The election of Barack Obama as president has got me rethinking my political aspirations. I have always considered myself pretty much unelectable to any position above the level of county government. The president elect has given me new hope. (By the way, I had never even heard of The Office of the President Elect before Obama came around. What power does this office have, I wonder.) The media’s thorough vetting of Obama has revealed his life experiences to be eerily similar to my own. Check this out:
We’re the same age. Obama has two kids, as do I. Obama served several years in the State legislature and then the U.S. Senate while accomplishing nothing. I was on the City Council and then the County Board for several years and I didn’t get anything done either. Our knowledge of economics is comparable. I’ll admit I’m no expert. Obama may be highly educated but anyone who subscribes to Marx’s theory of surplus value doesn’t know shit about economics either. Foreign policy experience? Let’s score that nil-nil. Weird huh? Of course, there are differences. For instance, I’m not buddies with any former terrorists and my “spiritual advisor” is not a racist bigot with a stutter. The priest at my church has never screamed “god damn the U.S. of KKKwanza. And my dad was not a drunken philanderer with several wives. Beyond that, I think a reasonable person could conclude that I am just as qualified as Obama to be President of the United States. Our similar backgrounds, however, would not lead to similar governance.
THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
Obama and his lefty colleagues and supporters don’t seem to have any problem with a selective application of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Some Amendments, like the 9th and 10th, are just ignored. Other’s, through some linguistic voodoo, are interpreted as to provide a legal justification for some liberal cause. Only some lefty could read the 2nd Amendment and conclude that only the government can have guns. It is liberals that insist that rapists and murderers be provided air conditioned cells with cable T.V. because the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It’s time our side did a little creative interpretation of our own. My administration would start with the 1st Amendment, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will take the position that the specific listing of certain constraints on congress should not be construed to mean there are not others. In fact, for purposes of brevity and perhaps to clarify, I suggest we shorten it up to:
Congress shall make no law.
That ought to do it. Now that they have nothing to do, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank et.al. will be sent home immediately. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed, however, will be sequestered in a Motel 6 until he has written a personal letter of apology to every member of the armed forces for his deplorable and irresponsible comment that “The war in Iraq is lost” in 2007. He will then be sent back to Nevada on a Greyhound bus.
Now that my “Constitutional Dictatorship” is in place, we can start fixing things.
TO BE CONTINUED
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
THE GHOST OF COMMIES PAST
Now that Barack Obama has the presidency safely locked up, the ghost of commies past has decided to reappear. In an op-ed column published by Pravda, U.S.A., aka, The New York Times, Bill Ayers has endeavored to set the record straight. It seems that Ayers believes he was mischaracterized by the Main Stream Media in an effort to link Obama to an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Yea, right. The Main Stream Media were such truth seekers regarding Obama that half of the people I talk to never even heard of Bill Ayers. For those of you in this group, let me get you up to speed.
Bill Ayers was a radical rich white kid who dropped out of college to join the Students for a Democratic Society (A communist group for radical rich white kids). In 1970 he co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that advocated for peace in Southeast Asia by blowing things up in America. Ayers articulated the Weatherman philosophy as: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” More recently, he has stated that “It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.” Good one Bill. That was a real knee-slapper! The weathermen were responsible for bombings at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, the State Department and the New York City Police Headquarters to name a few of their targets. Ayers and his comrade, Bernardine Dohrn, went underground and lived as fugitives until 1980 when, like a bad zit, they resurfaced. The details of what happened next are too offensive for polite company but the bottom line is Dohrn got three years probation and a $1500 fine for her crimes and the charges against Ayers were a non-issue, having already been dropped due to a violation of the Warren Court ruling that “Good cops are prohibited from using extraordinary skill and every day common sense in the gathering of evidence against radical rich white kids.”
Free from justice, the happy couple was now able to get back to enjoying the fruits of other peoples labor. They quickly assimilated into the lefty culture of Chicago academia where Ayers is now a “distinguished professor of education” at the University of Illinois at Chicago and his charming wife is director of the Legal Clinic’s Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University. No, I’m not making up this crap! Oh-I forgot to mention that Ms. Dohrn is also quite the comedian. At a Students for a Democratic Society symposium (that’s those radical rich white kids again) in 1969, just after the Manson family murders, she told the audience: “Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach.” Ms. Dohrn has recently said of her remarks: “It was a joke.” Man, these guys crack me up!
So, this brings us to Ayers recent op-ed column in the New Lefty Times. After whining about those pit bulls in the Main Stream Media, he goes on to state some “facts”: “I never killed or injured anyone.” “In 1970 I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village.” Ayers doesn’t mention that this “accidental explosion” occurred while his three comrades were building one of his bombs. He says the Weathermen only placed “several small bombs” in empty offices. Small bombs? I wonder how Bill and Bernie would react to some radical Americans shooting up their house with 22’s. No big deal? That’s a very small caliber, after all. Ayers goes on to explain: “We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.” Sure Bill. Whatever makes you feel like a decent human being. The weathermen were the Keystone Cops of terrorists. Just because the only people they killed were three of their own doesn’t mean crap to me. Their incompetence does not absolve them of guilt. Ayers laments that “…We were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10 year war.”
I am really sick of the selective indignation of these American hating slugs. American troops were repeatedly put in untenable situations because of the tactics of the enemy(that would be the three million Vietnamese). The vast, vast majority of them fought with honor and courage, as American troops always have. Ayers and his comrades remained silent while the Khmer Rouge slaughtered two million of their fellow countrymen in four short years following the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Ayers looked the other way as Pol Pot murdered 25% of the entire Cambodian population through overwork, starvation and executions in an effort to achieve his communist paradise. No, Ayers would never criticize his philosophical brother.
Even the most casual observer can see that Obama and Ayers know each other. I suspect they have more in common than either is willing to admit. I really don’t care. The fact that Obama would even shake the bastard’s hand is enough of an indictment for me.
Bill Ayers was a radical rich white kid who dropped out of college to join the Students for a Democratic Society (A communist group for radical rich white kids). In 1970 he co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that advocated for peace in Southeast Asia by blowing things up in America. Ayers articulated the Weatherman philosophy as: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” More recently, he has stated that “It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.” Good one Bill. That was a real knee-slapper! The weathermen were responsible for bombings at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, the State Department and the New York City Police Headquarters to name a few of their targets. Ayers and his comrade, Bernardine Dohrn, went underground and lived as fugitives until 1980 when, like a bad zit, they resurfaced. The details of what happened next are too offensive for polite company but the bottom line is Dohrn got three years probation and a $1500 fine for her crimes and the charges against Ayers were a non-issue, having already been dropped due to a violation of the Warren Court ruling that “Good cops are prohibited from using extraordinary skill and every day common sense in the gathering of evidence against radical rich white kids.”
Free from justice, the happy couple was now able to get back to enjoying the fruits of other peoples labor. They quickly assimilated into the lefty culture of Chicago academia where Ayers is now a “distinguished professor of education” at the University of Illinois at Chicago and his charming wife is director of the Legal Clinic’s Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University. No, I’m not making up this crap! Oh-I forgot to mention that Ms. Dohrn is also quite the comedian. At a Students for a Democratic Society symposium (that’s those radical rich white kids again) in 1969, just after the Manson family murders, she told the audience: “Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach.” Ms. Dohrn has recently said of her remarks: “It was a joke.” Man, these guys crack me up!
So, this brings us to Ayers recent op-ed column in the New Lefty Times. After whining about those pit bulls in the Main Stream Media, he goes on to state some “facts”: “I never killed or injured anyone.” “In 1970 I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village.” Ayers doesn’t mention that this “accidental explosion” occurred while his three comrades were building one of his bombs. He says the Weathermen only placed “several small bombs” in empty offices. Small bombs? I wonder how Bill and Bernie would react to some radical Americans shooting up their house with 22’s. No big deal? That’s a very small caliber, after all. Ayers goes on to explain: “We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.” Sure Bill. Whatever makes you feel like a decent human being. The weathermen were the Keystone Cops of terrorists. Just because the only people they killed were three of their own doesn’t mean crap to me. Their incompetence does not absolve them of guilt. Ayers laments that “…We were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10 year war.”
I am really sick of the selective indignation of these American hating slugs. American troops were repeatedly put in untenable situations because of the tactics of the enemy(that would be the three million Vietnamese). The vast, vast majority of them fought with honor and courage, as American troops always have. Ayers and his comrades remained silent while the Khmer Rouge slaughtered two million of their fellow countrymen in four short years following the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Ayers looked the other way as Pol Pot murdered 25% of the entire Cambodian population through overwork, starvation and executions in an effort to achieve his communist paradise. No, Ayers would never criticize his philosophical brother.
Even the most casual observer can see that Obama and Ayers know each other. I suspect they have more in common than either is willing to admit. I really don’t care. The fact that Obama would even shake the bastard’s hand is enough of an indictment for me.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
SHOPKO TEACHER DAY
This past summer, Shopko held the 3rd annual “teacher discount day” at all their stores. A Shopko news release announcing the 1st “discount day” in 2006
states, in part: “Recognizing that teachers often use their personal funds to provide supplies for their classrooms, Shopko has announced that all teachers will receive a 15% discount on purchases for an entire day at Shopko.” The president of Shopko stated: “We wanted to reward teachers for the extra things they do for their students” and “This discount day is one way we can save teachers a little money…”.
Being a freedom loving American, I would never presume to tell Shopko what to do with
their own property. In fact, I think what they are doing for teachers is very nice. I would, however, be interested in knowing what percentage of dollars spent during this “discount day” are for classroom supplies verses personal items. Of course, I would also like to know what teachers actually do during all those “in service” days during the school year but I’m afraid these will remain mysteries.
In keeping with their social awareness and desire to help those that use personal funds to improve their work environment, I have a great idea for Shopko. Why not expand this program and have a special discount day for all private business owners and their employees! I think those of us in the private sector could use the discount every bit as much as teachers. Consider these numbers: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average annual wage for all occupations in Wisconsin was $38,070 in 2007 and the average annual wage for teachers was $44,250. Considering that teachers work roughly nine months a year, their salary equates to $59,000 for a full year. This number does not include the incredibly generous benefit package available to public school teachers. Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance literature indicates that Wisconsin school districts pay over 95% of the premium for health insurance and virtually all of the cost of retirement benefits. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, school districts pay over 35 cents in benefits for every dollar of salaries. Contrast this with private sector employees who have seen a steady increase in the percentage of premiums paid for health insurance often coupled with a decrease in the quality of coverage. This is not meant as an indictment of business owners. What choice do they have? They can’t unilaterally raise the price of their product to cover these costs. If a widget manufacturer raises his price and sales drop, he can’t whine to his costumers “You don’t care about widgets!” as the teachers union does with the often heard mantra “It’s about the kids!” every time they are trying to shove another tax increase down our throats. Besides, if it was really about the kids, you would think there would be some correlation between costs and benefits in education.
I encourage Shopko to expand this wonderful program to include those in the private sector as recognition that they are paying a substantial percentage of personal income to provide health care for their family along with increasingly confiscatory tax rates to pay for government largess.
states, in part: “Recognizing that teachers often use their personal funds to provide supplies for their classrooms, Shopko has announced that all teachers will receive a 15% discount on purchases for an entire day at Shopko.” The president of Shopko stated: “We wanted to reward teachers for the extra things they do for their students” and “This discount day is one way we can save teachers a little money…”.
Being a freedom loving American, I would never presume to tell Shopko what to do with
their own property. In fact, I think what they are doing for teachers is very nice. I would, however, be interested in knowing what percentage of dollars spent during this “discount day” are for classroom supplies verses personal items. Of course, I would also like to know what teachers actually do during all those “in service” days during the school year but I’m afraid these will remain mysteries.
In keeping with their social awareness and desire to help those that use personal funds to improve their work environment, I have a great idea for Shopko. Why not expand this program and have a special discount day for all private business owners and their employees! I think those of us in the private sector could use the discount every bit as much as teachers. Consider these numbers: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average annual wage for all occupations in Wisconsin was $38,070 in 2007 and the average annual wage for teachers was $44,250. Considering that teachers work roughly nine months a year, their salary equates to $59,000 for a full year. This number does not include the incredibly generous benefit package available to public school teachers. Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance literature indicates that Wisconsin school districts pay over 95% of the premium for health insurance and virtually all of the cost of retirement benefits. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, school districts pay over 35 cents in benefits for every dollar of salaries. Contrast this with private sector employees who have seen a steady increase in the percentage of premiums paid for health insurance often coupled with a decrease in the quality of coverage. This is not meant as an indictment of business owners. What choice do they have? They can’t unilaterally raise the price of their product to cover these costs. If a widget manufacturer raises his price and sales drop, he can’t whine to his costumers “You don’t care about widgets!” as the teachers union does with the often heard mantra “It’s about the kids!” every time they are trying to shove another tax increase down our throats. Besides, if it was really about the kids, you would think there would be some correlation between costs and benefits in education.
I encourage Shopko to expand this wonderful program to include those in the private sector as recognition that they are paying a substantial percentage of personal income to provide health care for their family along with increasingly confiscatory tax rates to pay for government largess.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
PC SHAKEDOWN
Score another one for the “fairness over freedom” crowd. Those who use on-line dating services will now be courting in a much more tolerant, albeit more ambiguous, environment. eHarmony, a huge on-line relationship service, just settled a discrimination lawsuit with the New Jersey Civil Rights Division. The settlement is the result of a 2005 complaint filed by some gay guy. What was the guy’s problem? It seems that eHarmony did not provide same-sex dating services. The settlement requires that eHarmony now cater to the “gay community.” While I am disappointed in the settlement, I sympathize with eHarmony’s position. Their attorney explained that they gave in because “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.” Yea, no kidding! In today’s America, sacred rights are often superseded by the politically correct cause du jour.
eHarmony was founded in 2000 by Neil Warren, PhD. Dr. Warren is a psychologist with a divinity degree and he has worked with Focus on the Family, a Christian based advocacy organization. After 35 years as a clinical psychologist and marriage counselor he decided to test his theory on compatibility as it relates to successful relationships. eHarmony did not match gay individuals because Dr. Warren has not done the same amount of research on same-sex match-making as he has done on heterosexual match-making. He also noted that eHarmony is about marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. Apparently it’s also against his religion as he states: “Where Focus on the Family and a lot of these other places come from is that there are six places in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong.”
Because eHarmony capitulated to this government coerced tolerance, we will never know what would have happened in court. I can tell you that, based on our right to freedom of association, a Society’s Ditch tribunal would dismiss this case with prejudice. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While not explicit in the amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of association is implicit in the meaning of the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. The Court has also ruled, in general, that freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association and that this freedom would be unconstitutionally burdened if the state required an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees. Seems pretty “straight” forward to me.
This goes back to a previous discussion here on the NATURE OF RIGHTS. The Founding Fathers believed that all people have fundamental and unalienable human rights against which the government is forbidden to trespass. Because every person has these rights they must be allowed to be exercised universally. If I claim a right that, when exercised, denies the exact same right to someone else, then this supposed right belongs only to me and is not a fundamental human right. Now, if the state decides that my “made-up” right supersedes your rights, I guess that would be good for me but it will create innumerable problems with competing rights. That is exactly what happened in New Jersey. What’s next? Can I walk into a vegetarian restaurant and demand they serve me a big steak? Will the Anti-Defamation League be required to provide links to Aryan Nation literature on their web site? Maybe the NAACP will be required to accept Klansmen as members.
I am curious why this gay guy brought the suit in the first place. It’s not like eHarmony is the only on-line dating service. I’m sure there are hundreds of gay sites available. NOTE: I’m only guessing here. I will go to great lengths to insure accuracy but I draw the line at cruising gay web sites. Anyway, it’s not like the guy has been harmed or has no other options. Could it be that eHarmony is unique in that it is a Christian based site that focuses not on “hooking-up” but on marriage?
I can see where this is headed. In the next few years, some gay group is going to sue eHarmony again because their “gay relationships” aren’t as successful as their straight ones. I don’t know what constitutes a “successful” relationship in the gay “community” and I suspect neither does Dr. Warren.
eHarmony was founded in 2000 by Neil Warren, PhD. Dr. Warren is a psychologist with a divinity degree and he has worked with Focus on the Family, a Christian based advocacy organization. After 35 years as a clinical psychologist and marriage counselor he decided to test his theory on compatibility as it relates to successful relationships. eHarmony did not match gay individuals because Dr. Warren has not done the same amount of research on same-sex match-making as he has done on heterosexual match-making. He also noted that eHarmony is about marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. Apparently it’s also against his religion as he states: “Where Focus on the Family and a lot of these other places come from is that there are six places in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong.”
Because eHarmony capitulated to this government coerced tolerance, we will never know what would have happened in court. I can tell you that, based on our right to freedom of association, a Society’s Ditch tribunal would dismiss this case with prejudice. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While not explicit in the amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of association is implicit in the meaning of the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. The Court has also ruled, in general, that freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association and that this freedom would be unconstitutionally burdened if the state required an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees. Seems pretty “straight” forward to me.
This goes back to a previous discussion here on the NATURE OF RIGHTS. The Founding Fathers believed that all people have fundamental and unalienable human rights against which the government is forbidden to trespass. Because every person has these rights they must be allowed to be exercised universally. If I claim a right that, when exercised, denies the exact same right to someone else, then this supposed right belongs only to me and is not a fundamental human right. Now, if the state decides that my “made-up” right supersedes your rights, I guess that would be good for me but it will create innumerable problems with competing rights. That is exactly what happened in New Jersey. What’s next? Can I walk into a vegetarian restaurant and demand they serve me a big steak? Will the Anti-Defamation League be required to provide links to Aryan Nation literature on their web site? Maybe the NAACP will be required to accept Klansmen as members.
I am curious why this gay guy brought the suit in the first place. It’s not like eHarmony is the only on-line dating service. I’m sure there are hundreds of gay sites available. NOTE: I’m only guessing here. I will go to great lengths to insure accuracy but I draw the line at cruising gay web sites. Anyway, it’s not like the guy has been harmed or has no other options. Could it be that eHarmony is unique in that it is a Christian based site that focuses not on “hooking-up” but on marriage?
I can see where this is headed. In the next few years, some gay group is going to sue eHarmony again because their “gay relationships” aren’t as successful as their straight ones. I don’t know what constitutes a “successful” relationship in the gay “community” and I suspect neither does Dr. Warren.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
POST ELECTION CATHARSIS-PART 2
In a previous column on this blog, I expressed concern over some of the people and groups that were rooting for Barack Obama in the presidential election. I suggested that if brutal dictators, fanatical terrorist groups and rogue nations supported Obama that maybe he wasn’t our best choice. Now that I have seen the light, I’m feeling pretty foolish. Because all these nut-jobs like our future president, he will be able to effect some real change.
Congressperson Barney Frank, noted defense expert in rearguard operations, has been advocating a 25% reduction in defense spending. The esteemed Ms. Frank may get his way with a President Obama. During the campaign, Mr. Obama outlined his plan to generate real savings in defense spending. Some of the salient points:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”Since it takes billions in investments to actually develop a “proven”
missile defense system this should save a bunch.
“I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future
combat systems”Do we really need all these high tech and expensive systems? Maybe we
can develop our own low cost IED program under the guidance of demolition
expert Bill Ayers.
“I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. I will not
develop new nuclear weapons.”I see where the Russians recently tested a new class of ICBM’s. The
Iranians are hell bent on developing nuclear weapons and of course there
are the Chinese and those whacky North Koreans. Seems like the perfect
time for us to lead by example and shut our nuclear program down.
I realize that many people believe that now is not the time to slash defense spending. Because of the myriad threats we face, they think we need to maintain our military superiority. Might I suggest that these people are underestimating President Elect Obama.
Thanks to Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, peace through appeasement has gotten a bad rap. Maybe it just takes a special man to make appeasement work. Because of Barack Obama’s magnetic personality and unsurpassed oratory skills, we will be able to achieve “peace for our time” with a defense budget comparable to France’s. Who cares if the demographics of the Middle East change a little bit.
President Elect Obama has a plan for all the money we will be saving on defense. In a July 2008 speech, Mr. Obama announced his plan for a “Civilian National Security Force.” He stated: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
The numbers are a bit vague but let’s make some assumptions. The 2008 Department of Defense budget was approximately 480 billion. With the cuts President Elect Obama is proposing, I think it is reasonable to think that he could get this down to 300 billion. Using government math, this means he only needs to come up with an additional 120 billion for his “Civilian National Security Force.”
Some people might question the need for a massive new security force when we already have local and state police, the FBI, DHS, DEA and the NSA. According to his web site, he will establish a Classroom Corps, a Health Corps, a Clean Energy Corps, a Veterans Corps and a Homeland Security Corps. I think Mr. Obama is talking about a different kind of security. With his brilliant theory of “mandatory volunteerism,” Mr. Obama is proposing to “Require 100 hours of service in college.” He will grant a $4000 tax credit to those “volunteers” for an effective wage of $40 an hour.
I’ll admit that I’m not real clear on what all these “corps” will be doing but wouldn’t it be enlightening to be educated on the trans-fat content of your Big Mac meal by some bright eyed “Health Corps” volunteer the next time you are at McDonalds? And won’t you be filled with hope when the young “Clean Energy Corps” volunteer demands that you buy carbon credits as you are filling up your gas guzzling SUV?
Yes, change is coming!
Congressperson Barney Frank, noted defense expert in rearguard operations, has been advocating a 25% reduction in defense spending. The esteemed Ms. Frank may get his way with a President Obama. During the campaign, Mr. Obama outlined his plan to generate real savings in defense spending. Some of the salient points:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”Since it takes billions in investments to actually develop a “proven”
missile defense system this should save a bunch.
“I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future
combat systems”Do we really need all these high tech and expensive systems? Maybe we
can develop our own low cost IED program under the guidance of demolition
expert Bill Ayers.
“I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. I will not
develop new nuclear weapons.”I see where the Russians recently tested a new class of ICBM’s. The
Iranians are hell bent on developing nuclear weapons and of course there
are the Chinese and those whacky North Koreans. Seems like the perfect
time for us to lead by example and shut our nuclear program down.
I realize that many people believe that now is not the time to slash defense spending. Because of the myriad threats we face, they think we need to maintain our military superiority. Might I suggest that these people are underestimating President Elect Obama.
Thanks to Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, peace through appeasement has gotten a bad rap. Maybe it just takes a special man to make appeasement work. Because of Barack Obama’s magnetic personality and unsurpassed oratory skills, we will be able to achieve “peace for our time” with a defense budget comparable to France’s. Who cares if the demographics of the Middle East change a little bit.
President Elect Obama has a plan for all the money we will be saving on defense. In a July 2008 speech, Mr. Obama announced his plan for a “Civilian National Security Force.” He stated: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
The numbers are a bit vague but let’s make some assumptions. The 2008 Department of Defense budget was approximately 480 billion. With the cuts President Elect Obama is proposing, I think it is reasonable to think that he could get this down to 300 billion. Using government math, this means he only needs to come up with an additional 120 billion for his “Civilian National Security Force.”
Some people might question the need for a massive new security force when we already have local and state police, the FBI, DHS, DEA and the NSA. According to his web site, he will establish a Classroom Corps, a Health Corps, a Clean Energy Corps, a Veterans Corps and a Homeland Security Corps. I think Mr. Obama is talking about a different kind of security. With his brilliant theory of “mandatory volunteerism,” Mr. Obama is proposing to “Require 100 hours of service in college.” He will grant a $4000 tax credit to those “volunteers” for an effective wage of $40 an hour.
I’ll admit that I’m not real clear on what all these “corps” will be doing but wouldn’t it be enlightening to be educated on the trans-fat content of your Big Mac meal by some bright eyed “Health Corps” volunteer the next time you are at McDonalds? And won’t you be filled with hope when the young “Clean Energy Corps” volunteer demands that you buy carbon credits as you are filling up your gas guzzling SUV?
Yes, change is coming!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
POST ELECTION CATHARSIS
The long fortnight of anger and despair is over. Thanks to Dr. Dan, psychiatrist to the myopic and disenfranchised conservative, I have emerged from the dark abyss into the light of hope and change. I have a new bounce in my step and I smile a lot now. His subtle yet effective therapy has enabled me to cast aside my preconceived notions and inherent distrust of Barack Obama. No longer will I view President Elect Obama through my personal right angle prism.
Noting that Obama captured 53% of the popular vote, Dr. Dan encouraged me to get off my high horse and to consider that this vast majority may be right. We live in a democracy, after all. Well, actually, we don’t but there I go with the negativity again. Once I was able to get over my hang-ups with the sanctity of life and the constitution, Obama’s brilliance and compassion became obvious. I am now able to understand and appreciate Obama’s positions on a host of important issues.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT (FOCA)
The future president, speaking at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, stated that: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act.”
FOCA was first introduced in 1989 when some in congress feared that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. FOCA’s main goals are to create a “fundamental right to abortion” and to eliminate any Federal, State or Local government action that would limit access to abortion. FOCA has never been made law but it has been reintroduced several times since 1989. The most recent version was introduced in 2007 following the Supreme Court decision upholding the Federal ban on partial birth-abortion. This new version includes language characterizing the ban on partial-birth abortion as a barrier that hindered “the ability of women to participate in the economic and social life of the Nation.” While I admit I don’t see the connection, President Elect Obama certainly does. FOCA will nullify all pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has ruled to be permissible under Roe v. Wade. No longer will Catholic hospitals be allowed to decline to provide or pay for abortions. Bans on government funding of abortions will go away. And FOCA hasn’t forgotten about the girls either! Parental consent or notification statutes that have been used by over zealous parents as a tool to deny access to abortion for their minor daughters will be a thing of the past. No longer will a young girl face the trauma of telling her parents that she is pregnant. She will be able to seek unbiased and professional counsel from a trained abortionist at the local Planned Parenthood clinic. Such a serious and potentially embarrassing situation in a young girl’s life cannot be left to the vagaries of over-bearing parents and scheming family members. And cost will not be an issue because the government will pay for everything!
Finally, we will have a President that understands the challenges faced by young girls in contemporary America. How is an awkward 15 year-old freshman supposed to get a date with the star quarterback if she has to worry about the consequences of “putting out” for the stud? Like President Elect Obama said, in reference to his daughters: “I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Weaker Presidents have failed to sign FOCA into law but a new day is dawning in America! President Elect Obama has shown the strength to provide leadership on this seminal piece of legislation.
TO BE CONTINUED
Noting that Obama captured 53% of the popular vote, Dr. Dan encouraged me to get off my high horse and to consider that this vast majority may be right. We live in a democracy, after all. Well, actually, we don’t but there I go with the negativity again. Once I was able to get over my hang-ups with the sanctity of life and the constitution, Obama’s brilliance and compassion became obvious. I am now able to understand and appreciate Obama’s positions on a host of important issues.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT (FOCA)
The future president, speaking at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, stated that: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act.”
FOCA was first introduced in 1989 when some in congress feared that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. FOCA’s main goals are to create a “fundamental right to abortion” and to eliminate any Federal, State or Local government action that would limit access to abortion. FOCA has never been made law but it has been reintroduced several times since 1989. The most recent version was introduced in 2007 following the Supreme Court decision upholding the Federal ban on partial birth-abortion. This new version includes language characterizing the ban on partial-birth abortion as a barrier that hindered “the ability of women to participate in the economic and social life of the Nation.” While I admit I don’t see the connection, President Elect Obama certainly does. FOCA will nullify all pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has ruled to be permissible under Roe v. Wade. No longer will Catholic hospitals be allowed to decline to provide or pay for abortions. Bans on government funding of abortions will go away. And FOCA hasn’t forgotten about the girls either! Parental consent or notification statutes that have been used by over zealous parents as a tool to deny access to abortion for their minor daughters will be a thing of the past. No longer will a young girl face the trauma of telling her parents that she is pregnant. She will be able to seek unbiased and professional counsel from a trained abortionist at the local Planned Parenthood clinic. Such a serious and potentially embarrassing situation in a young girl’s life cannot be left to the vagaries of over-bearing parents and scheming family members. And cost will not be an issue because the government will pay for everything!
Finally, we will have a President that understands the challenges faced by young girls in contemporary America. How is an awkward 15 year-old freshman supposed to get a date with the star quarterback if she has to worry about the consequences of “putting out” for the stud? Like President Elect Obama said, in reference to his daughters: “I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Weaker Presidents have failed to sign FOCA into law but a new day is dawning in America! President Elect Obama has shown the strength to provide leadership on this seminal piece of legislation.
TO BE CONTINUED
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
THE FAMILY
The American family provides a good metaphor for the conservative and liberal conditions. I’m talking about the traditional family. Not one of those “Jimmy has two mommies” lifestyle arrangements. This family has a mom and a dad and a few kids.
Conservatives are represented by the parents, liberals by the children. The parents are charged with keeping the family safe and also working so they can provide food and shelter and other essentials. Because of their hard work and the fact that they live in the greatest country on earth, the parents are often able to buy luxuries for the family. The kids are occasionally consulted on these purchases but the final decision rests with the parents. Kids are not good at making rational decisions and will too often act only in their narrow self interest. Besides, mom and dad are paying for it!
Because children cannot protect themselves, the parents make sure they are safe.
Kids often don’t recognize even obvious danger. They could be at the edge of a cliff,
picking daisies, not even aware that they are one step from disaster. The parents are there to pull them back from the precipice, saving them from their foolish wandering.
As kids grow up, they are expected to do some minor work (chores) around the house. In later years they are encouraged to get actual paying jobs outside the home. The parents do this because they know that children are not born with an innate appreciation of money. If kids continue to get money from their parents, their appreciation never develops while their reliance on it grows. Work also helps children learn responsibility
and develop skills. As their skills improve this fosters the development of genuine self esteem and pride in accomplishment. These are often trying times for both the kids and the parents. Kids will often complain about being under paid and will sometimes fail at things they try. This brings no joy to the parents but, as responsible adults, they know that telling their kids they are doing great at something when in reality they suck will only hurt them in the long run.
Childhood should be just a whacky phase where silly ideas are developed by those unfettered by the constraints of reality. Consistent guidance is required to ensure proper development. Kids will often lie to cover their ass or to hide their true intentions. Left to their own devices, kids can cause havoc and create messes that the parents have to clean up.
Ideally, all children would grow up and become responsible adults. Unfortunately, this is not the case. For some reason, way too many kids never fully mature either intellectually or morally and they become liberals with voting rights. Dangerous, indeed, but that is a topic for another day.
Conservatives are represented by the parents, liberals by the children. The parents are charged with keeping the family safe and also working so they can provide food and shelter and other essentials. Because of their hard work and the fact that they live in the greatest country on earth, the parents are often able to buy luxuries for the family. The kids are occasionally consulted on these purchases but the final decision rests with the parents. Kids are not good at making rational decisions and will too often act only in their narrow self interest. Besides, mom and dad are paying for it!
Because children cannot protect themselves, the parents make sure they are safe.
Kids often don’t recognize even obvious danger. They could be at the edge of a cliff,
picking daisies, not even aware that they are one step from disaster. The parents are there to pull them back from the precipice, saving them from their foolish wandering.
As kids grow up, they are expected to do some minor work (chores) around the house. In later years they are encouraged to get actual paying jobs outside the home. The parents do this because they know that children are not born with an innate appreciation of money. If kids continue to get money from their parents, their appreciation never develops while their reliance on it grows. Work also helps children learn responsibility
and develop skills. As their skills improve this fosters the development of genuine self esteem and pride in accomplishment. These are often trying times for both the kids and the parents. Kids will often complain about being under paid and will sometimes fail at things they try. This brings no joy to the parents but, as responsible adults, they know that telling their kids they are doing great at something when in reality they suck will only hurt them in the long run.
Childhood should be just a whacky phase where silly ideas are developed by those unfettered by the constraints of reality. Consistent guidance is required to ensure proper development. Kids will often lie to cover their ass or to hide their true intentions. Left to their own devices, kids can cause havoc and create messes that the parents have to clean up.
Ideally, all children would grow up and become responsible adults. Unfortunately, this is not the case. For some reason, way too many kids never fully mature either intellectually or morally and they become liberals with voting rights. Dangerous, indeed, but that is a topic for another day.
Monday, November 3, 2008
LITMUS TESTS
We often hear the term “litmus test” whenever a Republican president nominates someone for the Supreme Court. Liberals always whine that conservatives have a pro-life litmus test for judges. Well, yeah, we do. For conservatives, the right to life is not a subject for debate and there is no room for compromise. The conservative philosophy has as its foundation the right to life. Liberals decry the litmus test as a simple minded approach to complex issues. Liberals fancy themselves as deep thinkers who engage in thoughtful consideration of all the nuances of a particular issue. Yeah right. The fact that a Democratic president would never nominate a pro-life person to the Supreme Court is evidence that they have litmus tests also.
I have several litmus tests that come into play at election time. With the presidential race getting near the end, I would like to demonstrate how these tests have helped me decide who to vote for.
LITMUS TEST NO. 1
Pro-life or pro-abortion?
This test supersedes all others. If the candidate is not pro-life than I will never vote for him. I’ve done a lot of crappy things in my life and I don’t need to add “supporter of killing babies” to the list.
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAIN’S GRADE: PASS
LITMUS TEST NO. 2
Enemy endorsements
Call me a right wing extremist but being endorsed by murderous thugs, maniacal dictators and terrorists does not help a guy get my vote. It is frightening to me who is saying nice things about Obama and in many cases offering their outright endorsement.
The following groups and individuals are apparently also looking for “change”.
HAMAS (Palestinian terrorist group)
“We don’t mind-actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will win the election…” I would prefer that these bastards not like our president. In fact, I believe it would be a good thing if these evil men were scared shitless of our president.
IRAN
Iran’s leadership has expressed “great pleasure” at the prospect of a Barack Obama presidency. One of those compassionate and reasonable imam’s over there said “If Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation.” Well, isn’t that just marvelous. By the way, can someone tell me why a country that has a zillion barrels of oil feels the need to develop nuclear sources for energy? Our next president is going to have to deal with these guys.
AL-QAEDA
Just last week Al-Qaeda expressed hope that Bush and the Republicans would be humiliated in the upcoming elections. Who’s writing their press releases? The DNC?
I have a little rule of thumb-If it makes Al-Qaeda happy, I’m against it.
FIDEL CASTRO
Castro has called Obama “the most advanced candidate” in the race. Yeah, that Fidel is an expert at advancement. Just look how far Cuba has come since he took over 50 years ago.
MOAMMAR QADDAFI (de-facto leader of Libya)
President Reagan kicked his ass into obscurity but Obama seems to have brought him back. Referring to Obama, Qaddafi said “We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all of Africa is behind him…” Whatever.
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAIN’S GRADE: PASS
LITMUS TEST NO. 3
Teacher union endorsement
The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) is the largest teacher’s union in Wisconsin. I could be in a coma for six months and wake up on election day not knowing anything about the candidates or issues. If I had only 5 minutes to decide who to vote for, I would go to WEAC’s web site and find out who they endorse and then vote for the other guy. This is a rock solid test for me. I have never agreed with any significant position WEAC has taken. I’m sure you’ve heard their slogan “Every kid deserves a great school.” What a bunch of crap. The policies they support and the legislation they lobby for seem more directed at “Every teacher deserves a great job with no performance standards and parents should just shut the hell up.”
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAINS GRADE: PASS
LITMUS TEST NO. 4
Socialists, commies and assorted assholes
If these people want it, I don’t.
LOUIS FARRAKHAN – leader of the Nation of Islam
BLACK PANTHERS – Marxist/Maoist African-American organization
JODI EVANS – Co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink
JANE FONDA – The bitch is back
SEAN PENN, et al – Hollywood stars that confuse fame with intelligence.
COMMUNIST PARTY USA – Worked so well in Russia, why don’t we try it?
PLANNED PARENTHOOD – Abortion, Inc.
BILL AYERS – Domestic terrorist, socialist and friend of Obama.
ARAB AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK – No thanks.
All of these individuals or groups support Barack Obama.
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAIN’S GRADE: PASS
There you have it. Four reasons among many why I will be voting for John McCain.
I have several litmus tests that come into play at election time. With the presidential race getting near the end, I would like to demonstrate how these tests have helped me decide who to vote for.
LITMUS TEST NO. 1
Pro-life or pro-abortion?
This test supersedes all others. If the candidate is not pro-life than I will never vote for him. I’ve done a lot of crappy things in my life and I don’t need to add “supporter of killing babies” to the list.
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAIN’S GRADE: PASS
LITMUS TEST NO. 2
Enemy endorsements
Call me a right wing extremist but being endorsed by murderous thugs, maniacal dictators and terrorists does not help a guy get my vote. It is frightening to me who is saying nice things about Obama and in many cases offering their outright endorsement.
The following groups and individuals are apparently also looking for “change”.
HAMAS (Palestinian terrorist group)
“We don’t mind-actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will win the election…” I would prefer that these bastards not like our president. In fact, I believe it would be a good thing if these evil men were scared shitless of our president.
IRAN
Iran’s leadership has expressed “great pleasure” at the prospect of a Barack Obama presidency. One of those compassionate and reasonable imam’s over there said “If Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation.” Well, isn’t that just marvelous. By the way, can someone tell me why a country that has a zillion barrels of oil feels the need to develop nuclear sources for energy? Our next president is going to have to deal with these guys.
AL-QAEDA
Just last week Al-Qaeda expressed hope that Bush and the Republicans would be humiliated in the upcoming elections. Who’s writing their press releases? The DNC?
I have a little rule of thumb-If it makes Al-Qaeda happy, I’m against it.
FIDEL CASTRO
Castro has called Obama “the most advanced candidate” in the race. Yeah, that Fidel is an expert at advancement. Just look how far Cuba has come since he took over 50 years ago.
MOAMMAR QADDAFI (de-facto leader of Libya)
President Reagan kicked his ass into obscurity but Obama seems to have brought him back. Referring to Obama, Qaddafi said “We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all of Africa is behind him…” Whatever.
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAIN’S GRADE: PASS
LITMUS TEST NO. 3
Teacher union endorsement
The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) is the largest teacher’s union in Wisconsin. I could be in a coma for six months and wake up on election day not knowing anything about the candidates or issues. If I had only 5 minutes to decide who to vote for, I would go to WEAC’s web site and find out who they endorse and then vote for the other guy. This is a rock solid test for me. I have never agreed with any significant position WEAC has taken. I’m sure you’ve heard their slogan “Every kid deserves a great school.” What a bunch of crap. The policies they support and the legislation they lobby for seem more directed at “Every teacher deserves a great job with no performance standards and parents should just shut the hell up.”
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAINS GRADE: PASS
LITMUS TEST NO. 4
Socialists, commies and assorted assholes
If these people want it, I don’t.
LOUIS FARRAKHAN – leader of the Nation of Islam
BLACK PANTHERS – Marxist/Maoist African-American organization
JODI EVANS – Co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink
JANE FONDA – The bitch is back
SEAN PENN, et al – Hollywood stars that confuse fame with intelligence.
COMMUNIST PARTY USA – Worked so well in Russia, why don’t we try it?
PLANNED PARENTHOOD – Abortion, Inc.
BILL AYERS – Domestic terrorist, socialist and friend of Obama.
ARAB AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK – No thanks.
All of these individuals or groups support Barack Obama.
OBAMA’S GRADE: FAIL MCCAIN’S GRADE: PASS
There you have it. Four reasons among many why I will be voting for John McCain.
MSLIB - BREAKING NEWS
Dan Blather, lead political correspondent for mslib is reporting today that he has uncovered original photocopies of letters sent by John McCain to his father during the time he was allegedly a POW in Vietnam. Shockingly, the letters were written on stationary from the Hanoi Holiday Inn. This contradicts previous reports from FOX news that McCain was “staying” at the infamous Hanoi Hilton. This is a bombshell because the Vietcong Ministry of Tourism has given the Holiday Inn it’s highest rating at 5 stars while the Hilton checked in at a pedestrian 3 stars. The intrepid Mr. Rather did not have time to check his sources but he is willing to stake his reputation on the report’s veracity. Since the election is tomorrow, there will be no follow up to this
Monday, October 27, 2008
JUDGING OBAMA
The next president will probably be nominating one and perhaps two new supreme
court judges. John Paul Stevens is 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. Add in the hundreds of potential nominees for the various federal courts and this becomes, in my
opinion, a major issue in the presidential race.
In remarks on the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, Barack Obama
stated that he was voting against the Roberts nomination. As near as I can tell, Obama
thought that Judge Roberts was qualified to sit on the highest court in the land but he was
concerned about the depth and breadth of his empathy and what was in the judges heart.
He felt that Judge Roberts had too often “used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”
In a speech given at a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007, Obama expanded on this
saying: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like
to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or
African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going
to be selecting my judges.” Excuse me, but what in the heck does that mean? I imagine that many of you, like me, don’t belong to any of the “special groups” he mentioned. Are
the people in his selected groups always the weak and the rest of us always the strong?
Suppose some poor, African-American, gay guy breaks into my house to steal my stuff.
Then suppose my guard dog attacks and injures him. Then the guy sues me for mental anguish or something. If this case gets in front of an Obama judge, I’m thinking I’m in big trouble. Middle aged, middle class, white guy against a guy with the “special group” trifecta. A judge meeting Obama’s criteria for empathy and heart is going to whack me pretty hard.
Now, a different scenario. Suppose , after going to church on Sunday, I decide to shoot
my guns. (I live in the Midwest, that’s what we do) Because I’m a knucklehead, I shoot
myself in the foot. I decide to sue the gun manufacturer for pain and suffering. Now here the dynamic changes. I’m sure that I would be considered the weak party because
how can a big, bad gun company ever be considered anything but strong in Obamaland?
So, regardless of the merits of my lawsuit, I should be in for a big payday with an empathetic, big hearted judge.
There are innumerable situations that don’t fit Obam’s template. What if an old guy sues
a disabled guy? Or a teenage mom goes after a gay guy? With Obama’s level of hubris,
I’m sure he would be comfortable being the final arbiter in these difficult cases. But that
is not how it’s suppose to work. Obama cannot be allowed to choose which “team” judges play for. Judges aren’t suppose to play at all. They’re job is to umpire and to hold both sides accountable to the same set of rules. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
court judges. John Paul Stevens is 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. Add in the hundreds of potential nominees for the various federal courts and this becomes, in my
opinion, a major issue in the presidential race.
In remarks on the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, Barack Obama
stated that he was voting against the Roberts nomination. As near as I can tell, Obama
thought that Judge Roberts was qualified to sit on the highest court in the land but he was
concerned about the depth and breadth of his empathy and what was in the judges heart.
He felt that Judge Roberts had too often “used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”
In a speech given at a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007, Obama expanded on this
saying: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like
to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or
African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going
to be selecting my judges.” Excuse me, but what in the heck does that mean? I imagine that many of you, like me, don’t belong to any of the “special groups” he mentioned. Are
the people in his selected groups always the weak and the rest of us always the strong?
Suppose some poor, African-American, gay guy breaks into my house to steal my stuff.
Then suppose my guard dog attacks and injures him. Then the guy sues me for mental anguish or something. If this case gets in front of an Obama judge, I’m thinking I’m in big trouble. Middle aged, middle class, white guy against a guy with the “special group” trifecta. A judge meeting Obama’s criteria for empathy and heart is going to whack me pretty hard.
Now, a different scenario. Suppose , after going to church on Sunday, I decide to shoot
my guns. (I live in the Midwest, that’s what we do) Because I’m a knucklehead, I shoot
myself in the foot. I decide to sue the gun manufacturer for pain and suffering. Now here the dynamic changes. I’m sure that I would be considered the weak party because
how can a big, bad gun company ever be considered anything but strong in Obamaland?
So, regardless of the merits of my lawsuit, I should be in for a big payday with an empathetic, big hearted judge.
There are innumerable situations that don’t fit Obam’s template. What if an old guy sues
a disabled guy? Or a teenage mom goes after a gay guy? With Obama’s level of hubris,
I’m sure he would be comfortable being the final arbiter in these difficult cases. But that
is not how it’s suppose to work. Obama cannot be allowed to choose which “team” judges play for. Judges aren’t suppose to play at all. They’re job is to umpire and to hold both sides accountable to the same set of rules. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
Monday, October 20, 2008
MARX FOR OBAMA
As I have discussed previously, liberals are full of wacky and often dangerous ideas. They have beliefs that are antithetical to the truly American philosophy of individual rights and freedom. Because most clear headed Americans find liberal ideas and beliefs offensive, liberal politicians need to be good bullshitters. And, if you are going to run for the highest office in the land, you need to be an expert. Barack Obama is a master of obfuscation and deceit. Sure, his challenge is made easier by a fawning media, but there is no denying his oratory skills. But, it’s a long campaign and even Obama screws up on occasion and we are able to get a glimpse of the real man. I’m not talking about routine gaffes, like his initial reaction to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. While their homeland was being overrun by Russian tanks, Obama encouraged the Georgians to “take it easy”. He issued several statements calling for the UN Security Council to pass resolutions condemning the Russian aggression and for economic sanctions against them. Apparently, Obama did not know that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has veto powers. I’m pretty sure that the Russkies wouldn’t go along with those types of resolutions. For a man who wants to be president, this shows an appalling lack of knowledge in foreign affairs. Apparently, it hasn’t hurt him much. Knowledge can be gained with experience and it seems that many Americans aren’t concerned that Obama will be getting his experience while he is on the job, during a time of war, no less.
Lack of knowledge and experience is bad enough, but what concerns me even more is Obama’s underlying political philosophy as revealed during his brief moments of candor. In a debate with Hillary during the Democratic primary, Obama was asked about his proposal to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to the Clinton era level of 28%. Initially, he blabbered the standard democratic line about financing health care and education and the need for revenue sources. When the moderator pointed out the fact that revenues to the treasury go down whenever the capital gains tax is raised and that revenues increase when the tax is lowered, Obama finally admitted that he would raise the tax out of a sense of fairness. That’s right. Fairness is achieved when all are equally miserable. While helping no one, Obama wants to punish those with the audacity to take risks and the desire to succeed. He is appealing to the most depraved of human emotions, greed and envy. He is absolving all personal failure by criminalizing individual success. Hope and change my ass! He is the candidate of despair and bitterness. God help us if he gets elected.
Then, just last week, Obama stepped into the light again when he told “Joe the plumber” that “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”. I agree. The question is, how to best do that? Obama wants to spread the wealth through government tax policies. This is the essence of socialism. Obama proposes to use the coercive power of the state and ultimately it’s monopoly on the organized use of force to regulate and expropriate the wealth of those that produce it and redistribute it to those he deems as entitled to it. Socialism institutionalizes envy and class warfare and legitimizes government theft by calling it “paying your fair share”. It is a morally bankrupt system that has failed every time it’s been tried. It will be no different with Obama leading the way.
I would prefer that we “spread the wealth around” in the traditional American way. Not only is the free market, capitalist system morally superior to socialism, it actually works. It is morally superior because it enables free people, acting as individual moral agents, to trade or sell goods and services of their own free will and on the basis of mutual consent. As with any system, there will still be winners and losers, but they are determined by the actions of the individual, not by the favor of some government bureaucrat.
Lack of knowledge and experience is bad enough, but what concerns me even more is Obama’s underlying political philosophy as revealed during his brief moments of candor. In a debate with Hillary during the Democratic primary, Obama was asked about his proposal to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to the Clinton era level of 28%. Initially, he blabbered the standard democratic line about financing health care and education and the need for revenue sources. When the moderator pointed out the fact that revenues to the treasury go down whenever the capital gains tax is raised and that revenues increase when the tax is lowered, Obama finally admitted that he would raise the tax out of a sense of fairness. That’s right. Fairness is achieved when all are equally miserable. While helping no one, Obama wants to punish those with the audacity to take risks and the desire to succeed. He is appealing to the most depraved of human emotions, greed and envy. He is absolving all personal failure by criminalizing individual success. Hope and change my ass! He is the candidate of despair and bitterness. God help us if he gets elected.
Then, just last week, Obama stepped into the light again when he told “Joe the plumber” that “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”. I agree. The question is, how to best do that? Obama wants to spread the wealth through government tax policies. This is the essence of socialism. Obama proposes to use the coercive power of the state and ultimately it’s monopoly on the organized use of force to regulate and expropriate the wealth of those that produce it and redistribute it to those he deems as entitled to it. Socialism institutionalizes envy and class warfare and legitimizes government theft by calling it “paying your fair share”. It is a morally bankrupt system that has failed every time it’s been tried. It will be no different with Obama leading the way.
I would prefer that we “spread the wealth around” in the traditional American way. Not only is the free market, capitalist system morally superior to socialism, it actually works. It is morally superior because it enables free people, acting as individual moral agents, to trade or sell goods and services of their own free will and on the basis of mutual consent. As with any system, there will still be winners and losers, but they are determined by the actions of the individual, not by the favor of some government bureaucrat.
Monday, October 13, 2008
THE NATURE OF RIGHTS
What are rights and where do they come from? Thankfully, as Americans, we have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to provide enlightenment on these questions. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote: “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, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” What a relief to know that our rights come from God, not the state, and that they are “unalienable”, meaning they cannot be taken away. They are not subject to the caprice of the legislature. All other rights flow from our right to life. If this right is to mean anything, then we must have liberty and the freedom to act to preserve our life and even to improve the quality of our life.
Jefferson said that all men have the right to life. Necessarily then, our individual rights can put no positive obligation on another, only the negative obligation of not violating ours. So, when the 1st amendment talks about freedom of speech, it means that others can not prevent you from speaking. It does not mean that others have to listen to you. That would be putting a positive obligation on them. It also does not provide freedom from the consequences of your words. If you call your bosses wife a big fat bitch, he can fire your dumb ass. As an aside, it’s a bad sign for this country when something as basic and straight forward as the 1st amendment can be superseded by the imaginary right to not be offended. It’s scary to see so many colleges and universities, those supposed bastions of free thought and intellectual stimulation, enacting speech codes lest some delicate mind be offended. The world is full of idiots that say offensive things. College students would do well to learn to deal with it on their own.
Like nearly all political campaigns, this years presidential race provides numerous examples of the wholesale violation of individual rights. With all the goodies these guys are promising, you would think they are running for Santa Claus, not president of the United States! After reading both the Democratic and Republican party platforms, it appears that Obama has a clear edge in the Santa sweepstakes. In talking about health care, the Democratic platform states: “…Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive health care.” There is no mention of the corollary to that statement: That someone is then obligated to provide affordable, comprehensive health care.
In the section on “Good Jobs with Good Pay” the Democrats say this: “In America, if someone is willing to work, he or she should be able to make ends meet and have the opportunity to prosper. To that end we will raise the minimum wage…” Besides violating the rights of both employers and employees to negotiate wages, it’s just stupid. How is a guy better off being unemployed from a job that pays $8.00 an hour than he is being employed at a job that pays $6.00 an hour?
Finally, from the section titled “A World Class Education for Every Child” there is this nonsense: “The Democratic party firmly believes that graduation from a quality public school and the opportunity to succeed in college must be the birthright of every child-not the privilege of the few.” Apparently, every time Obama takes a crap he discovers another “birthright” and this one really stinks. Public education is clearly not a “birthright” of anyone. This country thrived for 100 years with no public education system. Parents had the right to choose the length and type of education for their children. In fact, it is an indictment of 100+ years of public education that such a stupid and dangerous belief is now widely accepted.
When individual rights are marginalized by the state, society losses the ability to discern ownership. Does a man own the fruits of his labor? Are some men, by their birthright, entitled to wealth created by others? Justice is not determined by the rule of law but by who has the power and the guns. There is plenty of history that proves this. The socialist ideal requires that state or group rights supersede individual rights. Many in this country seem to be on a quest for “social” justice. It sounds like a noble goal and I’m sure many,especially the young, are idealistic in this pursuit. But real social justice is a by-product of individual justice. Without individual rights, ultimately, the only justice is the justice of tyrants.
Jefferson said that all men have the right to life. Necessarily then, our individual rights can put no positive obligation on another, only the negative obligation of not violating ours. So, when the 1st amendment talks about freedom of speech, it means that others can not prevent you from speaking. It does not mean that others have to listen to you. That would be putting a positive obligation on them. It also does not provide freedom from the consequences of your words. If you call your bosses wife a big fat bitch, he can fire your dumb ass. As an aside, it’s a bad sign for this country when something as basic and straight forward as the 1st amendment can be superseded by the imaginary right to not be offended. It’s scary to see so many colleges and universities, those supposed bastions of free thought and intellectual stimulation, enacting speech codes lest some delicate mind be offended. The world is full of idiots that say offensive things. College students would do well to learn to deal with it on their own.
Like nearly all political campaigns, this years presidential race provides numerous examples of the wholesale violation of individual rights. With all the goodies these guys are promising, you would think they are running for Santa Claus, not president of the United States! After reading both the Democratic and Republican party platforms, it appears that Obama has a clear edge in the Santa sweepstakes. In talking about health care, the Democratic platform states: “…Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive health care.” There is no mention of the corollary to that statement: That someone is then obligated to provide affordable, comprehensive health care.
In the section on “Good Jobs with Good Pay” the Democrats say this: “In America, if someone is willing to work, he or she should be able to make ends meet and have the opportunity to prosper. To that end we will raise the minimum wage…” Besides violating the rights of both employers and employees to negotiate wages, it’s just stupid. How is a guy better off being unemployed from a job that pays $8.00 an hour than he is being employed at a job that pays $6.00 an hour?
Finally, from the section titled “A World Class Education for Every Child” there is this nonsense: “The Democratic party firmly believes that graduation from a quality public school and the opportunity to succeed in college must be the birthright of every child-not the privilege of the few.” Apparently, every time Obama takes a crap he discovers another “birthright” and this one really stinks. Public education is clearly not a “birthright” of anyone. This country thrived for 100 years with no public education system. Parents had the right to choose the length and type of education for their children. In fact, it is an indictment of 100+ years of public education that such a stupid and dangerous belief is now widely accepted.
When individual rights are marginalized by the state, society losses the ability to discern ownership. Does a man own the fruits of his labor? Are some men, by their birthright, entitled to wealth created by others? Justice is not determined by the rule of law but by who has the power and the guns. There is plenty of history that proves this. The socialist ideal requires that state or group rights supersede individual rights. Many in this country seem to be on a quest for “social” justice. It sounds like a noble goal and I’m sure many,especially the young, are idealistic in this pursuit. But real social justice is a by-product of individual justice. Without individual rights, ultimately, the only justice is the justice of tyrants.
Monday, October 6, 2008
CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS PART III
CONSERVATIVES
Characteristics common among conservatives include faith in God, honesty, self reliance, love of country and generosity. Unlike liberals, you don’t need a degree in abnormal psychology to understand conservatives. As an example, if you asked a conservative if it’s ok to kill an unborn baby they would answer no. Ask them if it’s ok to execute murderers and they would say yes. The whole conservation would take about ten seconds. Now, ask a liberal those questions and you’re in the twilight zone for an hour. They won’t come right out and tell you what they believe, that it’s ok to kill an unborn child anytime, for any reason or that three years in a bed and breakfast is sufficient punishment for murder. That would sound stupid! No, they will give you an intellectually “nuanced” response full of wild twists and turns, bent logic, situational ethics and inevitably some mention of “institutional” racism. You’ll end up with a headache and in search of the nearest tavern.
Conservatives are more difficult to categorize than liberals. While liberals tend to gravitate to certain occupations, like a herd of sheep to the easy grazing, conservatives are independent and self reliant. They can be found in all walks of life, predominately in the private sector, although not exclusively.
The overwhelming majority of those that own their own business are conservative. They understand the concept of providing quality goods and services in an efficient manner to generate profits. Liberals are confused by this. They understand profits about as well as they understand guns and they think both should be heavily regulated by the government.
Conservatives are also well represented amongst the employees of private business. They appreciate honest pay for honest work and enthusiastically support merit pay. Unlike teachers and bureaucrats, they are not afraid to be compensated based on their performance.
While the public sector employs hordes of liberal people, there are two government jobs in which conservatives thrive: law enforcement and national defense. It’s should come as no big surprise that conservatives are heavily represented in two groups that perform truly legitimate functions of government. Our police and military personnel perform heroic deeds on a daily basis. If not for a liberal judiciary and lefty politicians, these great men and women could solve some major problems in short order. They confront the very real threats facing all of us while liberals wring their hands and whine about our carbon footprint and obsess over spotted owls and caribou.
Even though conservatives do most of the real work and pay most of the bills, they are generally much happier than liberals. Faith in God and belief in the sanctity of human life are central to the conservative condition. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and conservatives are not ashamed of their birthright as Americans. Liberals can sing the praises of the workers paradise in Cuba or Venezuela or China.Conservatives just say “SCOREBOARD!”
Characteristics common among conservatives include faith in God, honesty, self reliance, love of country and generosity. Unlike liberals, you don’t need a degree in abnormal psychology to understand conservatives. As an example, if you asked a conservative if it’s ok to kill an unborn baby they would answer no. Ask them if it’s ok to execute murderers and they would say yes. The whole conservation would take about ten seconds. Now, ask a liberal those questions and you’re in the twilight zone for an hour. They won’t come right out and tell you what they believe, that it’s ok to kill an unborn child anytime, for any reason or that three years in a bed and breakfast is sufficient punishment for murder. That would sound stupid! No, they will give you an intellectually “nuanced” response full of wild twists and turns, bent logic, situational ethics and inevitably some mention of “institutional” racism. You’ll end up with a headache and in search of the nearest tavern.
Conservatives are more difficult to categorize than liberals. While liberals tend to gravitate to certain occupations, like a herd of sheep to the easy grazing, conservatives are independent and self reliant. They can be found in all walks of life, predominately in the private sector, although not exclusively.
The overwhelming majority of those that own their own business are conservative. They understand the concept of providing quality goods and services in an efficient manner to generate profits. Liberals are confused by this. They understand profits about as well as they understand guns and they think both should be heavily regulated by the government.
Conservatives are also well represented amongst the employees of private business. They appreciate honest pay for honest work and enthusiastically support merit pay. Unlike teachers and bureaucrats, they are not afraid to be compensated based on their performance.
While the public sector employs hordes of liberal people, there are two government jobs in which conservatives thrive: law enforcement and national defense. It’s should come as no big surprise that conservatives are heavily represented in two groups that perform truly legitimate functions of government. Our police and military personnel perform heroic deeds on a daily basis. If not for a liberal judiciary and lefty politicians, these great men and women could solve some major problems in short order. They confront the very real threats facing all of us while liberals wring their hands and whine about our carbon footprint and obsess over spotted owls and caribou.
Even though conservatives do most of the real work and pay most of the bills, they are generally much happier than liberals. Faith in God and belief in the sanctity of human life are central to the conservative condition. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and conservatives are not ashamed of their birthright as Americans. Liberals can sing the praises of the workers paradise in Cuba or Venezuela or China.Conservatives just say “SCOREBOARD!”
Monday, September 29, 2008
CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS PART II
Liberals; Who are these people?
GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS
“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Thomas Jefferson was referring to King George III, but his words are an accurate description of what is happening today. The federal government has nearly 1200 different agencies and departments. Add in state employees and there are roughly 20 MILLION people employed by the government.
It’s amazing that this country was able to survive without the Federal Duck Stamp Office or the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. The people that run these types of programs are immune to the economic conditions that affect the private sector. While union membership is on the decline nationally, it remains strong in the government bureaucracy. Why? Because government can afford it. Pay is not commensurate with performance. Hell, who even knows what constitutes “performance” in some of these positions? It’s a messed up deal. Agencies created to address some perceived problem have no incentive to actually fix the problem. On the contrary, the worse the problem gets, the bigger their agency grows!
Liberals have an unhealthy faith in the ability of government to fix things and provide services and are therefore anxious to expand it. Government bureaucrats know who is driving the gravy train so, obviously, most of them are liberals.
TEACHERS
“TRUST TEACHERS, NOT TEST SCORES” That’s an actual slogan I saw on some hats at the last Democratic National Convention. I couldn’t make up crap like that! No conservative would ever utter such a stupid statement.
“Son, I’m concerned about your math scores and it appears that you don’t read or write very well either. I’m worried about your job prospects. – Don’t worry dad, the teacher has deemed me to be educated!”
Now, I want to make it clear that I am not bashing ALL teachers. I actually know some teachers that I like and respect. It’s too bad that 80 percent of teachers give the rest a bad name.
There are over 6 million teachers nation wide. The average salary is $44,700. Considering they work roughly 9 months a year, this equates to $59,600 annually.
Add in their caddilac health care plan and insane retirement package and you’ve got a pretty sweet deal. Yet, as a group, have you ever seen anyone whine and complain about their compensation like teachers do? You never hear them mention the one HUGE benefit that doesn’t show up on the stat sheet. Teachers NEVER get laid off or fired for poor performance. Apparently, every teacher ever hired anywhere is doing just a wonderful job. I guess we are supposed to “trust” them. We sure as hell aren’t supposed to implement any measurable standards to judge them by.
Teachers always claim that “it’s about the kids”. What a bunch of crap. Attempts to reform the system with school choice and virtual schools are working for students and have the support of parents. Yet the teacher unions vigorously oppose these programs. They are selfish, insolent liars more concerned with union protections than professional standards.
COLLEGE STUDENTS
There are approximately 16 million college students currently enrolled in universities around the country. As a former college student myself and knowing many young people currently attending college, I have seen enough anecdotal evidence to convince me that at least 80 percent of these students are liberals. The are bright, idealistic and generally myopic. I can’t really blame these kids though. They just don’t know any better. They have spent their whole lives in the cesspool of liberalism that is academia today. They have been taught that America is a greedy and imperialist nation and that we don’t respect mother earth either! They are told that tolerance means not only accepting but also promoting anything and anyone that is in direct conflict with our traditional Judea-Christian values and beliefs. And they are taught that they are exercising their free speech rights when they shout down, throw things at and incite violence against those that disagree with them.
The good news is that many of these kids escape the cesspool with no permanent damage and go on to become responsible, contributing members of society. That is to say, they become conservatives.
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
All the major networks, excluding FOX, and damn near every major newspaper in the country are overwhelmingly liberal. I don’t really understand why, either. As their market share continues to shrink, they seem to be moving even further to the left. You would think that the profit incentive would cause them to rethink what they are doing. Maybe they will all be nationalized and become part of PBS. One thing the government is really good at is subsidizing failure.
THE NON-WORKING
I’m not talking about those hard working Americans that lose their job and spend some time on unemployment. I am referring to those suffering from “Intolerance to Effort” syndrome. People who have chosen unemployment as a career. The New Deal and Great Society programs created this underclass and they have been successfully cultivated by the Democratic party. While claiming to be advocates for these people, democratic policies actually make it more difficult for this group to climb the economic ladder. Democrats need this constituent group and they don’t want people working their way out of it.
CELEBRITIES
Many of these types keep threatening to leave the country if a Republican gets elected for president. Not only are they stupid and arrogant but they are liars too. Just leave already!
So, that pretty much covers the Democratic constituency.
NEXT UP: CONSERVATIVES
GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS
“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Thomas Jefferson was referring to King George III, but his words are an accurate description of what is happening today. The federal government has nearly 1200 different agencies and departments. Add in state employees and there are roughly 20 MILLION people employed by the government.
It’s amazing that this country was able to survive without the Federal Duck Stamp Office or the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. The people that run these types of programs are immune to the economic conditions that affect the private sector. While union membership is on the decline nationally, it remains strong in the government bureaucracy. Why? Because government can afford it. Pay is not commensurate with performance. Hell, who even knows what constitutes “performance” in some of these positions? It’s a messed up deal. Agencies created to address some perceived problem have no incentive to actually fix the problem. On the contrary, the worse the problem gets, the bigger their agency grows!
Liberals have an unhealthy faith in the ability of government to fix things and provide services and are therefore anxious to expand it. Government bureaucrats know who is driving the gravy train so, obviously, most of them are liberals.
TEACHERS
“TRUST TEACHERS, NOT TEST SCORES” That’s an actual slogan I saw on some hats at the last Democratic National Convention. I couldn’t make up crap like that! No conservative would ever utter such a stupid statement.
“Son, I’m concerned about your math scores and it appears that you don’t read or write very well either. I’m worried about your job prospects. – Don’t worry dad, the teacher has deemed me to be educated!”
Now, I want to make it clear that I am not bashing ALL teachers. I actually know some teachers that I like and respect. It’s too bad that 80 percent of teachers give the rest a bad name.
There are over 6 million teachers nation wide. The average salary is $44,700. Considering they work roughly 9 months a year, this equates to $59,600 annually.
Add in their caddilac health care plan and insane retirement package and you’ve got a pretty sweet deal. Yet, as a group, have you ever seen anyone whine and complain about their compensation like teachers do? You never hear them mention the one HUGE benefit that doesn’t show up on the stat sheet. Teachers NEVER get laid off or fired for poor performance. Apparently, every teacher ever hired anywhere is doing just a wonderful job. I guess we are supposed to “trust” them. We sure as hell aren’t supposed to implement any measurable standards to judge them by.
Teachers always claim that “it’s about the kids”. What a bunch of crap. Attempts to reform the system with school choice and virtual schools are working for students and have the support of parents. Yet the teacher unions vigorously oppose these programs. They are selfish, insolent liars more concerned with union protections than professional standards.
COLLEGE STUDENTS
There are approximately 16 million college students currently enrolled in universities around the country. As a former college student myself and knowing many young people currently attending college, I have seen enough anecdotal evidence to convince me that at least 80 percent of these students are liberals. The are bright, idealistic and generally myopic. I can’t really blame these kids though. They just don’t know any better. They have spent their whole lives in the cesspool of liberalism that is academia today. They have been taught that America is a greedy and imperialist nation and that we don’t respect mother earth either! They are told that tolerance means not only accepting but also promoting anything and anyone that is in direct conflict with our traditional Judea-Christian values and beliefs. And they are taught that they are exercising their free speech rights when they shout down, throw things at and incite violence against those that disagree with them.
The good news is that many of these kids escape the cesspool with no permanent damage and go on to become responsible, contributing members of society. That is to say, they become conservatives.
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
All the major networks, excluding FOX, and damn near every major newspaper in the country are overwhelmingly liberal. I don’t really understand why, either. As their market share continues to shrink, they seem to be moving even further to the left. You would think that the profit incentive would cause them to rethink what they are doing. Maybe they will all be nationalized and become part of PBS. One thing the government is really good at is subsidizing failure.
THE NON-WORKING
I’m not talking about those hard working Americans that lose their job and spend some time on unemployment. I am referring to those suffering from “Intolerance to Effort” syndrome. People who have chosen unemployment as a career. The New Deal and Great Society programs created this underclass and they have been successfully cultivated by the Democratic party. While claiming to be advocates for these people, democratic policies actually make it more difficult for this group to climb the economic ladder. Democrats need this constituent group and they don’t want people working their way out of it.
CELEBRITIES
Many of these types keep threatening to leave the country if a Republican gets elected for president. Not only are they stupid and arrogant but they are liars too. Just leave already!
So, that pretty much covers the Democratic constituency.
NEXT UP: CONSERVATIVES
Monday, September 22, 2008
CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS
On this blog I will be commenting predominantly on political issues. The political structure of this country has digressed into a simple two party system. But I don’t really want to talk about democrats and republicans. Political parties are subject to the caprice of their leadership. While the democratic party is nearly monolithic in it’s liberalism, just ask Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, the republican party is all over the place. A conservative trying to maintain relevance will, by necessity, vote republican but not all republicans are conservative. Therefore, I will comment on issues with a focus on the liberal and conservative philosophies.
So you know where I’m coming from, I need to define liberal and conservative, politically speaking, as I see them. Because I am a conservative, I have no problem with profiling and I embrace my stereotypes. I do this because it almost always works! So, I’m going to demonstrate the differences in these competing philosophies by categorizing groups, based on occupation, as liberal or conservative.
LIBERALS
First a primer. Get to know a liberal well enough and you will see that, almost without fail, they possess one or more of the following characteristics:
IGNORANCE
Not to be confused with stupid. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge or comprehension of something. Considering the state of public education in this country, it’s no surprise that ignorance has reached epidemic proportions. As an example, many liberals have no understanding of what our rights entail. They deny obvious, well documented rights while just making others up out of thin air. They claim that “quality health care” is a basic American right. No, it’s not. It is a service that requires compensation to the provider. And it is really, really complicated so it doesn’t come cheap. Some say “affordable housing” is a right. Again, no, it’s not. If you can’t afford the house you want, buy a smaller one or rent. Many liberals do not comprehend the nature of our rights. Simply put, if it requires someone else to do something, it’s not a right. We DO have the right to keep and bear arms. That doesn’t mean you have to buy me a gun. We also have the right of free speech. That doesn’t mean that people are required to listen to you. Just ask Air America!
BITTERNESS
Boy, and how! Other than hippies and stoners, how many happy liberals do you know? They always seem to be bent about something. I think this bitterness stems from one of two things. Either these people are blaming others for their failures or, deep down, they are afraid that so much of what they believe in is, in fact, wrong. Have you ever met a happy, go lucky atheist? That’s what I’m talking about.
ANTI-AMERICAN
I don’t say this lightly but it’s the truth. A great many liberals seem to really hate this country. How else to explain some of the things they say or do? Different liberals hate different aspects of America. Some hate our free market, capitalistic economy. They point to the vast disparities in income and claim injustice and greed. They ignore the fact that we have redefined poverty in this country to the point where the poorest among us live in better conditions than the vast majority of the worlds’ population. Many even hate some of our basic freedoms. They support “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws. They promote “speech codes” on college campuses and support chilling legislation such as the “Fairness Doctrine”. It appears they believe that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. And, most surprising of all, many actually hate the fact that we have the greatest military in the world! They think we are imperialist dogs, hell bent on world domination rather than appreciating the true nature of the threats we face. They impune our troops, questioning their intelligence and character. The irony of this lunacy is that these brave men and women protect those pompous asses every day!
SELFISHNESS
These people are generally well informed and know what’s going on. They just care more about themselves than anyone else. They know that many of the policies and laws they advocate are not beneficial to the general welfare but they do benefit their own narrow self interest. This explains why many of these types are also bitter. In espousing policies that benefit themselves, they couch their arguments in terms of benefits to others.
Necessarily, these people are habitual liers.
MEGALOMANIA
While I believe an inordinate percentage of liberals possess this characteristic, the good news is that few have the ability to bullshit their way to real power. The bad news is that it only takes one to really screw things up. Now, some may argue that all world leaders are megalomaniacs. The history of this great country proves otherwise. It is my belief that megalomania is a characteristic unique to the liberal condition. It takes a freakishly high level of hubris for one person to believe that they can direct the means of production, determine appropriate profit margins, disseminate a “fair wage” and insure “economic justice” and do it better than the free market, which encompasses the accumulated knowledge of all involved. No conservative would ever presume such omnipotence.
UP NEXT: WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
So you know where I’m coming from, I need to define liberal and conservative, politically speaking, as I see them. Because I am a conservative, I have no problem with profiling and I embrace my stereotypes. I do this because it almost always works! So, I’m going to demonstrate the differences in these competing philosophies by categorizing groups, based on occupation, as liberal or conservative.
LIBERALS
First a primer. Get to know a liberal well enough and you will see that, almost without fail, they possess one or more of the following characteristics:
IGNORANCE
Not to be confused with stupid. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge or comprehension of something. Considering the state of public education in this country, it’s no surprise that ignorance has reached epidemic proportions. As an example, many liberals have no understanding of what our rights entail. They deny obvious, well documented rights while just making others up out of thin air. They claim that “quality health care” is a basic American right. No, it’s not. It is a service that requires compensation to the provider. And it is really, really complicated so it doesn’t come cheap. Some say “affordable housing” is a right. Again, no, it’s not. If you can’t afford the house you want, buy a smaller one or rent. Many liberals do not comprehend the nature of our rights. Simply put, if it requires someone else to do something, it’s not a right. We DO have the right to keep and bear arms. That doesn’t mean you have to buy me a gun. We also have the right of free speech. That doesn’t mean that people are required to listen to you. Just ask Air America!
BITTERNESS
Boy, and how! Other than hippies and stoners, how many happy liberals do you know? They always seem to be bent about something. I think this bitterness stems from one of two things. Either these people are blaming others for their failures or, deep down, they are afraid that so much of what they believe in is, in fact, wrong. Have you ever met a happy, go lucky atheist? That’s what I’m talking about.
ANTI-AMERICAN
I don’t say this lightly but it’s the truth. A great many liberals seem to really hate this country. How else to explain some of the things they say or do? Different liberals hate different aspects of America. Some hate our free market, capitalistic economy. They point to the vast disparities in income and claim injustice and greed. They ignore the fact that we have redefined poverty in this country to the point where the poorest among us live in better conditions than the vast majority of the worlds’ population. Many even hate some of our basic freedoms. They support “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws. They promote “speech codes” on college campuses and support chilling legislation such as the “Fairness Doctrine”. It appears they believe that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. And, most surprising of all, many actually hate the fact that we have the greatest military in the world! They think we are imperialist dogs, hell bent on world domination rather than appreciating the true nature of the threats we face. They impune our troops, questioning their intelligence and character. The irony of this lunacy is that these brave men and women protect those pompous asses every day!
SELFISHNESS
These people are generally well informed and know what’s going on. They just care more about themselves than anyone else. They know that many of the policies and laws they advocate are not beneficial to the general welfare but they do benefit their own narrow self interest. This explains why many of these types are also bitter. In espousing policies that benefit themselves, they couch their arguments in terms of benefits to others.
Necessarily, these people are habitual liers.
MEGALOMANIA
While I believe an inordinate percentage of liberals possess this characteristic, the good news is that few have the ability to bullshit their way to real power. The bad news is that it only takes one to really screw things up. Now, some may argue that all world leaders are megalomaniacs. The history of this great country proves otherwise. It is my belief that megalomania is a characteristic unique to the liberal condition. It takes a freakishly high level of hubris for one person to believe that they can direct the means of production, determine appropriate profit margins, disseminate a “fair wage” and insure “economic justice” and do it better than the free market, which encompasses the accumulated knowledge of all involved. No conservative would ever presume such omnipotence.
UP NEXT: WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
