Thursday, December 18, 2008

Liberals Are Bullies, Too

A bully is someone who picks fights with someone weaker than he is; someone who can't defend himself or fight back. And so I contend that liberals, special interests and progressives are bullies.

In China, a man who had gone to his local government office to complain that his local school wasn't being funded appropriately was severely beaten for his efforts. When he complained to a larger regional government office, he got a larger response. To remedy the situation the school was burned down and his tongue was cut out. In Iraq (while Saddam was still in power) a man who publicly spoke out against Saddam was captured, his tongue cut out, and then he was put in the back of a pickup truck and paraded around town so others could see what happens to those who speak out. There are numerous other examples, but take these as evidence that around the world "free speech" is relatively unknown, which brings me back to the bullies here at home.

In the US of A people have the right to say just about anything they want. Jeremiah Wright can call the country the US of KKKA and he's within his right to do so. Yes, slavery was bad, but the number of slaves in the US accounted for about 1% of slavery worldwide, and slavery is still practiced in places around the world. I'm not trying to minimize slavery as an evil practice, but I never owned any slaves, my ancestors never owned any slaves, and further, no one alive today owned any slaves. Blacks are on equal footing and have more rights here than anywhere else in the world. It was not always thus, and it took a long time to get here, but we're here. People like Clarence Thomas will tell you the only thing keeping a black man down is that man himself (for which he is denigrated by people on the left - the only time it seems OK to attack a black man is if he is conservative politically).* But, Wright is entitled to his opinions, and even if people feel he's misguided and, to use a favorite phrase of the Obama campaign, manufacturing controversies, that is his right as an American.

People can (and do) say numerous vile and untrue things about George W Bush. People can put bumper stickers on their cars decrying his perceived stupidity without fear of their tongues being removed.** Even if what people are saying is not true, it's their opinion and they're free to express it. That is their right as Americans.

And this is why they're bullies. They make whatever hurtful allegations they want about whatever cause they want, absent any facts or intelligent debate, and because it's their right to do so nothing can be done to stop them. They pick fights against which there's no defense.

Witness the text of billboards popping up around the country (Washington, DC, Wisiconsin, Illinois and Colorado right now) [emphasis is mine]: "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

This makes shopping for the atheist on your list pretty easy. They presents. Not even a lump of coal.

In seriousness, the allegation is that if you are religious, you are superstitious have a hard heart and an enslaved mind - and by proxy you enslave others and harden their hearts. So goes the contention - and if you disagree, you can do nothing about it, because it's their right as Americans to pay for and post these billboards.

But let's reverse the situation...if you posted a billboard that said "Atheism is an ignorant non-believing practice that has no value and nothing to offer more intelligent society" do you think there would be an uproar? Do you think the ACLU would step up to their defense? You bet they would. How dare anyone put such hateful words up for public display? Hate speech! That's the cheese! Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment, so let's get this torn down!

And that's the bullies mantra. If they're fighting against (insert preferred noun here: republican president, republican anything, organized religion, corporate entity, heterosexualism, globalization, etc) it is a just an noble cause. If the target of their ire fights back, it's hate speech. I've written on other posts that it's all one way with the far left. Free speech as long as it's their speech; tolerance for others as long as they don't have to practice tolerance. They rail and complain against the establishment because they can get away with it. The very country they so often condemn is the same country that permits them to condemn it - but that irony is lost on them. The rules of engagement that they hide behind do not apply to them - and that is the ploy of the bully.

*I'm sure that these opinions could be viewed as controversial. If you disagree or think I am oversimplifying the issue, I invite you to leave a comment and we can debate the issue.
** My personal favorite is "When Clinton lied, no one died" This should serve a confirmation that liberals and progressives, with their moral relativism, can't be trusted. One could paraphrase this statement to read "I believe it's OK to do whatever you want, including lie under oath, provided no one directly dies as a result."

Friday, November 21, 2008

Lies, Hypocrisy and the Liberal Way

The tenets of liberal philosophy seems to be geared around, if not outright lies, then mere deception, and hypocrisy. In a post I gave a view into the liberal playbook: Deceive, Defame, Decry, Deny. Add to that list "Do as I say, not as I do."

Currently, the media is (still) fawning over Obama, comparing him to Lincoln for meeting with rivals and reaching across divides to build his cabinet. In Ann Coulter's recent column she says: "I don't recall the media swooning when President George W. Bush reached out to rivals, such as Sen. Teddy Kennedy, who was asked to co-write Bush's education bill. In fact, the way I remember it, Bush is liberals' most hated president ever (only because they can't remember George Washington or they'd hate him, too)." While this is a good example of the selective liberal lens being applied, there are others as well.
  • I recently saw a "pin" on Facebook that said "People who compare Obama to Hitler are douchebags." Now, aside from offending the douchebag lobby, haven't liberals been comparing Bush to Hitler for, say, 8 years. When the Nazis were rising to power they used strongarm tactics to silence the media and get their propaganda published. It was Obama's campaign, not Bush's or McCain's, who censured a Florida radio station for violating the unwritten rule that the media shall not ask tough questions of Obama's policies. It's the liberal media who launched full scale investigations, some illegal, into the background of Joe "the plumber" who merely asked a question about an Obama policy that he felt was going to affect him greatly (and Obama sought him out, not the other way around!). One lunatic on a San Francisco radio station even said he wanted Joe killed. It is Obama who wants a national civilian security force just as well trained and well funded as the military, but has yet to explain what exactly they will do. Hitler formed a civilian defense force, well funded and trained, to skirt the Versailles treaty that banned Germany from having a military. Look how that turned out. The point here is that liberals are hypocrites. It's OK to compare republicans to Hitler, but to dare to do so to the anointed liberal-in-chief makes one a "douchebag." Do as I say, not as I do.
  • Tolerance is a central tenet of liberal long as it's the conservatives who have to be tolerant. If you're liberal, it's OK to beat an elderly woman who supported prop 8 in California and form a wall so media and help can't get to her. It's OK to vandalize churches, force people from their jobs and disrupt church services to voice dissent about prop 8. Gay marriage has been voted down in 30 states (31 if you count California voting it down twice) but the vocal minority can't accept the results. One dissenting opinion I read on a blog said the violence that is now spreading is the natural result that comes from "living under the jackboot of oppression." (Note the Nazi reference!). Gays can do pretty much anything they want in this country except get married. There are civil unions and legal trusts that give them all the same rights as a married couple, with the exceptions of getting spousal benefits from an employer. This, while inconvenient, is not oppression. The millions of women in Africa who undergo forced genital mutilation are oppressed. Gay people who cannot marry are inconvenienced. There IS a difference, and it does not warrant violence. Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52% to 48%. This is roughly the same margin that put Obama in office, so I guess it's OK for the anti Obama crowd to go wilding until that decision is overturned? Good to know.
  • Abortion activists oppose any law that requires ANY restriction on abortion, including common sense rules like parental notification for minors seeking abortion or a waiting period before the abortion is performed. One can't get a tattoo without parental consent unless over age 18. One cannot buy a handgun unless there's a waiting period and a significant background check. There is, by some calculations a murder commit ed every 22 minutes in America. If you do the math (((24 hours *60 minutes)*365 days)/22 minutes) you get 23,891 murders per year. Not all of those murders are commit ed with handguns. There are approximately 1,200,000 abortions performed every year. Which kills more people, abortion or hand guns? Which one is more tightly regulated?
  • Free speech is another thorn in the side of the liberal. Being debated today is the "fairness doctrine." (with liberals, anything that restricts freedoms will be labeled "fair"). As defined in Wikipedia, the Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. The FCC abolished it in 1987. Today, conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves, and Fox News trounces the competition daily, and this is a concern for the liberals (who own print "journalism" almost exclusively and own every other demographic on cable and network TV, aside from FNC). The liberals have Air America, which is a commercial failure. This is the free market at work. Nancy Pelosi's book was outsold by Tori Spelling and Ernest Borgnine's autobiographies. Not subject to the fairness doctrine, but again, the free market at work. The reason conservative talk radio and FNC dominate is because that's what the people WANT to listen to. Force stations to put other formats on the air and people will change the station. The solution is to reinstate the so called "fairness doctrine." If you can't beat 'em, shut 'em up. To the liberal, that's what free speech is all about. Where's the ACLU on this one, defending private broadcasters from the tyranny of government?
I can list several other examples but I need to get to work. Suffice it say that when it comes to free speech, free elections, and moral issues, liberals are all about doing the right thing - as long as the right thing is what they agree with. Otherwise, anything goes. For the conservatives this behavior is "hate speech" or "fascism" or "using the jackboot"; for liberals, it's called tolerance.

Friday, November 7, 2008

It's no secret to anyone who knows me that I voted against Obama. He is now the most thoroughly unqualified person to be president, getting elected on policies that have proven to be failures under Jimmy Carter, that have been proven wrong by the scientific community and that by his own admission will bankrupt entire industries and not just make us pay more in taxes, but will cost us hundreds of dollars more per year for our energy. He's also going to turn the abortion spigot on full blast so there will be fewer people in 20 years to pay for his increased entitlements so in a generation America will be as deep in the hole as France is today.

My vote wasn't one of party loyalty; rather it was based on beliefs. Before the election I took a quiz which, upon completion, compared my answers to the policies of Obama. My beliefs differed from Obama's on 48 of 48 issues. Sadly, according the Zogby and USA today polls from which the quiz questions were compiled, the majority of Americans differed with him on 48 of 48 issues as well, but we still elected him. It makes no sense. Some questions were broken out by income bracket, and even the low income respondents differed with him on 46 of 48, with the only 2 agreements being on raising top marginal tax rates and increasing entitlements. I just don't know what happened.

Three days after the election most pundits are saying that Obama, like Clinton, will go more centrist than left. So far his cabinet picks don't show much in the way of change or inspiring hope, but they are pretty consistent with his past (Chicago politics of reciprocity all the way). What's funny is the things I point out below make conservatives gasp and make liberals clap. I hate to say it, but I think Pat Buchanan was right - he will either make good on his many promises and be at odds with the majority of America (the rejection of gay marriage in California of all places - twice - serves as proof that America IS center-right) or he will move to the center and be at odds with his party. Either way there will be blow back. I liked Ann Coulter's take on it. She said "As Republicans we need to reach across the aisle and show the new Democratic president the same respect that the democrats and the media have shown the current Republican president. Tomorrow, if not sooner." In that vein, here's the post:

McCain, in the third debate, was reticent to call Obama a liar. However, as Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics. Obama deploys all three.

Here, in his own words, is his explanation of his relationship with ACORN: "Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved."

Here's what he's not telling you1:

  • In 1992, Obama directed Project Vote - an arm of ACORN that also encouraged voter registration. This means he's intimately familiar with their tactics.
  • Around the same time, Obama began teaching classes for "Future Leaders Identified by ACORN." This means he taught their future leaders - and guess what? 2008 is the future to those 1992 trainees.
  • In 1995, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois for its supposed failure to implement a federal law designed to make voter registration easier, and thus increasing the likelihood of voter fraud. This means that not only was he aware of their tactics, but he went to court to ensure that they could practice them!
  • Obama also supports them in a fiduciary manner:
  1. He joined two well-known boards with strong ties to ACORN - the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. Under Obama's watch, the Chicago ACORN branch received thousands of dollars in grants from both organizations.
  2. $832,000 given to Citizen's United, Inc to fund Acorn's "Get Out The Vote" campaign. Given all this support, don't be surprised if he claims ACORN as a dependent on his taxes (since he repeats so often that he hates paying them.)
  3. Obama accepted the endorsement of ACORN in 2008. In a press release touting the endorsement on his official campaign website, Obama says: "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career."
So here is a real clear example of what Obama says being different from what Obama does. At it's most benign, he's practicing the "sin of omission" - lying by not telling all of the truth. But - a sin of omission is still a sin! He may not have directed ACORN in this instance of voter manipulation, but he doesn't tell them to stop either. He's an accessory after the fact, he denies the depth of his involvement, therefore, I file this under the category of a "LIE."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said, adding, "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This is his famous response to Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher's question about his tax policies.

Obama has repeatedly thrown out this notion that he is giving 95% of Americans a tax cut. The facts do not bear this out. 30% of Americans, either by virtue of low income or the number of dependents, do not pay any taxes. You can't provide a reduction on $0.00. You can give a rebate, which is not a tax cut. He uses (successfully it turned out) semantics and statistics to fool people. What's even funnier that when Bush pushed through his $600 rebate for the 2007 tax year, Obama railed against it, as did his wife, saying rebates do not work. Michelle Obama asked what Bush expected people to do with the money - go out and buy earrings? (That tells you the kind of shopping she does! But Palin being a shopaholic - oooh, that's bad.) But when the rebate is Obama's idea, even if it's $100 less, well, suddenly it's a good thing.

Currently the 5% of income earners in America pay 80% of the income taxes collected annually. The top 10% pay 90% of the tax revenues. 30% don't pay income tax. That means that 60% of the population pays 10%. If the tax revenue were a dollar, and there were twenty people paying it, one person would pay $0.80, one person would pay $0.10, twelve people would pay less than $0.01, and 6 people would pay nothing. But in Obama's mind, that one person paying the $0.80 is not paying enough. This set up is, in his mind (and in his words), the "tragedy of the civil rights movement" - that the supreme court didn't mandate wealth redistribution. Never mind that the supreme court is there to enforce existing laws, not create new ones. This is the real Obama, and this is what we can expect of him - legislation that despite what he says to the contrary, will punish success.

Tomorrow - I'll talk about the deceptive "Freedom Of Choice" act that he promised will be the first piece of legislation he signs into law.


Thursday, November 6, 2008

The man makes me want to start smoking cigars

This guy is funny. Too bad more people didn't see his video before the election. Don't play out loud if the f-bomb can get you in trouble.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Things that make me go "hmmm..."

The Freedom Of Choice Act (has passed the house, will be debated in the Senate, and Obama has promised Planned Parenthood it will be the first piece of legislation he signs into law) provides that any woman of any age can get an abortion, even a minor without parental consent. At the same time, you can't get a tattoo without parental consent unless you're 18.

You have to wait five days (a "cooling off" period) to get a handgun - which might be used to kill someone - but you can get an abortion at will, with no waiting period, which kills someone every time.

You can't shoot an intruder in your own home unless your life is being threatened (and Obama wants to change that law to reduce your legal protection if you do shoot someone) but you can get an abortion if your financial or mental health, not physical health, will be threatened.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Will we have to reap the whirlwind?

From Rich Band of Investorplace regarding the plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (this doesn't even touch on the tax increases the RePO team - Reid-Pelosi-Obama - will enact):

According to the most recent Heritage Foundation Report, the results will be shocking…

  • One million jobs lost each year from 2010 – 2014
  • More than $100 billion lost in economic output during the same time period
  • An epic slowdown in wage and salary growth, and along with it the…
  • Evaporation of consumer spending
These are but a few of the dire predictions coming out from the financial pundits. We know for a fact that a lower tax rate stimulates the economy (look at the Irish miracle for proof) but against this Obama wants to cut off tax breaks for oil companies and those companies that export jobs overseas. If only it were that simple. Those added costs of doing business will be passed on to the consumer, so instead of trickle down economics we will have trickle up poverty. Those who can least afford increases in energy costs will be affected the worst...of course phase two is to take money from the people who are successful and give it to those people who are most affected by the manufactured spike in prices. That's right - Obama wants to punish companies for being successful, and when the poor get hit by the backlash, he'll penalize individuals for being successful. Jeremiah Wright called it the US of KKK A. We may as well call it the USSA - the United Socialist States of America.

I realize this is melodramatic, and I hope these predictions are wrong, but if they're right no one can say we didn't see it coming and no one that voted for Obama - that's you Mom and Dad - can complain about it. You all knew these issues were out there and chose to ignore them, so play the hand you're dealt. You heard it here first!

Sunday, August 24, 2008


Religion. The word by itself conjures up images in one's head based on one's background. When I wrote that word, religion, I had a mental picture of the black bible given to me as a child by the pastor at the 1st United Methodist Church. Other people may picture Christ on the cross, or the Virgin Mary, or the nun who hit their knuckles with a ruler in grade school. Other people think about religion and see only zealots and snake charmers. Still others see a waste of time, a black hole that conjures up no imagery whatsoever.

Liberal loons hate religion. They hate the fact that people have something to feel good about. As a certain progressive presidential candidate patronized, people "cling to" their religion. He said it like about people in depressed areas of Pennsylvania, I think in an attempt to show empathy for their plight, but he came off as an elitist. He made it sound like people are all drowning and will grab anything to survive. The subtext is that he views it as unnecessary - vote for him and you can quit clinging to religion. But a Harris Interactive Poll shows that 90% of people believe in God, so either there's a lot of bitter people in dire straights out there or not as many people are "clinging" to religion as some would have us believe. In times of trouble, people do turn to prayer for solace and comfort, and it's hard to find that a negative - unless you don't want people to have comfort, or don't want them to get it from God, but instead from some nanny-state entitlement.

The Founders established in this country freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, only a provision that the state can't mandate the religion people will follow. Henry VIII created the Church of England out of personal desperation; there would be no Church of America. America has survived on faith based capitalism for 232 years. Godless Soviet Communism died in less than 70. The monstrous Nazi regime lasted less than a decade. In the Ardennes in 1944, do you think God was in the foxholes with our men? I'll put a sawbuck down that they would tell you yes (Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame was a deeply religious man. His book Beyond Band Of Brothers goes into some detail about his beliefs.).

I'll close with a tale of divine intervention. In 1996 I was driving south out of Ft. Collins, Colorado in my 1984 Ford Tempo. I wasn't wearing my seat belt, and at the last red light at the edge of town, I was struck with a very powerful, specific sense of vulnerability. I've not felt anything like this before or since that afternoon, but on this day I had a vision of just how unprotected I was without my seat belt. I literally had chills run up and down my spine, I got goosebumps and I shivered. Almost compulsively, I fastened the seat belt and immediately the feeling went away. 20 minutes later I was in a head on collision with a small pickup truck that turned in front of me. The crash totalled both vehicles and sent the other driver to the hospital with multiple serious injuries. I walked away virtually unscathed, with only bruises on my hips and neck from the seat belt. The accident investigation unit, or AIU officer said that I most likely would have been killed had it not been for that seat belt. She was actually amazed that I was even able to stand under my own power.

Did God tell me to put the seat belt on? Was it Divine Intervention? I can offer no proof other than my own testimony. I believe without question that the urge to put on that seat belt came from outside of myself. The forcefulness of that feeling has never been duplicated in any situation since then, and I can't chalk it up to anything I can explain; nor can I believe, as skeptics will surely say, that it was a coincidence. Someone was looking out for me that day, and that's all I really need to know.

I will have upcoming blogs looking at the new religion the progressives have embraced, and why it has the capability to doom us all.

Question - have you experienced divine intervention in your life?

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Everyone Loves Ernie

Nancy Pelosi is up to no good again, and by that I mean spending time and effort on the wrong things, and showing some hypocrisy in the process.

Joey Cheek, American speed skater, is the founder of Team Darfur. Team Darfur is a group of athletes who are bringing attention to the plight of people suffering what some say is a carefully orchestrated genocide in the the African country of Sudan. Certainly it is a bad situation - over 200,000 people have died and over a million are homeless. Joey and a group of other non-competing athletes were planning on going to the Olympic games in Beijing to help spread awareness of the situation in Darfur. Less than 24 hours before his flight was to leave, his visa was revoked by the Chinese government. On his blog Cheek said "I find this very concerning because I believe that it is an effort to silence anyone who is even suspected of disagreeing with the Chinese government."

A couple of points: First, I'm sure what the implication is - does he think China is behind or supports the situation in Darfur? How exactly is he in disagreement with them on this issue? Second, China is a sovreign nation and their visas are issued and can be revoked at their discretion. If they don't want non-competing athletes there for the sole purpose of speaking out about human rights issues, so be it. Maybe this makes the freedoms we enjoy in America seem a little more free, no? Third, the Olympics are supposed to be a time to set aside politics and engage in the pure competition of sport. Now, everyone who watches is rooting for their nation, and victories in the games can have political overtones (1980 Lake Placid, anyone?) but for non-competing athletes to come for the express purpose of protesting is not, in my mind, in keeping with the spirit of the games. The 400+ members of team Darfur will disagree with me, but that's my stance. Lastly, the liberal left in America is still aghast that we toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, which over the last 30 years has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, systematically tortured and raped thousands more and attacked two neighboring countries...yet they're eager for us to get involved in Darfur and to tell the Chinese who they should and should not let into their country? You can't have it both ways, and yet like on most other issues, they want to play both sides of the fence.

Now segue to Nancy Pelosi. After she heard about the revocation of Cheek's visa, she urged President Bush to intervene, saying that the actions was part of an "orchestrated campaign to deny entry to individuals because of their political views." Hello? Pot and the kettle? This is coming from the same person who, the week before, refused to allow our elected representatives to vote on offshore drilling by turning off the lights in the senate chamber, shutting off the microphones, and running as fast as she could from Washington. Why did she do this? Well, I think it has something to do with denying individuals based on their political views.

There is some cause for celebration though. The book tour Pelosi fled Washington for was wildly unsuccessful. Her book "Know Your Power: A Message To America's Daughters" has not risen above a sales rank of 1333rd. It's worst ranking was 5226, and it currently is ranked the 3199th best selling book. Let's contrast that with Dick Morris' new book "Fleeced." It rose to number 5 on the best seller list, falling as low as 43rd and now is ranked 22nd. Even "Ernie - The Autobiography" written by Ernest Borgnine is currently ranked 969th. This means that, in terms of messages to America's daughters, America finds Ernest Borgnine's writing more relevant than Nancy Pelosi's. I know liberals think the average American is not very bright, but I think America got it right on this one!

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has morphed into Eric Cartman. When she was being pressured to go to an up or down vote on the topic of energy strategy, rather than debate the topic she did the adult thing and turned off the lights and left the room.

The House Republicans issued an open letter to her (read the whole thing here). Here's an excerpt:

"In protest of you and your Democrat majority not allowing an up or down vote on producing more American energy, we and our House Republican colleagues were prepared to take to the floor on Friday, August 1, 2008, and speak to the nation. Rather than allowing that to happen you and your Democrat majority adjourned the House, turned off the television cameras, shut off the microphones and turned out the lights. Nearly 50 House Republicans remained on the floor of the House in defiance speaking to those citizens gathered in the galleries and to the media."

Is that what our elected officials have sunk to? They'll kill the power and run rather than face a conflict? No wonder the Dems want to get out of Iraq...they can't even stomach a debate in the halls of Congress!

Even George Stephanopoulos was tough on her in an interview (read the transcript at the end of the open letter). After asking her 4 times why she won't allow a vote and receiving non-answers, he finally just says "So you won't allow a vote." I particularly like this exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as speaker, you promised in your commitment book, A New Direction for America, let me show our viewers, you said that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives. If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?

PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote, and they may get a vote. But I have tried, you know, we have serious policy issues in our country.

I completely agree. We do have serious policy issues in this country when one person can make unilateral decisions to keep our elected officials from doing their jobs.

In a final twist of irony, Pelosi scampered off to her 5 week vacation to promote her new book. Yes, that's right, rather than trying to help out her constituency, she is out trying to make herself some money. And what of the planet she's so desperate to save by not allowing us to use more fossil fuel? Apparently that matters little to her as she's traveling from Boston to Philadelphia to Miami to Michigan over the next few days. I guess carbon footprints only matter when they're not hers.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Will race be an issue? Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

One of the questions that the media has been throwing around is that is "will race be an issue?" in the coming election. Maybe not as much as people think. Pat Buchanan in an article "Whitey Need Not Apply" asserts that blacks are favoring Barack Obama over McCain 90% to 10%. While that certainly points to a bias, it's about the same percentage of blacks that voted for Al Gore in 2000. The bias is probably solidified by race, but can be traced to political party as well, and that should not surprise anyone.

If you read the rest of Buchanan's article, what is disturbing is the continuing trend of the left in America to continue to try to legislate a change in the dynamics of business. The group UNITY wants to have a forced number of racially diverse people in leadership positions in the media. That means anyone not white. They even go so far as to demand that the candidates be given the proper training for the leadership positions. Rather than hiring the most qualified candidate, which is how hiring should be done, they want to place someone in the role and then train them. Isn't that like putting someone on the Olympic team and entering them in 100 yard dash before knowing whether they can run or not? In business, as in sport, you can't afford to put the wrong person in a key position or the results suffer. That is why a proper vetting process - one that selects the strongest candidate, regardless of race, religion, or any other factor outside of capability - is so important. But Obama would have it otherwise.

From Buchanan's article:

"On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."

The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation."

Obama favors affirmative action "when it is properly structured" but doesn't explain what that structure is. Does this mean he favors one race or group of races over others? Given the audience to which he was speaking, I think it's a fair bet he does.

McCain wants to outlaw any bias based on race, gender or national origin. In other words, the best man (or woman) wins. I can only hope - and pray - that the same holds true in November.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Change - you can believe in! (if you believe you have it too easy now)

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

That's Barack Obama in his own words. The problem isn't supply, or too little refining capacity, or OPEC gouging the free world, it guessed it, US. This is the typical liberal battle cry - Blame America First. So if you like to drive something other than a Prius and live in comfort, you are the problem. And Barack is NOT going to help you. Remember that when you go to the polls.

In fact, remember this; Barack and the rest of the Democratic party WANT US TO SUFFER. They would love it if gas hits $5, $6 or $7 per gallon - as long it does it before November. The worse off we are going into the election, the more they get to blame Bush and everyone who supports him. Mark my words - the Democratic Congress (who get to take all of August off and will only "work" for a maximum of 160 days this year) WILL DO NOTHING until after the election. Even then, what they do will be to make the situation worse.

Obama and everyone in congress make over $160,000 per year. That's just salary. That doesn't take into account just about everything they spend money on is probably a deduction on their taxes so they pay less than the average person. It doesn't take into account book royalties or appearance fees for speeches. Do you think they give a shit about the price of gas? They can afford it. Remember that when you go to the polls.

Remember that in addition to making your energy costs worse, Barack will actively reach into your pockets for more tax money. Not only will everything cost more, you'll have less take home pay to cover those costs. But remember, if you like to live in comfort, drive an SUV, then you get what you deserve. So says Obama.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Will the Dems Listen to the people?

Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of drilling for oil in ANWR and the OCS as well as extracting oil from the oil shale reserves and Canadian oil sands. However, the Democrats in congress have blocked every attempt to increase our domestic supply of oil. Here's a video describing the situation:

I think the party that will win in November is the one that will make this the issue. Listen, if you want to pay $4, $5, $6 per gallon for gas, if you want your tax rates to increase by as much as 20% (7% for Social Security, 13% for the top marginal tax rate), if you want to pay double the taxes on capital gains (retiree's, listen up - that will hit you hard!!), if you want to see babies killed as they're being born (partial birth abortion) then maybe you're an Obama man. If you woke up this morning and thought to yourself "You know, I get to keep far too much of the money I work for. I wish there was a way I could give up more of it while never seeing anything in return," then you probably will vote for Obama. However, if any of these things don't sound good, then go with McCain. It's pretty simple, really.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Remember D-Day!!

I am a fan of history, particularly the first and second world wars. I find it fascinating to see the machinations that moved so many countries to send tens of millions of people to their death. World War Two, in particular, is fascinating because of the incredible acts of evil that were perpetrated by the Nazis. What could drive people - mothers, fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, working class men and women - to ignore the atrocities at the least, or participate in them at the worst? I don't know that a satisfactory answer can be derived from that question.

What I do know is that World War II was the last time the nation was united and committed to a cause. Even a few years later, in Korea, the people at home were deeply divided by the war. It grew worse in Vietnam and war has only served as polarizing issue since then. Attempting to explain the divided mindsets, John Keegan, in the book The First World War (it took me longer to read it than America was actually involved in the war!) postulates that the media has created this wedge. Had the media, with all the access to battlefield, the photographic and video technology of today, existed in 1918 no one in modern society would have ever considered going to war again.

There are differing philosophies espoused about war. Without doing any research, I believe it was Gandhi who said that you cannot simultaneously achieve peace while preparing for war. Another perspective - was it Sun Tzu? - holds that to have peace you must be prepared for war. I believe that war is not just a possibility, it's inevitable. As long as people want what other people have - land, wealth, or most of all, power - there will be conflict. If enough people want the same thing that conflict will become a war. Maybe I am a pessimist on this topic, but if all "civilized" society laid down it's arms, someone else will pick them up. But I digress.

During World War II the Allies had two very dynamic leaders at the helm. Winston Churchill was the prime minister of England. He was pushed out of politics after World War I and labeled a "war monger" by the more appeasement minded party. Many believe that if Churchill had been in power rather than Chamberlain in 1936 the war would have been averted. Churchill's way of plain speaking and rallying his country preserved it during the long Battle Of Britain. He kept the Nazi war machine in check long enough for the isolationist America to get pulled into the fray in 1941.

On the American side, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was beloved by the nation, having led us through the depression. Historians today dispute his true value to the future of our nation, but at the time he was America, being elected to four terms as President. His "Fireside chats" kept the nation calm - or at least informed - during the depression and the war. One of his chats was on June 6th, 1944 - D-Day. The tide of war changed this day, and the defeat of Nazi Germany became more certain from this point going forward. In fact, because of this mission the world would be forever different. On the 6th FDR broadcast a short message of prayer that served to inform the nation of the invasion and rally their support at a crucial time of the conflict. I've pasted the text of the broadcast below. To hear the audio in FDR's voice click here.
“My Fellow Americans:

“Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

“And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

“Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

“They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

“They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
“For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

“Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

“And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

“Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

“Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

“And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

“And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

“With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

“Thy will be done, Almighty God.