 5 hours to drive straight from Vermont to
Pennsylvania on the diagonal, or it take you 14 hours by mass transit, then mass transit is a huge waste of time. And in our economy, time is
money and people do not have large amounts of time to waste. That is one of the
reasons that our society is wealthy. Because people use time to create
efficiency.
Here is another way to think about transit:
Up here in
Yet most of the time those buses run
empty here in one of the most liberal counties in
So since the BRTA is like a European train system, why don’t all the many liberals and environmentalists around Berkshire - many of them very wealthy - use this wonderful, efficient system?
Answer: Because liberals always have big, expensive ideas for
other people to use. But never themselves. And the BRTA system is a hugely
expensive state-funded system that burns up large amounts of cash and fuel to move small
numbers of people. Yet the libs all have some excuse not to
use BRTA while every day they write letters to the editor about how
In fact, liberals are always talking about how we need high-speed trains to alleviate the terrible traffic congestion on our highways. Yet the very first such rail project funded by the Obama administration is a multibillion-dollar train between Los Angeles and Las Vegas which is not a congested corridor at all. The whole project was just a political payoff for Democrat US senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Which is typical; forget about moving people and get the cash out to your Democrat cronies.
Indeed liberals tell us repeatedly how
stupid we American are, that
our inadequate mass transportation system
is somehow behind the curve. Yet our mass transit system is
the best in the world for our sprawling nation. It is called "the airlines" and it
gets you coast-to-coast in just six hours. The airlines are private corporations and use
no government subsidies. But the Democrats complain about the
airlines all the time. Why?
Because the airlines are not part of the government.
And this enrages liberals. Because the airlines are not under liberal control. And so
they are subject to endless attacks by the media, academics, consumer activists,
passenger rights groups etc..
Today the airlines sell 750 million tickets per year while Amtrak sells 25 million. And there are precious few people who would trade a 6-hour flight for one of those three-day torture trips on government-run Amtrak, a railroad that has become synonymous with rude employees, terrible service, dirty trains and late arrivals.
Still the liberals are constantly criticizing the airlines, an
industry that has done an amazing job in creating the fastest, most efficient
mass transit system in the world using what economist Adam Smith called “the
invisible hand”. In other words, there was no person or law or politician or
policy telling the airlines to fly this route and that. The
system simply developed naturally through supply and demand.
And when did the airlines truly become a mass-transit system
available to all citizens at low prices, and not just to the rich?
It was when the airlines were deregulated in 1978, when the
government got out of the way and allowed the airlines to serve all the people
through the free-market system.
Of course the Democrats complain endlessly that air travel is horrible and that we need to re-regulate the airlines. But the reason air travel is often so crowded and chaotic is because so many people use the system. It is truly "for the people". Isn't that who the liberals always say they favor?
After all, the airlines are moving 2 million people per day. And that is called “efficiency”. And if you don’t like the crowds, you can always pay more for a First Class seat. Because that is what air travel was like when the government regulated it, when only the rich used it, when all those pesky "little people" weren't ruining air travel for the snobs.
It is time for Americans to look at energy and transportation through the lens of rationality not idealism. And to build a system of energy production and consumption that makes our efficient lives possible well into the future.
State of
(Below are excerpts from the
January 27 State of the Union address, with my comments.)
Obama: One
in 10 Americans still can't find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home
values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially
hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much
harder. Comment: The real number is 1 in 5 who can’t find work, sir.
And Democrat environmental policies in rural and small-town America were hurting
those areas even before the recession. This is classic urban-based elitism.
Obama: They
don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but
hard work on Main Street isn't, or why Washington has been unable or unwilling
to solve any of our problems. Comment: A majority on Wall Street
statistically supports Obama. So he should stop this us-versus-them fiction. And
Washington cannot solve the problem. Only economic growth can. Obama is
clueless.
Obama:
They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness.
Comment: Then stop your partisan big-government one-party approach which is
not working.
Obama: So we
face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what
they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our
differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. Comment:
Republicans have been shut out of all negotiation, sir.
Obama: Our
most urgent -- our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same
banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one
thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans -- and everybody in between --
it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. Comment: The
private banks have paid back most of the bailout. It is the government agencies
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are bankrupt and never will pay back the
bailout. Fannie and Freddie are run lock, stock and barrel by Democrats.
Obama: To
recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. Comment:
Which will kill any prospects for future stability.
Obama: Now,
let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We
cut taxes for small businesses. Comment: But your reckless spending
means that citizens will be paying higher taxes for decades to cover it. You
economic plan is a big shell game.
Obama: Talk
to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last
week of school that, because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after
all. Comment: He has let the cat out of the bag with this one. Stimulus
funds were used to pay for unionized public school teacher salaries not for
infrastructure or other critical repairs.
Obama: But I
realize that, for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women
who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come
from, who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is
why jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new
jobs bill tonight. Comment: By “new jobs bill” he means another hunk of
taxpayer cash. And it will not create sustainable jobs, only temporary ones.
Obama: Now,
the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's
businesses... but government can create the conditions necessary for businesses
to expand and hire more workers. Comment: Yes, government can step
aside from the economy, not take your path which is more intervention.
Obama: So
tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks
have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit
they need to stay afloat. Comment: Business does not need credit nearly
as much as business needs customers.
Obama: I'm
also proposing a new small-business tax credit, one that will go to over 1
million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. Comment:
Yes, a small credit of $3,000. Yet if a business needs to hire a new worker for
$30,000 a year, that credit means nothing, sir.
Obama:
Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a
new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. Comment: This will
be another boondoggle when roads and bridges need repair.
Obama: We
should put more Americans to work building clean-energy facilities… Comment:
’Green energy’ is simply inefficient, government-subsidized energy. It does
not work.
Obama: We
can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from last
decade, what some call the "lost decade," where jobs grew more slowly than
during any prior expansion, where the income of the average American household
declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs, where
prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation. Comment:
Blame Bush…
Obama:
China's not waiting to revamp its economy; Germany's not waiting; India's not
waiting. These nations, they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing
for second place. Comment: Yes, and guess what? These countries have
more capitalist pro-growth tax policies than the United States.
Obama:
...and that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants
in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore
areas for oil and gas development. Comment: This is double talk. He
knows that his enviro cronies will block both nuclear and offshore drilling.
Obama: So
tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years,
an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America. Comment: That
will happen when we have lower tax business rates than our competitors.
Otherwise trade will go the other way. And Obama will not lower those tax rates.
Obama: And
that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global
markets and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key
partners like South Korea, and Panama, and Colombia. Comment: The
Democrats in Congress oppose all these treaties.
Obama: And
let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be
required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of
their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they
choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no
one should go broke because they chose to go to college. Comment:
Right, and a 1998 federal study showed that Obama’s ripoff cronies at the
universities are overcharging big-time for education. But rather than force them
to control their spending, Obama puts the onus on the taxpayer.
Obama: And
according to the Congressional Budget Office, the independent organization that
both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress, our approach
would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two
decades. Comment: When was the last time a 2,000-page government
program brought the deficit down? Answer: Never.
Obama:
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.
Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social
Security will not be affected, but all other discretionary government programs
will. Comment: This only will affect 17% of the budget and will not
even address the biggest problems of all – Social Security and Medicare.
Obama: But
understand -- understand, if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt,
it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our
recovery, all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and
family incomes. Comment: Is that why you are spending like there’s no
tomorrow? What a phony this guy is!
Obama: Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. Comment: This is a call for more of the ‘transparency’ that does not exist today after he promised it in his campaign.
Obama: I
know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense.
So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Comment: No
let’s talk about who is NOT tough. YOU are NOT tough, Mr. President.
Obama: We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. Comment: Yes. After the fact. Like 9/11.
Obama: This year -- this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do. Comment: Obama will be even more unpopular than he is today with this proposal. This is simply a route for a small group of homosexuals to join the military and disrupt it, which is exactly what they have planned.
Obama:
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest
institutions -- our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government -- But
each time a CEO rewards himself for failure or a banker puts the rest of us at
risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Comment: Like
Democrat Franklin Raines looting Fannie Mae and leaving it dead for the taxpayer
to save with hundreds of billions in bailouts.
New York Times – Laugh then Cry
If you need to have a good chuckle,
just open up (if you dare) the New York Times on any given day when the
left-wing kooks who write it and those who read it get their heads all tangled
up in mind-bending exercises that today are passed off as journalism.
Weekends are even worse because
that is when the philosopher/kings get full rein to prattle on about any subject
at all for their Sunday readers who think the Times is indeed the real
Bible (“Hey, I read it every Sunday. It must be the Bible…”)
The Sunday
Magazine section recently featured one of those gee-whiz essays about what
we can expect in the next 10 years. And while this stuff generally is something
to be read lightly over French toast at a sidewalk bistro in
Because who would have thought 10
years ago that we would be putting up these windmills that are now all over the
place, destroying the landscape that environmentalists claim they wish to save.
The magazine
recently had two Ideas for the Future that were typical of what passes for
serious conversation at
Here is what the Oracles of 43rd
Street let slip into their hallowed Magazine recently:
‘Lithium often occurs naturally,
in trace amounts, in water supplies, particularly in areas with a high
concentration of granite. In the British Journal of Psychiatry earlier this
year, the neuropsychiatrist Takeshi Terao and other researchers showed that
communities in Japan’s Oita prefecture with higher levels of naturally occurring
lithium in their water supplies had fewer suicides than those with lower levels…
Lithium in prescription doses helps reduce mood swings in patients with bipolar
disorder… The researchers note that more work is needed before public-policy
makers can consider adding lithium to water supplies… In a follow-up paper (Terao
and his team) even posited that adding lithium to drinking water could
“potentially offer an easy, cheap and substantial strategy for worldwide suicide
prevention”.’
And don’t for a minute think that the lefties in Government/Psychiatry Complex wouldn’t just love another way to control the population through chemicals in the water supply, food supply, information supply etc.
Worldwide suicide prevention!? Why didn't I think of that?! Just add lithium! It's totally natural!
But aren’t these the same lefties who are seeking to wall us off from another naturally occurring chemical in the atmosphere called "carbon dioxide"?
Indeed. And the futurists writing
in the Times had an answer for carbon dioxide too, this one from a group of
British engineers who have 'recommended building a forest of artificial carbon-filtering
“trees” across the United Kingdom to combat climate change.’
The accompanying illustration looks like a string of 100-foot-tall
fly-swatters lining a rural British highway with their handles stuck in the
ground, which the Times opines ‘the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
estimated that a forest of 100,000 such "trees" could mop up half the United
Kingdom’s carbon emissions…’ blah, blah, blah.
So after they’ve wrecked the
environment with windmills, now they’re going to polish it off with
Godzilla-scale fly-swatters…
But didn't all those communist
filmmakers back in the 1920s warn us that capitalist factories were
dehumanizing man with their clattering machinery dominating our lives? And now aren’t the same communists
turning the entire planet into a forest of skyscraper-scale windmills and carbon
trappers? Will that dehumanize us? Will we even have time to think about it
before these nuts start to put this stuff into place?
So the $64,000 question is: Why are
people so depressed that we need to put lithium in the water supply in the first
place?
Answer: They are depressed over all
those windmills and carbon-catchers looming over their lives like doomsday
machines. And they are even more depressed about armageddon-style
environmentalism in general. Just think about all the children of the world
utterly terrified of our Planetary Scrooge named Al Gore reminding them every
day that we are doomed from ‘global warming’ that is going to kill all the polar
bears and submerge their neighborhoods in a flood of biblical proportions.
Would this not cause psychosis and depression among the young?
Indeed it would.
And then when
those same kids see record snowfalls and cold from
Indeed. Because insanity can be
defined as people not knowing the difference between fact and fiction. And
today, through our world media and the internet and the apocalysts in the
worldwide enviro movement, our brains are being bashed around from side to side
like fish thrashing in a barrel. Millions of people – no make that BILLIONS of
people – have no idea what is really going on and they see their world turned
topsy-turvy by loons who first want to tell us that the end is near and then
want to calm us all down with big doses of lithium as a new daily food group.
This is part of the madness of today's worldwide socialists/environmentalists who are trying to draw every person on the planet into their web of lies, deceptions and utopian schemes. And it is time for us rational people to keep the lithium out of our water supply and the stupidity out of our - and our children's - daily discourse.
Only Conservatism Will Revitalize Us
Have you heard the ongoing calls
from Democrats that we must now re-regulate the banks to prevent another
collapse?
Yet what we really need to do is to simply
get the banks to re-implement ‘conservative’ lending policies
that existed for centuries in America. We need to take policy out of the
hands of liberals whose “regulations” today run the banks, financial
institutions and Wall Street firms and have ruined them.
Back in the
1950s and the 1960s, ‘conservative’ bankers worked on a
Liberals did not like this. They
said it “discriminated” against this person and that. So in 1977 we got the
Community Reinvestment Act, a product of the Democrat party, which forced banks
to lend money to poor people who did not have the proper downpayment or work
history.
Up until that time, 'conservative' lending policies were a form of rational self-regulation that banks knew were necessary just to stay in business. CRA then “mandated" reckless lending behavior. And this is how the Democrats ruined our financial system – by forcing negligent banking practices while at the same time eliminating sensible 'conservative' policies.
By 2008, the government agencies
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both established by the Democrats, had purchased trillions of
dollars in loans made to unqualified people by private banks under government duress. The loans had
been made to poor and even middle-income people who had No Income, No Job
and No Assets - so-called NINJA loans. In other words, you could walk in off the
street and get a loan with virtually no documentation.
When these loans went into default like a string of dominos, it triggered the Subprime Crisis that sparked the economic collapse. But the banks themselves were largely unaffected because the government was taking the risk in buying the loans.
So it was the Democrats’ so-called “regulation” of the banking system that caused the crash.
Actually they were "mandates" on banks to behave in a certain way, not
"regulation" that restricted behavior. And now the
same Democrats want to re-regulate the banks.
So you wonder: Why didn’t they just
leave the bankers alone in the first place, those bankers who used old-fashioned ‘conservative’ methods?
Answer: Because Democrats need to
intrude in every aspect of life. And their policies have ruined the nation and the economy.
Consider
another area - our
energy supplies. We were going merrily along, converting over to the most efficient energy
source ever developed by man – nuclear power – when the environmentalists said
they did not want us to use nuclear any longer.
Yet the fact is that more people
die in America every year from house fires started by wood-burning stoves (more
than 9,000 homes per year are damaged or destroyed by wood-stove fires) than
have died in the whole history of “dangerous” American nuclear power (zero
people killed, zero homes destroyed).
So now that they have denied us
nuclear, the eco-nuts are now saying that the coal-fired plants that we have
built instead are killing the planet with so-called ‘global warming’ or ‘climate
change’ or whatever they are calling it this month. Yet if they had let us
develop nuclear power, we would have abundant energy supplies, zero carbon
emissions and we would not have to gouge 1.2 billion tons of coal out of the
ground every single year, and burn 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas every
365 days.
And now the enviros are proposing
ridiculous and inefficient wind power, which will kill our economy if we
continue to put our limited investment capital in these low-yield windmills and
solar panels.
Why could not the Democrats and
their enviro cronies just have left things as they were back when
sensible conservatives were advocating nuclear power?
Answer: Because Democrats need to
intrude in every aspect of life. And their policies have ruined the nation
and the economy.
Look at our horrible public schools
today. Anyone who went to school back in the 1950s or 1960s or 1970s knows that
we had excellent public schools that actually taught kids science, history, math
and the truth about the supremacy of Western culture.
Yet today the radical
Democrat left through its teacher unions has decimated the public education
system replacing it with a system of socialist indoctrination. Now virtually all Americans
agree that our schools are in crisis. The worst schools are in the inner
cities where the teacher unions and the Democrat bureaucracy is strongest.
So why couldn’t we just have left
the schools as they were back when America was a ‘conservative’ nation and teachers
actually cared about education and not about indoctrination or union power and
union paychecks? Why is America now so focused on a big crusade to improve the
schools when the schools once very were good until the Democrats got hold
of them and destroyed them?
Answer: Because Democrats need to
intrude in every aspect of life. And their policies have ruined the nation
and the economy.
Look at our nation’s social and moral structure. Back when ‘conservative values’ reigned - back before the ‘hippies’ of the 1960s told us that marriage was unnecessary but that sex and drugs and pleasure and abortion were crucial - families stayed together and the economic unit of the family was strong. Back then, one parent worked to support three or four or five kids. Yet today two parents working can often only support one or two kids.
Why?
Because the Democrats have been
crushing productive, family-oriented people with taxes, ridiculing the nuclear
family through leftist Hollywood TV and movies, and subsidizing tens of millions
of single mothers, encouraging massive illegitimacy and creating widespread
dependence on the government. Because Democrats need to intrude in every aspect
of life. And their policies have ruined the nation
and the economy.
Remember back in the 1950s when the
economy was strong and people had good jobs and good incomes?
The Democrats
claim that labor unions created the middle class. But that is the opposite of
the truth. It was economic
growth following World War II created the middle class. Because
Yet the labor unions and their
Democrat friends were not happy with all the money and good jobs that Americans
had. They wanted that money. And so unions got power and
repeatedly disrupted the economy with
strikes and walkouts and exorbitant wage demands and stupid union work rules,
destroying millions of jobs, and trillions in wealth.
Today the American car companies are barely hanging on after years of labor
union extortion.
Why couldn’t the Democrats have
allowed our capitalist economy to prosper on its own? Why did they have
intervene and ruin so many companies including the steel industry, the
railroads, the auto industry and many others?
Answer: Because Democrats need to
intrude in every aspect of life. And their policies have ruined the nation
and the economy.
If you were a kid back in the 1950s, your mother would let you walk to school alone, often long distances, without giving it a second thought. Yet today, after the promiscuous 1960s culture got hold of America, sex perverts have infected our culture, and children are not safe anytime, anywhere under any circumstances. And still today, the Democrats are continuing to do everything they can to cover up for and defend sex offenders at every level, blocking anti-predator legislation like Meghan's Law, seeking reduced sentences for offenders as judge Cashman did in Vermont in 2006, trying to legitimize child pornography etc.
Why couldn't the Democrats just let America be 'conservative' like it was back when every child did not have to live in fear of every person on the street?
Answer: Because Democrats need to
intrude in every aspect of life. And their policies have ruined the nation
and the economy.
Corporations Cleared for Political
Spending
For decades, liberals have insisted that we need to "get the money out of politics”, that campaign contributions and strong political advocacy by individuals needed to be limited, that spending by businesses and corporations should be eliminated, and that government funding of campaigns needed to be codified in law.
Yet when Barack Obama sought the
presidency, he abandoned the public finance option and raised more than $600
million in private funds which he used to defeat John McCain.
Now the US Supreme Court has sent
shock waves across the political landscape when it ruled on January 21
that government cannot restrict private corporations, or even unions, from
spending their own money to influence political campaigns. And the decision could lead to challenges to the long-time ban
on direct campaign contributions from corporations and unions.
In the 5-4 decision, supported by the conservative wing of the Court and joined by justice Anthony Kennedy who was the swing vote on the issue, Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, “The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.” Special-interest groups also have been liberated.
The Center for Competitive Politics called the decision "a
win for the First Amendment political rights of small businesses, grassroots
groups and others who now can avoid the burden of running through a regulatory
maze before speaking out in campaigns."
But Democrats immediately blasted the
decision. Obama said, "With its ruling today, the
Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest
money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks,
health insurance companies and the other powerful interests."
Meanwhile Democrats like US senator Charles Schumer of
The case arose when an organization called Citizens United wanted to offer through a TV video-on-demand service an anti-Hillary-Clinton movie that it had made for the 2008 presidential campaign. The Federal Election Commission ruled that the film was subject to a 2002 campaign law that bans TV or radio ads funded with money from private corporations or unions.
When the Court first considered the case, it focused narrowly. But then it asked a broader question: How far may government go to restrict corporate and union spending on elections without abridging the First Amendment?
Its recent decision overturns a 1990 ruling, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in which justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the majority that "corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections."
But one might have asked of Marshall's decision: Why were the entities (private corporations) that provide the best, most stable jobs and the most crucial products and services to the American economy somehow barred from participating in elections? Wouldn’t our economy be improved if these productive entities had equal influence as everyone else? After all, do not Democrats routinely swing elections through welfare handouts and other government subsidies in exchange for votes? And is that not having a deleterious effect on our economy by putting more and more power in the hands of the idle poor and other unproductive citizens? Does not this Supreme Court decision in fact level the playing field?
Another contradiction in the old law was that media corporations (NBC, CNN, New York Times etc.) often have dedicated their corporate wealth and power to harming Republicans. So now these same companies and their allies in Congress are angry that, say, gun makers or oil companies now will have the same power against Democrats.
And opponents of the Supreme Court decision now are ignoring
the fact that many corporations will use their new power to support Democrat
causes. A recent survey reported on Fox News showed that since 1990, private
corporations politically have favored Democrats and Republicans equally.
General Electric, for instance, with its very-liberal CEO Jeffrey Immelt, has
been close to the Obama administration because Obama favors government subsidies
for wind energy while GE is a maker of wind turbines. Many companies in fields
like clothing, fashion, recreation equipment, education, health and beauty aids,
and women’s products - to name just a few - also could tend to lean left. Bill
Gates is a liberal on most issues so Microsoft might support Democrats.
The final effect of the decision is that three new entities
are being empowered - conservative corporations (which will support
Republicans), unions (which will support Democrats) and liberal corporations
(which will support Democrats). So overall the court ruling actually seems
poised to benefit liberals!
At the same time, unions for decades have been using their
members as volunteers in Democrat campaigns, a type of ‘funding’ that could not
be challenged under the old law. Yet there would have been a huge outcry if a
corporation sent 1,000 employees out to campaign for a pro-business Republican
candidate.
This Supreme Court decision will level the playing field
somewhat for common-sense opposition to liberal bias. But it is hardly what it
is being portrayed as.
Who is Profiled at Airports?
One thing you always will notice about socialism/liberalism is that it is a zero-sum game. For instance, rather than promoting an agenda of capitalist growth under which a rising economic tide lifts all people, socialism seeks to elevate one group at the expense of another group that sinks.
And while liberals like to say that
their economic plan means that rich people lose some wealth through taxation while poor people gain through government handouts, that is
hardly accurate. Because even among the poor, certain types of poor people ‘lose’ under
socialism while other types of poor people ‘win’.
The recent suspension
by Democrats of a scholarship program for poor
minority students in
In today’s War on Terror, we are
seeing this zero-sum agenda in the area of racial profiling.
Under traditional profiling, airport screeners can focus on certain people for more scrutiny on account of their race, ethnicity, age and gender because we know for certain that dark-skinned Middle Eastern Muslim males in their 20s are those most likely to blow up planes. We also could be using 'behavioral profiling' in which a person’s actions in the airport can betray trouble... nervousness, suspicious movements, unusual actions etc. Also we could be using a third technique, conducting direct one-on-one verbal interviews with suspect passengers.
Yet what have leftists and the ACLU lawyers now done in the area of airport security?
Amazingly they have completely turned the tables without most of us even knowing it. They actually have managed to institute
a system of ‘reverse profiling’ in which the people who are
being racially profiled at airports today are white.
How does that work?
Well, just compare it to the Democrats' decades-long policy of affirmative action, or intentionally discriminating against white people like firefighters in Connecticut who were denied promotions just because no blacks passed the promotion test. This is called 'discrimination' pure and simple. But since Democrats practice it and have legalized it, they rationalize it.
In the same
way, the liberal approach to airport security – to ostensibly avoid any
hint of profiling by treating everyone the same under the guise of fairness – in fact
entrenches discrimination. Because 'fairness' draws tremendous amounts of energy out of the screener
system by focusing equally on the huge law-abiding majority - white
people, including college girls or caucasian grandmothers in
wheelchairs - as it does on the tiny minority of dark-skinned, Middle
Eastern males speaking in Arabic accents in their 20s.
Americans now are being told that full-body scanners are the only way to keep air travel safe, when in fact racial profiling is a vastly more effective way. But what liberals really want to do is to make white Americans suffer in these scanners even though whites are law-abiding in the field of airliner terrorism. Just like they want hard-working white firefighters to suffer even though they successfully passed the promotion test. Or black kids on scholarships to suffer even though they were prospering in alternative schools.
In other words, a zero-sum game
where white people are brought down in stature while Muslim males in their 20s
are elevated. Now, as the Christmas Day bomber proved, suspicious Muslims may
even get green-lighted right through at
airports as did the Underwear bomber who was black, had no passport, paid
for his ticket with cash and had a one-way ticket and no baggage. And was
on a terror watch list…
It would be
interesting to see how many white people on that Christmas Day flight were
patted down and had their bags searched. How about posting on the internet the surveillance tape
from the
We will not see that tape, however.
Because it would be so volatile that it would blow the doors off of caucasian racial profiling for the genuinely discriminatory practice that it is.
And it would prove how much the profiling of white people is rampant and unnecessary and is consuming
valuable resources in the airline safety system while
real terrorists waltz onto airplanes.
So what is the ultimate zero-sum
game of liberalism at our airports?
It is to see
the
And that is
the most horrendous zero-sum game of all.
Air America Dies; Is MSNBC Next?
Two media stories have
emerged in recent days which have received inversely intense media coverage to
their real significance.
The first story is the collapse of
Jay Leno’s prime-time career, his return to NBC’s Tonight Show and the
cashiering of Conan O’Brien from that show.
This story has received much
media focus because it concerns popular culture. The bigger issue, however,
is the crisis at NBC itself which is competing poorly in prime-time and
late-night television ratings in a world of diverse media choices.
The other
less-heralded media story was the closing of the doors on January 21 of Air
The more
significant issue
here, however, is that Air
Meanwhile
“conservative” Fox News continues to thrive and grow.
Air
It was the
enduring slant of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, most of the major print media
and most of academia and the entertainment industry that enabled Limbaugh to
flourish. Told early on that his 3-hour political show in the middle of the day
never would work, Limbaugh went on the air nationally on
Limbaugh’s steady growth and
dedicated audiences spawned an entire industry that has been built from the
grass roots up. And like Rush or not, he has been a brilliant agent for
conservative ideas and is often thanked by his listeners for acting as a
lifeline in the sea of media bias.
Air
"I'm sorry," Olbermann later said.
"I left out the word 'sexist.'"
This type of language really does not draw viewers except fringe lunatic Air America-type audiences that already think like Olbermann. And both Olbermann and his audience are contracting into a fetal ball together.
MSNBC’s Chris
Matthews, who just last year said that he had gotten “a thrill up my leg”
listening to Obama, called the election of Brown “premeditated murder” of
Obama’s health plan and then was called “crazy” by one of his own guests,
Vermont governor Howard Dean, in reaction to an indecipherable Matthews rant. MSNBC happy/angry girl Rachel Maddow, one of the founders of
Air
After Brown’s win, Fox News played
in their entirety both the concession speech of Brown's opponent Martha Coakley,
and Brown's victory speech. Yet CNN and MSNBC played all of Coakley’s speech,
and much less than half of Brown’s when in fact Brown was laying out a fiery
call for future political action while Coakley was talking about how happy her
dog was going to be now that the campaign was over.
To play such a defeatist speech in its
entirety is no way to salve a crowd that just has been throttled. But that is the
polar way of the left that seems equally fascinated with internalizing big
victories like Obama’s but also huge defeats like Coakley’s.
This all indicates the growing cluelessness of the left, once deemed the only savvy media types. But they appeared savvy only when they were a monopoly. What we are seeing today, however, is that in a competitive environment that they are intellectually busted. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama today sound curiously irrelevant.
Meanwhile
Limbaugh continues to gain in strength just by being Rush, "one harmless
lovable little fuzzball" as he describes himself. When he was admitted to
a
Air
And that is a very positive development for all of us. And thus we all can breath easier.
Conservatism Rebounds... as Predicted
(This is a verbatim reprint of an editorial from this website written shortly after Obama's November 4, 2008 election victory.)
After the loss of the White House in the November 4
election, conservatives must begin rebuilding and planning for 2010 and beyond,
by taking the following steps:
1) We must first look back. We must be thankful for many
great election results for our movement since the time of Ronald Reagan
including Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Papa Bush in 1988, the recapturing of
Congress in 1994, George W. Bush winning in 2000, the midterm election of 2002,
and Bush re-elected in 2004. We cannot win everything but our movement faltered
in 2008 and we could have won this one even in the difficult political climate
of the times. We need to rebuild the movement with force and vigor.
We need to recall that one recent
survey showed that 34% of Americans still describe themselves as conservatives
while only 22% say they are liberal.
2) We must recall that conservatives
were dispirited at the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet in 1994,
Republicans rejoiced when they took back the House of Representatives for the
first time in 40 years because
3) We must recognize that Obama will
overreach too because he probably will govern as a radical and an ideologue. Do
not think of him as invincible; that's all spin. He was supposed to win this
election in a landslide, yet the final results show only a 6-point popular vote
victory (7 million votes), which is a modest win. Meanwhile Democrats have not
achieved their hoped-for victory of 60
4) We must remember that despite the endless media
cheerleading for Obama; the media trashing of conservatives for the last 50
years; the media trashing of Bush and the GOP over the last 8 years; the Iraq
war; the economic meltdown; McCain’s often hapless campaign; relentless Obama
obfuscation and pandering; and certainly some voter fraud, Obama still only won
a modest victory. This is telling. After all the hype, Americans still were not
convinced about this guy or about his ideas.
5) We must remember that many people have overly-high
expectations of Obama. One woman caught on tape at Obama’s victory rally was
saying that Obama was going to buy her gas and pay her mortgage. Many people
probably believe this because Obama mesmerized them. When people see what real
results he provides, many are going to be very disappointed. At best, things
might improve slightly for millions, and things easily could get much worse.
Conservatives must prepare to take advantage of this.
6) We must reach out to voters with clear and unequivocal
explanations of how jobs and wealth are created, explaining that they are not
created by government, but by establishing a hospitable business climate with
low taxes and low regulations, and with environmentalist interference reduced.
Enviros are endangering our energy supply. We must explain how. Many areas of
this website explain this phenomenon.
7) We must stop talking about trying to attract moderates to
our movement and focus on rousing the conservative base which always wins
elections. McCain took many moderate positions over the years, yet independents
abandoned him in droves for Obama. At the same time, 20% of conservatives
abandoned McCain for Obama in one poll. So McCain lost on both ends, as
conservatives could have predicted.
8) We must note that even with Obama’s
big win,
9) We must unabashedly stand for military strength and
readiness. Obama actually said at one point that he would strengthen the
military (which he won’t) because he knows that that stand would garner him many
votes. Obama even voted for the conservative FISA anti-terror legislation
probably because he knew that if he voted against it, he would jeopardize his
chances at the presidency.
Ronald Reagan used the strong American
military as a backdrop in his campaign to bring down the
10) We must note all the conservative positions Obama took
in order to seem palatable to the electorate. In at least one point in the
campaign he said he favored the following: Offshore oil drilling, nuclear power,
clean-coal technology, 2nd amendment gun rights, tax cuts for the middle class,
keeping troops in Iraq until the job is done, building up the military, and FISA
terrorist eavesdropping legislation. He even professed himself to be a
practicing, believing Christian. This sounds like George Bush!
11) We must not see the Democrats as monolithic. They are a
bunch of squabbling factions and their media friends often are nutty left-wing
fabricators who will say and do anything for their cause, like creating the fake
George Bush National Guard documents of 2004 that ended up killing off the
career of Dan Rather at CBS and probably backfired enough to elect Bush.
Remember that the media are much more unpopular than Republicans ever were.
12) We must realize that after all the hype about massive
voter turnout for Obama, the vote in 2008 was about the same as 2004! So all
this hype that Democrats put out about their huge voter registrations was more
nonsense. This extends to everything they say and do. Most of it is pure
baloney. This is tremendously important because it once again exposes the
Democrat media machine as full of hot air.
13) We must recall that with only 2 exceptions in all of
American history (1938 and 2002), the party that was not in the White House
always has gained seats in Congress in the first election after the presidential
election. So Republicans can expect gains in 2010.
14) We must recall that President Bush
has done an excellent job of defending our homeland from terrorism and that
current economic crisis is part of a cyclical pattern and not his fault. We also
have won in
15) We must recognize that the stock marked plunged 486.01
points the very day after Obama was elected, the biggest post-election drop
ever. This is just the first sign that Obama is not the reassuring figure that
he holds himself out to be. He could end up undermining the economy in a very
significant way if the economy has no faith in him, paving the way for financial
whiz Romney in 2012, or Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin. Or Rudy!
16) We must recognize that Obama’s political positions of
the past point to him mishandling the economy. Jimmy Carter mishandled a bad
economy after he was elected in 1976 and in 1980, Reagan drubbed him in the
election when the economy was much, much worse.
17) We must recognize that