For the past 45 years the town of Pitman, NJ has hung a banner over Broadway every Christmas. This banner simply reads "Keep Christ in Christmas" by the Knights of Columbus. This has never been a problem and no one has ever complained...til now.
This year some "unnamed citizens" have taken exception to it saying that it violates the Constitution. They contacted an atheist organization in Wisconsin, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, to intervene on their behalf. And the liberals idiots complied by asking the town to take the sign down. The organization promotes the "separation of church and state" and cites that very idea saying that since the banner is over a public space so it goes against this principle. The problem is that this idea is a fallacy. It doesn't exist!!
I have personally read the Constitution cover to cover. The phrase "separation of church and state" exists nowhere in the document. This asinine phrase is a bastardization of Thomas Jefferson's ideas that became the basis of the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
History Lesson:
In 1620 a group of religious outcasts left England and sailed across the Atlantic. They left their homes behind to escape the English throne forcing citizens to join the Church of England. They fled to the Netherlands but still could not escape the English Crown. In 1618, William Brewster published a paper criticizing the King of England and his state church. When the king sent men to arrest him, the Pilgrims realized they had to travel much further to be free of this religious persecution. They applied for a charter and braved the crossing to America.
They never forgot this treatment at the hands of the Crown of England and passed the tradition and history down through the generations. So, when the Founding Fathers met in 1774 this was fresh in their minds. Especially since the Crown was again trying to dictate their lives. They were adamant that they would not create a repeat of what their forefathers went through. They wanted to honor what they Pilgrims set out to achieve: a place where everyone could practice whatever religion they chose.
Hence the First Amendment. It prohibits the federal government from establishing and endorsing a state religion but also says that it can not prohibit the free exercise of it either. What Jefferson actually said was "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." He did not advocate that the government should have nothing to do with religion. Indeed, he and the other Founders referenced and drew on their Christian faith often when drafting the two most important documents in our history, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Apart from this there is a specific reason why the Founders tied our Rights to God stating that we are "endowed bu our Creator with certain, unalienable right." They did this specifically to put them beyond the reach of governments and men.
Lets face it. Humans are imperfect and fallible. Rights and laws conceived by Men can be equally fallible and suspect. On the other hand, by saying that these gifts come from God you appeal to a higher, infallible being. By stating clearly in the founding documents that our Rights come from the Almighty the Founders imply that to change these you have to know better than God which would be hubris indeed.
So, to change or take away one or more rights government has to first take God out of the equation...and that what the Left has been trying to do for the past 70 years. The incident in Pitman, NJ is just the latest assault in this effort. The American people would not have accepted an outright attempt to take all references to God out of government from the Pledge of Allegiance to the dollar bill. So they have done it little bits at a time starting by twisting Jefferson's words into this ridiculous idea.
The banner in Pitman is not even paid for or sponsored by the local government. It was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus which is an independent organization outside the influence of government which should exclude any discussion of "separation." Furthermore, it is not advocating that anyway else should or needs to follow the belief described in the banner, nor that anyone shouldn't or can't practice any other belief. It is simply stating the belief of one group.
Besides, what is so wrong with religious ideals and behavior influencing the actions of a government official? A code of conduct based on morals and decent behavior, the basis of which is the forbidding of such behavior as theft, murder and rape..in my opinion this is much more preferable to the miscreants that are currently running the government. I am willing to bet that if you look into any congressman who has a clean record you will find a strong faith.
And the response of the Freedom from Religion Foundation??? "Take it down in the name of 'tolerance.'" Why is it that groups and people that claim tolerance are the most intolerant of all? So far, the Mayor has refused to take the banner down...lets hope he continues to do so
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Cain's unfortunate departure
So, presidential candidate Herman Cain has pulled out of the race for president under an avalanche of smear and here say. And this is truly an unfortunate turn of events. He would have been a fantastic president. No, I do not think he is perfect. No one is and those who think they are (*cough* Obama) are the ones who are least fit for such important jobs.
His experience in the business world is invaluable. It means he understands things like cost and profit ratios, how to maintain a budget while still getting the most for your money. In short he understands fiscal responsibility which is sorely needed in Washington. His 9-9-9 plan, while again not perfect, is still a great step in the right direction. But more importantly, he knows that which all great men should know: That he doesn't know everything.
That's right! While the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the world it is still held by a mortal man, or woman if that is the case. A person, especially a leader, with an over-blown sense of self is just as dangerous as someone without enough experience, maybe more so. A good leader makes up for a shortcoming in one area by hiring, and deferring to, someone who does have the necessary experience. That is the point of the presidential cabinet. So what if Herman Cain had a few missteps in foreign policy? That is what a foreign policy advisor is there for. He has enough general knowledge, and enough wisdom to go with it, and the advisor fills in the specifics if Cain needs it. At least he is smart enough not to isolate and antagonize Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, while giving a reach around to countries like Iran who have publicly stated their intent to wipe everyone that is not Islam off the face of the Earth with the Us right behind Israel as a priority.
But I digress. As I stated at the beginning of the this post it is a shame that Cain was forced out of the race. But even more then the fact that he is out the smear campaign against him , and the hypocrisy it reveals, is even more troubling.
If you count up the accusations of sexual indiscretions among Conservatives and Liberals, the Libs far outweigh Conservatives. JFK was a well documented horn dog having several extramarital affairs. And let us not forget Bill Clinton and the little blue dress. How many affairs did he have? Three that were proven through evidence and many more that remained allegations. That is just two presidents. If you include Congress the accounts are staggering. Including Ted Kennedy whose car contained the body of a woman as they dragged it out of tidal channel and Rep. Barney Frank whose boyfriend was a male prostitute that was running a brothel out of their shared DC apartment.
But I am getting off track...
The treatment these cases got in the Mainstream Media was a shrug and "who cares?" They said JFK's indiscretions paled in comparison to his progressive achievements. We were told that it was none of our business what Bill Clinton did in his personal life. Despite the fact that he lied under oath and obstructed justice by preventing a woman genuinely wronged from getting the justice she deserved he was a great guy. Good personality. Besides, the public didn't really care about all that anyway.
Now lets fast forward to 2011. Herman Cain has been accused by five separate women of sexual misconduct. If these charges are true, then he deserves everything he gets. IF. That is a big word. Where is the evidence? Where is the blue dress in this instance? Ginger White, the latest accuser states that her affair with Cain lasted 13 yrs., during which they met at hotels and went to high profile events such as boxing matches. Where are the video tapes of them in the hotel lobby? Where are the ticket stubs for the boxing matches? For that matter, where are the accusers?
Of the first four, only one, Sharon Bialek, was willing to give her name. They were only barely mentioned and they haven't been heard about since. Ms Bialek went further by hiring the high-profile Gloria Alred. Now if, as Ms. Bialek says, she just wants to "get the story out," why hire Alred? She could do that just as easily with a nameless attorney. Indeed, there would be many a lawyer salivating to take the case to make a name for themselves. A person hires Alred for the publicity of the name. And even she has disappeared since that one and only press conference. If there was really anything to these accusations, the Media would be hounding these women down for the story and a chance to bury Cain. All of these women stated their accusations and then just went back into the wood work. Last I saw in this country we still had a tradition of innocent til proven guilty. But, no. The Media has been having a field day crucifying Cain.
So now, we have the latest accuser Ginger White. Again there is no evidence. She claimed to have evidence but has never provided it. Plus she has a very questionable background. Several evictions including a recent one that may have prompted her story. Previous sexual harassment suits filed, one being thrown out for lack of evidence, and a restraining order by a former business partner. But we are supposed to believe her word? Now, some of your Libs may say "where there is smoke, there is fire." Bull! Where there is smoke, there is smoke. Especially in today's world of lawsuit happy idiots. You make a complaint loud enough you can make a buck. I don't know about the rest of you, but before I ruin an honest man's life and reputation, I would make damn sure that the facts and evidence are there. And the sad part is that now that Cain has dropped out of the race, the accusations will never be disproved. It's mission accomplished in the smear campaign. The Libs will say no more about what they unleashed and there will definitely be no apology. they will let the accusations hang out there as a warning.
The point of this post is to point out the difference between being a Liberal and a Conservative. Clinton was accused of sexual harassment, with evidence and instead of exposing the truth the Media not only helped Clinton cover it up and dismiss it but they also helped his attack and destroy all three women that accused him. Where was the ACLU then? Where were the feminists and women's rights activists? They helped defend Clinton and destroy Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinski.
Herman Cain is accused of sexual misconduct. There is no evidence, just a lot of here say, the accusers are questionable at best and now AWOL when it is time to be counted so Cain can face his accusers, as is his constitutional right. In this case what is the Media doing? Crucifying Cain and supporting the accusers. The key to this shift in behavior is that Cain was a threat to not only Obama, but everything that Liberals hold to be true.
For decades the Libs have survived on the narrative that all Conservatives are evil, sexist, racist bastards. Obama rode to victory in 2008 on this sentiment. He was a charismatic black man who claimed that his would be a historic election for the first black president. The Libs over looked the fact that he knew nothing about leadership. All he knew was rabble rousing and inciting mobs. With Cain you have an intelligent, articulated, strong, conservative black man that actually knows what it is like to lead. And if he were to stay in the race he might actually split the black vote as they are forced to actually think for themselves and decided what is more important: color or substance.
So the decision was that Cain had to be taken out at all cost. Just look at the smear campaign directed at him before the sexual harasment allegations. Obama, because he is a liberal, was called a visionary, the epitome of what it is to be black in America, this messianic figure. Herman Cain, a black Conservative, was labeled an "Uncle Tom," a traitor, the "Tea Party's black friend." Harry Belefonte said he is everything tha tis false in the black community. He was told to get off the symbolic crack pipe.
And this coming from the party of tolerance...
His experience in the business world is invaluable. It means he understands things like cost and profit ratios, how to maintain a budget while still getting the most for your money. In short he understands fiscal responsibility which is sorely needed in Washington. His 9-9-9 plan, while again not perfect, is still a great step in the right direction. But more importantly, he knows that which all great men should know: That he doesn't know everything.
That's right! While the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the world it is still held by a mortal man, or woman if that is the case. A person, especially a leader, with an over-blown sense of self is just as dangerous as someone without enough experience, maybe more so. A good leader makes up for a shortcoming in one area by hiring, and deferring to, someone who does have the necessary experience. That is the point of the presidential cabinet. So what if Herman Cain had a few missteps in foreign policy? That is what a foreign policy advisor is there for. He has enough general knowledge, and enough wisdom to go with it, and the advisor fills in the specifics if Cain needs it. At least he is smart enough not to isolate and antagonize Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, while giving a reach around to countries like Iran who have publicly stated their intent to wipe everyone that is not Islam off the face of the Earth with the Us right behind Israel as a priority.
But I digress. As I stated at the beginning of the this post it is a shame that Cain was forced out of the race. But even more then the fact that he is out the smear campaign against him , and the hypocrisy it reveals, is even more troubling.
If you count up the accusations of sexual indiscretions among Conservatives and Liberals, the Libs far outweigh Conservatives. JFK was a well documented horn dog having several extramarital affairs. And let us not forget Bill Clinton and the little blue dress. How many affairs did he have? Three that were proven through evidence and many more that remained allegations. That is just two presidents. If you include Congress the accounts are staggering. Including Ted Kennedy whose car contained the body of a woman as they dragged it out of tidal channel and Rep. Barney Frank whose boyfriend was a male prostitute that was running a brothel out of their shared DC apartment.
But I am getting off track...
The treatment these cases got in the Mainstream Media was a shrug and "who cares?" They said JFK's indiscretions paled in comparison to his progressive achievements. We were told that it was none of our business what Bill Clinton did in his personal life. Despite the fact that he lied under oath and obstructed justice by preventing a woman genuinely wronged from getting the justice she deserved he was a great guy. Good personality. Besides, the public didn't really care about all that anyway.
Now lets fast forward to 2011. Herman Cain has been accused by five separate women of sexual misconduct. If these charges are true, then he deserves everything he gets. IF. That is a big word. Where is the evidence? Where is the blue dress in this instance? Ginger White, the latest accuser states that her affair with Cain lasted 13 yrs., during which they met at hotels and went to high profile events such as boxing matches. Where are the video tapes of them in the hotel lobby? Where are the ticket stubs for the boxing matches? For that matter, where are the accusers?
Of the first four, only one, Sharon Bialek, was willing to give her name. They were only barely mentioned and they haven't been heard about since. Ms Bialek went further by hiring the high-profile Gloria Alred. Now if, as Ms. Bialek says, she just wants to "get the story out," why hire Alred? She could do that just as easily with a nameless attorney. Indeed, there would be many a lawyer salivating to take the case to make a name for themselves. A person hires Alred for the publicity of the name. And even she has disappeared since that one and only press conference. If there was really anything to these accusations, the Media would be hounding these women down for the story and a chance to bury Cain. All of these women stated their accusations and then just went back into the wood work. Last I saw in this country we still had a tradition of innocent til proven guilty. But, no. The Media has been having a field day crucifying Cain.
So now, we have the latest accuser Ginger White. Again there is no evidence. She claimed to have evidence but has never provided it. Plus she has a very questionable background. Several evictions including a recent one that may have prompted her story. Previous sexual harassment suits filed, one being thrown out for lack of evidence, and a restraining order by a former business partner. But we are supposed to believe her word? Now, some of your Libs may say "where there is smoke, there is fire." Bull! Where there is smoke, there is smoke. Especially in today's world of lawsuit happy idiots. You make a complaint loud enough you can make a buck. I don't know about the rest of you, but before I ruin an honest man's life and reputation, I would make damn sure that the facts and evidence are there. And the sad part is that now that Cain has dropped out of the race, the accusations will never be disproved. It's mission accomplished in the smear campaign. The Libs will say no more about what they unleashed and there will definitely be no apology. they will let the accusations hang out there as a warning.
The point of this post is to point out the difference between being a Liberal and a Conservative. Clinton was accused of sexual harassment, with evidence and instead of exposing the truth the Media not only helped Clinton cover it up and dismiss it but they also helped his attack and destroy all three women that accused him. Where was the ACLU then? Where were the feminists and women's rights activists? They helped defend Clinton and destroy Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinski.
Herman Cain is accused of sexual misconduct. There is no evidence, just a lot of here say, the accusers are questionable at best and now AWOL when it is time to be counted so Cain can face his accusers, as is his constitutional right. In this case what is the Media doing? Crucifying Cain and supporting the accusers. The key to this shift in behavior is that Cain was a threat to not only Obama, but everything that Liberals hold to be true.
For decades the Libs have survived on the narrative that all Conservatives are evil, sexist, racist bastards. Obama rode to victory in 2008 on this sentiment. He was a charismatic black man who claimed that his would be a historic election for the first black president. The Libs over looked the fact that he knew nothing about leadership. All he knew was rabble rousing and inciting mobs. With Cain you have an intelligent, articulated, strong, conservative black man that actually knows what it is like to lead. And if he were to stay in the race he might actually split the black vote as they are forced to actually think for themselves and decided what is more important: color or substance.
So the decision was that Cain had to be taken out at all cost. Just look at the smear campaign directed at him before the sexual harasment allegations. Obama, because he is a liberal, was called a visionary, the epitome of what it is to be black in America, this messianic figure. Herman Cain, a black Conservative, was labeled an "Uncle Tom," a traitor, the "Tea Party's black friend." Harry Belefonte said he is everything tha tis false in the black community. He was told to get off the symbolic crack pipe.
And this coming from the party of tolerance...
Friday, December 2, 2011
OWS wrong thinking
As you may have guessed from reading this blog my personal views run in the complete opposite direction as the "Occupy" "flea-baggers." To be more blunt....I can't stand them. Nothing but a bunch of self-serving, entitlement momma's boys who have been told all their lives that they are special for absolutely nothing. Now that they are in the real world and find out that their twit mothers' were wrong and they really aren't special they don't know what to do...
But maybe I am wrong. So, just for a moment, lets play devil's advocate.
*waves magic wand* POOF!!!! you all got your wish. Every dollar that the so called "wealthy" have has been seized and given to the government. Right now the government costs tens of billions a day to run and you insects want to up that bill with more entitlement programs and nanny-state give aways. Let us say that there are several hundred "millionaires and billionaires" in this country. There are more millionaires in that category than billionaires. But let us again go with your best case scenario and say that every person in the "1%" is worth $1 billion. If you confiscate every cent they have and give it to the government that is only about $300, I'll even be generous and say $500, billion. That is enough money to run the government and its myriad of handouts for a month...maybe two. Who are you going to take money from next month to pay for your welfare?
The people who you call the 1%, the wealthy are the business owners, the wealth creators. By leaving them penniless you have eliminated their ability to make more wealth. Also, since you have now seized and liquidated their businesses you have also destroyed billions of jobs for others. Now since these are the innovators and risk takers of the country they could bounce back if given the chance. But what would be the point? As soon as they make a buck you idiots will demand they give that to you too. So not only have you destroyed the wealth that currently exists, but you have also eliminated the desire to make more...all for the sake of running an unsustainable system for two months.
I like this game! Lets do it again. Devil's advocate take two...
You say "Ok. Fine." Lets not give the money to the federal government. Lets still soak the rich and give all the money to "the people." Lets run the math again. You still have the same pool of money of the "1%." We will again go with the optimistic number of $500 billion. The population of the US currently sits at about 312,000,000,000. Congratulations! You have now increased every body's wealth by less than $2! And you still have the problem that you have now destroyed all ability to create wealth in this country and any incentive to to do so anyway.
That's two scenarios down...how about a third!
You say "OK...FINE!!!" Lets give the money to a select few "right people" that will use it properly. Who decides these people? And then how do they decide the "correct" way to use it? Also, these new owners of wealth are now the "1%" Congratulations!! Does your ideology suddenly stop just because you now have the wealth? That's a pretty shallow ethos. And if you still believe in your re-distributionist methods you should have no problem handing over your new gotten wealth when someone else says that you are now the 1% and they deserve to have your money, right? You are just going to give them your money with a smile and a handshake?
*waits for an answer and listens to the silence. Also sees the truth on your face* I thought not.
The truth you do not want to admit is that who has the money is not the problem. You are just jealous its not you. Instead of actually working to make your own wealth, you just whine and complain until someone gives you something. I'm sorry that your parents lied to you that doing nothing makes you special. Doing nothing makes you a lazy piece of shit! You don't deserve anything especially if it comes from someone who actually worked and earned what they have.
The biggest and original complaint of the "Occupy" crowd was their student loans and that they couldn't find a job. I agree with that much. Big Education is an eye sore and a drain on the country...but that is another blog. Maybe you shouldn't take such useless major's as Women's Studies, or Bi-sexual Asian Cultures, or whatever government approved degree you have. I'm in the boat with you. I took Anthropology/Archeology only to find a limited job market. Now, six years later, I am not even using that degree. The difference is that I'm not bitching! I don't think that anyone else should pay for my poor choice in education. I'm not asking for a hand out. I got a steady job to provide for my family while I go back to school for something more useful even though it will mean more student loans and debt. It is just the right thing to do. You make decisions and live with the consequences. If they are mistakes, you take your licks and pick yourself back up and try again.
**UPDATE!!** 1/06/12
I did some research and found some real numbers provided by the IRS, Dept. of Labor Statistics and other Gov't groups. Now the most current tax numbers available are from 2010, but the spending numbers for 2011 are available, so it will not be an exact comparison but it will be close enough.
In 2011, the federal government spent $3.789 Trillion dollars on all its entitlements and regulations which was $1.615 Trillion more than it raised. In 2010, the "1%" had a total gross income of $1.685 trillion from 1,399,606 positive returns, meaning that many people that made money instead of having a loss for the year. So, even if you Occupados get your dearest wish and take the "1%" for all they are worth, you are not even funding the federal government for half the year.
And, again, you run into the same problems afterwards (see above). Namely, if you take everything the "1%" has, you eliminate their ability to earn anything at all. So, in 8 months who are you going to soak next?
But maybe I am wrong. So, just for a moment, lets play devil's advocate.
*waves magic wand* POOF!!!! you all got your wish. Every dollar that the so called "wealthy" have has been seized and given to the government. Right now the government costs tens of billions a day to run and you insects want to up that bill with more entitlement programs and nanny-state give aways. Let us say that there are several hundred "millionaires and billionaires" in this country. There are more millionaires in that category than billionaires. But let us again go with your best case scenario and say that every person in the "1%" is worth $1 billion. If you confiscate every cent they have and give it to the government that is only about $300, I'll even be generous and say $500, billion. That is enough money to run the government and its myriad of handouts for a month...maybe two. Who are you going to take money from next month to pay for your welfare?
The people who you call the 1%, the wealthy are the business owners, the wealth creators. By leaving them penniless you have eliminated their ability to make more wealth. Also, since you have now seized and liquidated their businesses you have also destroyed billions of jobs for others. Now since these are the innovators and risk takers of the country they could bounce back if given the chance. But what would be the point? As soon as they make a buck you idiots will demand they give that to you too. So not only have you destroyed the wealth that currently exists, but you have also eliminated the desire to make more...all for the sake of running an unsustainable system for two months.
I like this game! Lets do it again. Devil's advocate take two...
You say "Ok. Fine." Lets not give the money to the federal government. Lets still soak the rich and give all the money to "the people." Lets run the math again. You still have the same pool of money of the "1%." We will again go with the optimistic number of $500 billion. The population of the US currently sits at about 312,000,000,000. Congratulations! You have now increased every body's wealth by less than $2! And you still have the problem that you have now destroyed all ability to create wealth in this country and any incentive to to do so anyway.
That's two scenarios down...how about a third!
You say "OK...FINE!!!" Lets give the money to a select few "right people" that will use it properly. Who decides these people? And then how do they decide the "correct" way to use it? Also, these new owners of wealth are now the "1%" Congratulations!! Does your ideology suddenly stop just because you now have the wealth? That's a pretty shallow ethos. And if you still believe in your re-distributionist methods you should have no problem handing over your new gotten wealth when someone else says that you are now the 1% and they deserve to have your money, right? You are just going to give them your money with a smile and a handshake?
*waits for an answer and listens to the silence. Also sees the truth on your face* I thought not.
The truth you do not want to admit is that who has the money is not the problem. You are just jealous its not you. Instead of actually working to make your own wealth, you just whine and complain until someone gives you something. I'm sorry that your parents lied to you that doing nothing makes you special. Doing nothing makes you a lazy piece of shit! You don't deserve anything especially if it comes from someone who actually worked and earned what they have.
The biggest and original complaint of the "Occupy" crowd was their student loans and that they couldn't find a job. I agree with that much. Big Education is an eye sore and a drain on the country...but that is another blog. Maybe you shouldn't take such useless major's as Women's Studies, or Bi-sexual Asian Cultures, or whatever government approved degree you have. I'm in the boat with you. I took Anthropology/Archeology only to find a limited job market. Now, six years later, I am not even using that degree. The difference is that I'm not bitching! I don't think that anyone else should pay for my poor choice in education. I'm not asking for a hand out. I got a steady job to provide for my family while I go back to school for something more useful even though it will mean more student loans and debt. It is just the right thing to do. You make decisions and live with the consequences. If they are mistakes, you take your licks and pick yourself back up and try again.
**UPDATE!!** 1/06/12
I did some research and found some real numbers provided by the IRS, Dept. of Labor Statistics and other Gov't groups. Now the most current tax numbers available are from 2010, but the spending numbers for 2011 are available, so it will not be an exact comparison but it will be close enough.
In 2011, the federal government spent $3.789 Trillion dollars on all its entitlements and regulations which was $1.615 Trillion more than it raised. In 2010, the "1%" had a total gross income of $1.685 trillion from 1,399,606 positive returns, meaning that many people that made money instead of having a loss for the year. So, even if you Occupados get your dearest wish and take the "1%" for all they are worth, you are not even funding the federal government for half the year.
And, again, you run into the same problems afterwards (see above). Namely, if you take everything the "1%" has, you eliminate their ability to earn anything at all. So, in 8 months who are you going to soak next?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
OWS's 15 minutes of fame
It looks like the "Occupy" movement is finally fizzling out and I say not soon enough!
For the last two months the whole nation has been inundated with press coverage of the daily activity of this errant "cause." We were treated to every shift, chant, hardship. The mainstream media cheered as each extension was formed in different cities. They pompously claimed this was the Left's version of the Tea Party only OWS was larger and was back by the majority. But finally truth has caught up to the mob.
The Tea Party succeeded, and continues to do so, where OWS failed because the Tea Party is a true grassroots movement where OWS is "astroturfing."
The Tea Party was not started to be a movement. It was truly built from the ground up with a few people gathering based on shared ideals, in this case the rapid, and foolish, expansion of government beyond its means and mandate. These few were joined by others, first in handfuls and then in droves. When the size of this phenomena dawned on them it was then that the idea of action began to develop. Even in this the Tea Party started small and grew to large protests outside Congress. In short, it was pbased on principal, passion, and patriotism.
OWS is almost the exact opposite. It was formed from the top down. This is what is known as "astroturfing:" A movement organized and funded for a specific agenda, precisely to make a scene, by a politician or interest group. This group then tries to pass itself off as a grassroots movement to falsely claim legitimacy. OWS was formed with protests and civil disruption in mind without any thought given to any unifying ideology.
The results of such differing approaches is very clear. Tea Party protests truly were non-violent. They consisted of a wide range of Americans from differing background. The Tea Partiers destroyed no property, obeyed the law, including the obtaining of proper permits, and showed utmost respect for the law enforcement assigned by Liberals "just in case" violence broke out, which never happened. They stood in group, holding candles and singing patriotic songs including "America the Beautiful," the National Anthem, and maybe an occassional hymn. They prayed to God for guidance, not only for themselves but for the leaders in Congress as well. And finally, when they left to go back to their jobs they cleaned up after themselves.
Now lets look at OWS...it is funded entirely by politicians and interest groups. These include the President, the Liberal establishment, Pelosi, Reid, etc.,and their sycophants such as ACORN, Unions, ACLU, and other such groups. Because it didn't start with a base of supporters it relied on two methods to gather them. One was basically to hire professional protesters. The other was to take a page from the President's community organizer days and stir up the rabble. They added gasoline to the fire they started three years ago by enflaming class and wealth envy. These people were gathered for money and hate. There was no common thought. The result of this tactic was clear: destruction of property, theft, rape, assault, public urination, public nudity, and violence towards police. They obtained no permits for their gathering, merely squatting illegally in a privately owned park.
Because these people had no unity they were unable to articulate any clear message: the younger protesters gave the nebulous reason of student loans, other vaguely shouted "soak the rich," yet others merely complained about "social fairness." Let alone that the mere premiss of these protests go against one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not Covet!!!, when asked to add detail to these greivances, to clearly explain how they would fix them, they fell to incoherent shouting of protest chants.
Each day brought more speech laced increasingly with vulgarity, violence, and hate, more than a little of which was anti-semetic ranting. The songs coming from the Occupy shanty-town were "F*ck america!" And as they stayed, the filth and disease increased leading to outbreaks of several respiratory diseases, bacterial infections and even STD's.
And Obama and his sycophants want to tell us that the two are a lot alike...
The real problem is going to be the aftermath. The movement is breaking up; and not because they were forced like the media wants you to believe. OWS is being pack-in because the liberals can not deny the numbers anymore. Every Liberal, from Obama down to the lowliest ACORN aide, tried to tell us that this was mainstream america. They threw thier weight completely behind OWS to force it to catch on. BUt they were forced to face the reality that the majority of Americans identify with teh Tea Party more than OWS. Not only that, but now to tie ones political reputation to OWS is career suicide. So now the Liberals want the protesters to quietly fade to the background as more and more their true colors are made clear. The Liberal mayor of NYC, Bloomberg, was given permission to actually enforce the law now that OWS is an embarassment.
But OWS doesn't want to go away.
The Liberals are now faced with a real problem. They let the monster out of the box, practically dragged it out, and fed it until it had a life of its own. They went out in public, were taped telling the world how much they supported them. But now that OWS has a life of its own it has stopped listening to the Liberals. They can't put the monster back in its box and are now forced to ride out the storm.
The first wave of damage control was Bloomberg finally acting on the side of Law to give the pretense of official action against OWS. This only made it worse. Now that it had a taste of freedom, the monster resents trying to be locked away again. Upon being forced out of Zuccoti Park the protesters gave way to violence and threats. More than a handful gleefully told cameras that "the city would burn," "Macy's will soon know what a Molitov Cocktail can do to a store," and "we are gonna burn this mother f*cking city down." Within hours of being evicted from Zuccoti Park, they entered illegally again.
So now Liberals are faced with a difficult decision..Do they alienate their base by further distancing themselves from the remnants of OWS, or do they keep the stone around their neck?
For the last two months the whole nation has been inundated with press coverage of the daily activity of this errant "cause." We were treated to every shift, chant, hardship. The mainstream media cheered as each extension was formed in different cities. They pompously claimed this was the Left's version of the Tea Party only OWS was larger and was back by the majority. But finally truth has caught up to the mob.
The Tea Party succeeded, and continues to do so, where OWS failed because the Tea Party is a true grassroots movement where OWS is "astroturfing."
The Tea Party was not started to be a movement. It was truly built from the ground up with a few people gathering based on shared ideals, in this case the rapid, and foolish, expansion of government beyond its means and mandate. These few were joined by others, first in handfuls and then in droves. When the size of this phenomena dawned on them it was then that the idea of action began to develop. Even in this the Tea Party started small and grew to large protests outside Congress. In short, it was pbased on principal, passion, and patriotism.
OWS is almost the exact opposite. It was formed from the top down. This is what is known as "astroturfing:" A movement organized and funded for a specific agenda, precisely to make a scene, by a politician or interest group. This group then tries to pass itself off as a grassroots movement to falsely claim legitimacy. OWS was formed with protests and civil disruption in mind without any thought given to any unifying ideology.
The results of such differing approaches is very clear. Tea Party protests truly were non-violent. They consisted of a wide range of Americans from differing background. The Tea Partiers destroyed no property, obeyed the law, including the obtaining of proper permits, and showed utmost respect for the law enforcement assigned by Liberals "just in case" violence broke out, which never happened. They stood in group, holding candles and singing patriotic songs including "America the Beautiful," the National Anthem, and maybe an occassional hymn. They prayed to God for guidance, not only for themselves but for the leaders in Congress as well. And finally, when they left to go back to their jobs they cleaned up after themselves.
Now lets look at OWS...it is funded entirely by politicians and interest groups. These include the President, the Liberal establishment, Pelosi, Reid, etc.,and their sycophants such as ACORN, Unions, ACLU, and other such groups. Because it didn't start with a base of supporters it relied on two methods to gather them. One was basically to hire professional protesters. The other was to take a page from the President's community organizer days and stir up the rabble. They added gasoline to the fire they started three years ago by enflaming class and wealth envy. These people were gathered for money and hate. There was no common thought. The result of this tactic was clear: destruction of property, theft, rape, assault, public urination, public nudity, and violence towards police. They obtained no permits for their gathering, merely squatting illegally in a privately owned park.
Because these people had no unity they were unable to articulate any clear message: the younger protesters gave the nebulous reason of student loans, other vaguely shouted "soak the rich," yet others merely complained about "social fairness." Let alone that the mere premiss of these protests go against one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not Covet!!!, when asked to add detail to these greivances, to clearly explain how they would fix them, they fell to incoherent shouting of protest chants.
Each day brought more speech laced increasingly with vulgarity, violence, and hate, more than a little of which was anti-semetic ranting. The songs coming from the Occupy shanty-town were "F*ck america!" And as they stayed, the filth and disease increased leading to outbreaks of several respiratory diseases, bacterial infections and even STD's.
And Obama and his sycophants want to tell us that the two are a lot alike...
The real problem is going to be the aftermath. The movement is breaking up; and not because they were forced like the media wants you to believe. OWS is being pack-in because the liberals can not deny the numbers anymore. Every Liberal, from Obama down to the lowliest ACORN aide, tried to tell us that this was mainstream america. They threw thier weight completely behind OWS to force it to catch on. BUt they were forced to face the reality that the majority of Americans identify with teh Tea Party more than OWS. Not only that, but now to tie ones political reputation to OWS is career suicide. So now the Liberals want the protesters to quietly fade to the background as more and more their true colors are made clear. The Liberal mayor of NYC, Bloomberg, was given permission to actually enforce the law now that OWS is an embarassment.
But OWS doesn't want to go away.
The Liberals are now faced with a real problem. They let the monster out of the box, practically dragged it out, and fed it until it had a life of its own. They went out in public, were taped telling the world how much they supported them. But now that OWS has a life of its own it has stopped listening to the Liberals. They can't put the monster back in its box and are now forced to ride out the storm.
The first wave of damage control was Bloomberg finally acting on the side of Law to give the pretense of official action against OWS. This only made it worse. Now that it had a taste of freedom, the monster resents trying to be locked away again. Upon being forced out of Zuccoti Park the protesters gave way to violence and threats. More than a handful gleefully told cameras that "the city would burn," "Macy's will soon know what a Molitov Cocktail can do to a store," and "we are gonna burn this mother f*cking city down." Within hours of being evicted from Zuccoti Park, they entered illegally again.
So now Liberals are faced with a difficult decision..Do they alienate their base by further distancing themselves from the remnants of OWS, or do they keep the stone around their neck?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Enviro-hypocracy
Appparently, the Left's enviromental tyranny applies only to America.
For years, the greeny-weenies have held production in this country hostage. "Drilling for oil is an evil thing!" "Drilling wrecks the environment." "Mining for coal is bad." "Drilling for shale and natural gas is no good either."
"We must be 'green.'" "Solar, wind and others "renewable" energy is the correct way."
When they say this they only mean the United States. Congress has recently approved drilling permits for the Gulf, thats our territorial waters for all of you keeping score, for countries such as China, Japan, and certain South American countries to name a few. Yet for years they, backed by their enviro-fascist base, have delayed, blocked, and flat out denied those rights to American companies. Giving sole access to OUR abundant oil reserves to foreign powers.
For years, Democrats have fought and denied the rights of American oil companies to drill on our own soil. However, Comrade Obama recently authorized, as part of the stimulus spending, over 400 billion dollars to South American countries to help develop their drilling programs. Also, while denying america the chance to drill in ANWAR, Congress apparently doesn't mind Russia drilling there.
Congress has created a labrynth of red tape for anyone wanting to build new refineries but clear they way for foreign interests to ship oil out of our country.
So the lesson from all this is that fossil fuels are only evil when the United States wants them. Starving our country of its own natural resources and empowering other countries. Does this sound like a good plan to anyone? Didn't think so. Its because of this policy that gasoline is is over $3/gallon at least, $4/gallon in some areas. If those road blocks were erased and american companies allowed to drill for ourt own resources you would see gas prices get cut in half in a matter of months.
Because, first, we would have a domestic supply instead of importing. Second, because we would have our own supply, foreign oil would drop for fear of loosing a share of the market. Thirdly is simple supply and demand. With a larger supply, demand, as well as price goes down.
Now lets look at the "green" side of the issue.
Solar...by now I am sure everyone has heard of Solyndra, what I am going to affectionately call, for lack of a better analogy, Obama-gate. Solyndra is one of a handful of companies that make solar panels that have recently gone under. It is simply a bad business model. If you sell a product for less than the cost to make it, your business will fail. Despite this horrible business model and the fact that auditors, like PriceWaterhouseCoopers, had reported that the companies accumulated losses for its five years in business totaled over $558 million, and expressing serious doubts about it future, the Obama administration gave it the first stimulus hand out to the sum of $535 million. And one of Solyndra's prinicipal investors, one George Kaiser from Oklahoma, just happens to be a major contributor to the Obama campaign.
Wind...the enviro-fascists love to extol the virtues of wind-turbine generated power but refuse to acknowledge its serious flaws. The first of which is that you can't just put a wind farm anywhere. Usually they are placed in the open plains or on top of ridge lines. Also you need acres upon acres to build them. This narrows the possible locations to the midwest or appalacia. If you live anywhere else in the country I guess you are just S.O.L.
The next big flaw is that they are huge, ugly, and noisy. Property values plummet around them because no one wants to have a view of dozens of large machinery. Countless liberal communities, after berating tax payers into paying for them, have filed injunctions and sanctions against wind farms close by. They insist the turbines only operate in winds of <20 mph. This decreases their effectiveness as they are designed to be operated in winds >40 mph.
Not mention that the turbines have killed countless birds and bats because when they are operating, they interfere with air current and emit a frequency that affects a bat's sonar.
All this and neither wind nor solar can even come close to the wattage of coal or nuclear power...
It is also worthy of notice that even their admonishments of oilriggs themselves were wrong. The Left has pegged oil riggs as these eyesores that destroy whatever ecosystem they are built in. It seems that is a lie as well. Oil riggs are now unable to be dismantled because they are now artificial reefs and now support whole ecosystems.
WARNING!!! SCIENCE CONTENT (aka FACT)!!!
You see, when a mommy polyp and a daddy polyp love each other very much...anyway, when polyps spawn, it drifts in the ocean current until it find something solid to land on, in this case the supports of an oil rigg. Then it attaches itself and begins to grow. They feed off plankton and as tehy grow, they shed their exo skeletons which start to form reefs along with any that die and calcify. This provides shelter for smaller fish and other marine life which, in turn, attracts larger predators which attracts even bigger predators. Before you know it an ecosystem is born. And all this happens on and around oil riggs. These artificial reefs have even been known to draw whales that feed on the krill and plankton as well....so much for the lifeless desolation that was supposed to happen...
For years, the greeny-weenies have held production in this country hostage. "Drilling for oil is an evil thing!" "Drilling wrecks the environment." "Mining for coal is bad." "Drilling for shale and natural gas is no good either."
"We must be 'green.'" "Solar, wind and others "renewable" energy is the correct way."
When they say this they only mean the United States. Congress has recently approved drilling permits for the Gulf, thats our territorial waters for all of you keeping score, for countries such as China, Japan, and certain South American countries to name a few. Yet for years they, backed by their enviro-fascist base, have delayed, blocked, and flat out denied those rights to American companies. Giving sole access to OUR abundant oil reserves to foreign powers.
For years, Democrats have fought and denied the rights of American oil companies to drill on our own soil. However, Comrade Obama recently authorized, as part of the stimulus spending, over 400 billion dollars to South American countries to help develop their drilling programs. Also, while denying america the chance to drill in ANWAR, Congress apparently doesn't mind Russia drilling there.
Congress has created a labrynth of red tape for anyone wanting to build new refineries but clear they way for foreign interests to ship oil out of our country.
So the lesson from all this is that fossil fuels are only evil when the United States wants them. Starving our country of its own natural resources and empowering other countries. Does this sound like a good plan to anyone? Didn't think so. Its because of this policy that gasoline is is over $3/gallon at least, $4/gallon in some areas. If those road blocks were erased and american companies allowed to drill for ourt own resources you would see gas prices get cut in half in a matter of months.
Because, first, we would have a domestic supply instead of importing. Second, because we would have our own supply, foreign oil would drop for fear of loosing a share of the market. Thirdly is simple supply and demand. With a larger supply, demand, as well as price goes down.
Now lets look at the "green" side of the issue.
Solar...by now I am sure everyone has heard of Solyndra, what I am going to affectionately call, for lack of a better analogy, Obama-gate. Solyndra is one of a handful of companies that make solar panels that have recently gone under. It is simply a bad business model. If you sell a product for less than the cost to make it, your business will fail. Despite this horrible business model and the fact that auditors, like PriceWaterhouseCoopers, had reported that the companies accumulated losses for its five years in business totaled over $558 million, and expressing serious doubts about it future, the Obama administration gave it the first stimulus hand out to the sum of $535 million. And one of Solyndra's prinicipal investors, one George Kaiser from Oklahoma, just happens to be a major contributor to the Obama campaign.
Wind...the enviro-fascists love to extol the virtues of wind-turbine generated power but refuse to acknowledge its serious flaws. The first of which is that you can't just put a wind farm anywhere. Usually they are placed in the open plains or on top of ridge lines. Also you need acres upon acres to build them. This narrows the possible locations to the midwest or appalacia. If you live anywhere else in the country I guess you are just S.O.L.
The next big flaw is that they are huge, ugly, and noisy. Property values plummet around them because no one wants to have a view of dozens of large machinery. Countless liberal communities, after berating tax payers into paying for them, have filed injunctions and sanctions against wind farms close by. They insist the turbines only operate in winds of <20 mph. This decreases their effectiveness as they are designed to be operated in winds >40 mph.
Not mention that the turbines have killed countless birds and bats because when they are operating, they interfere with air current and emit a frequency that affects a bat's sonar.
All this and neither wind nor solar can even come close to the wattage of coal or nuclear power...
It is also worthy of notice that even their admonishments of oilriggs themselves were wrong. The Left has pegged oil riggs as these eyesores that destroy whatever ecosystem they are built in. It seems that is a lie as well. Oil riggs are now unable to be dismantled because they are now artificial reefs and now support whole ecosystems.
WARNING!!! SCIENCE CONTENT (aka FACT)!!!
You see, when a mommy polyp and a daddy polyp love each other very much...anyway, when polyps spawn, it drifts in the ocean current until it find something solid to land on, in this case the supports of an oil rigg. Then it attaches itself and begins to grow. They feed off plankton and as tehy grow, they shed their exo skeletons which start to form reefs along with any that die and calcify. This provides shelter for smaller fish and other marine life which, in turn, attracts larger predators which attracts even bigger predators. Before you know it an ecosystem is born. And all this happens on and around oil riggs. These artificial reefs have even been known to draw whales that feed on the krill and plankton as well....so much for the lifeless desolation that was supposed to happen...
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Lessons of 9/11
What has happened to this country??
I was originally going to post yesterday about my dismay and anger that there are still 9/11 conspiracies and idiots that believe them. I was going to follow that up with trying to introduce logic and fact into the situation to try to disuade some of them.
After a lot of throught and reflection I have changed my mind. Not in any way because that subject has any less importance to me. On the contrary, on this day it holds a great deal of importance and I will probably at least touch on it later. The reason I decided not to post about debunking 9/11 conspiracies is that there is no point in trying.
If, after 10 years, you people are still talking about these idiotic ideas then nothing I can say will ever convince you idiots otherwise. Because you are not interested in truth or facts. Stuart Chase once said "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice." God, himself could come down in all his heavenly glory and tell you that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy and it wouldn't help.
Anyway....what has happened to this country?
There was a time when tragic events like this 9/11 were rallying cries, battle cries, promises to learn the lessons taught, and promises to never forget. In 1836 the Mexican Army attacked the Alamo killing all but two defenders. The answering cry became "Remember the Alamo!" It preceded men into battle and unified them in their resolve. In 1898 The USS Maine was sunk off of Havana, Cuba. During the Spanish-American War we heard "Remember the Maine!" Dec. 7 1941 saw the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. This event unified the country and saw us through World War II as we pursued those responsible.
9/11 should be no different. Like Pearl Harbor, it was an unprovoked attack by a foreign aggressor. Only this time even more American lives were lost. Nearly 3,000! This should have galvanized our country and brought us together. And it did...for about five minutes...
Democrats joined Republicans in enthusiastically approving going to war when it was politically expedient because even their constituents wanted it. But, as soon as the slightest wavering was seen, they changed positions in droves. Even going so far as to deny that they voted for war in the first place. They started calling this "Bush's War." They lied and said that we were over there for oil, or that Bush planned this from the beginning simply because he wanted a war, or to sure-up his political standing. The past ten years has seen Liberals blame America for what happened. "America's chickens are coming home to roost!" Rev. Jeremiah Wright proclaimed to his congregation. Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi are among those that say America brought this on ourselves by being so darned mean to the rest of the world. We have seen the cult of appeasement, led by Obama, Liberals and the Moveon.org crowd, try to downplay the evil of the terrorists, make deals with islamofascists around the world who want nothing more than to see America burn to the ground, and suck up to these bigots by trying to put a mosque at Ground Zero, which is bad taste at best and treasonous at worst. We saw them take a national tragedy and turn it into quick political points.
Obama even released "guidelines" about how memorials should be carried out: Al'Qaeda should be downplayed because they really aren't a threat; This tragedy should be diminished and equated with other terror attacks around the world because America is nothing special; we should not call them "terror attacks;" Jihadism is not to be mentioned.
Since the beginning of the year, as we approached the tenth anniversary, Liberals have been out there saying that we over-reacted to 9/11. It was just a misunderstanding, no reason to go to war. They tell us "You guys are Christians. Forgive and forget, right?" My question is "Why?!"
Forgiveness? Of course. As a christian, I am called to love, forgive, and pray for my enemies and those that persecute. So I do so freely without restraint or regret. But Forget? Never! There is no good reason to forget anything about that day.
Historically, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Do you really want another 9/11? If another attack comes, it might even be worse.
Emotionally, forgetting does not bring closure. It brings guilt that we may be dishonoring those who have gone before us. Acceptance brings closure and healing. Forgetting is not accepting anything.
Intellectually, forgetting what happened on 9/11 is to descend into ignorance and to condemn future generation to the same. It would be horrible if generations from now, children had no idea what 9/11 is.
It is also offensive, apparently not to Liberals who are asking us to forget what happened and move on. But it is offensive to the rest of us. Why don't you go to the families who have lost somebody-to the father who lost a child, the husband who lost a wife, or wife who lost a husband, children who have spent the last ten years not knowing a parent-and tell them that it's been ten years so they should just forget about it and move on? Or go to the NYPD and FDNY, that family that lost 343 of its own, and tell them that they should forget that sacrifice and move on. How about you go to the families of the people on Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA and tell them to forget about the bravery of their lost loved ones?
I will never forget. I did not have the misfortune of losing anyone in 9/11. I was not there. At the time, I was a freshman in college in California, PA. I watched in horror on TV as the second plane hit. However, after graduating in 2005 with a degree in Archeology I briefly was assigned to a project in 2007 where I went to New York and spent two month sifting through the rubble and debris from Ground Zero. It was a rather emotional experience to know that a piece of bone you come across was a person, the cross you uncovered was some one's necklace, the bracelet might have been a gift to a spouse that morning...I may not have been in NYC or Washington on that day. I may not have lost a loved one. But I was touched by this terrible tragedy none the less.
Today, as well as everyday in the future, we must remember what happened on September 11, 2001. We must remember without reservation or complaint. We remember with tears and pain and loss. But also pride, love and hope. Pride that our neighbors, when the moment came, rose to the occasion with flying colors. Love for those who were lost and those left behind to pick up the pieces. And hope that this sacrifice will not be in vain, that the lesson will never be forgotten.
We must remember that this tragedy was committed not by a handful of misguided men, but by a group of mass murders. And we must remember that they were sent by a larger group of islamofascists. We must remember that our only "crime" in this scenario is that our way of life is not theirs. Because our way of life put the lie to theirs, they could not stand to see ours flourish. They were terrorists that kidnapped that hijacked four planes, kidnapping their passengers, and used them to murder almost 3,000 people. By this action, they have declared themselves as our enemies. We must remember that they will do it again without the slightest provocation if given the chance.
Always remember that we may never repeat this tragedy...
I was originally going to post yesterday about my dismay and anger that there are still 9/11 conspiracies and idiots that believe them. I was going to follow that up with trying to introduce logic and fact into the situation to try to disuade some of them.
After a lot of throught and reflection I have changed my mind. Not in any way because that subject has any less importance to me. On the contrary, on this day it holds a great deal of importance and I will probably at least touch on it later. The reason I decided not to post about debunking 9/11 conspiracies is that there is no point in trying.
If, after 10 years, you people are still talking about these idiotic ideas then nothing I can say will ever convince you idiots otherwise. Because you are not interested in truth or facts. Stuart Chase once said "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice." God, himself could come down in all his heavenly glory and tell you that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy and it wouldn't help.
Anyway....what has happened to this country?
There was a time when tragic events like this 9/11 were rallying cries, battle cries, promises to learn the lessons taught, and promises to never forget. In 1836 the Mexican Army attacked the Alamo killing all but two defenders. The answering cry became "Remember the Alamo!" It preceded men into battle and unified them in their resolve. In 1898 The USS Maine was sunk off of Havana, Cuba. During the Spanish-American War we heard "Remember the Maine!" Dec. 7 1941 saw the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. This event unified the country and saw us through World War II as we pursued those responsible.
9/11 should be no different. Like Pearl Harbor, it was an unprovoked attack by a foreign aggressor. Only this time even more American lives were lost. Nearly 3,000! This should have galvanized our country and brought us together. And it did...for about five minutes...
Democrats joined Republicans in enthusiastically approving going to war when it was politically expedient because even their constituents wanted it. But, as soon as the slightest wavering was seen, they changed positions in droves. Even going so far as to deny that they voted for war in the first place. They started calling this "Bush's War." They lied and said that we were over there for oil, or that Bush planned this from the beginning simply because he wanted a war, or to sure-up his political standing. The past ten years has seen Liberals blame America for what happened. "America's chickens are coming home to roost!" Rev. Jeremiah Wright proclaimed to his congregation. Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi are among those that say America brought this on ourselves by being so darned mean to the rest of the world. We have seen the cult of appeasement, led by Obama, Liberals and the Moveon.org crowd, try to downplay the evil of the terrorists, make deals with islamofascists around the world who want nothing more than to see America burn to the ground, and suck up to these bigots by trying to put a mosque at Ground Zero, which is bad taste at best and treasonous at worst. We saw them take a national tragedy and turn it into quick political points.
Obama even released "guidelines" about how memorials should be carried out: Al'Qaeda should be downplayed because they really aren't a threat; This tragedy should be diminished and equated with other terror attacks around the world because America is nothing special; we should not call them "terror attacks;" Jihadism is not to be mentioned.
Since the beginning of the year, as we approached the tenth anniversary, Liberals have been out there saying that we over-reacted to 9/11. It was just a misunderstanding, no reason to go to war. They tell us "You guys are Christians. Forgive and forget, right?" My question is "Why?!"
Forgiveness? Of course. As a christian, I am called to love, forgive, and pray for my enemies and those that persecute. So I do so freely without restraint or regret. But Forget? Never! There is no good reason to forget anything about that day.
Historically, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Do you really want another 9/11? If another attack comes, it might even be worse.
Emotionally, forgetting does not bring closure. It brings guilt that we may be dishonoring those who have gone before us. Acceptance brings closure and healing. Forgetting is not accepting anything.
Intellectually, forgetting what happened on 9/11 is to descend into ignorance and to condemn future generation to the same. It would be horrible if generations from now, children had no idea what 9/11 is.
It is also offensive, apparently not to Liberals who are asking us to forget what happened and move on. But it is offensive to the rest of us. Why don't you go to the families who have lost somebody-to the father who lost a child, the husband who lost a wife, or wife who lost a husband, children who have spent the last ten years not knowing a parent-and tell them that it's been ten years so they should just forget about it and move on? Or go to the NYPD and FDNY, that family that lost 343 of its own, and tell them that they should forget that sacrifice and move on. How about you go to the families of the people on Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA and tell them to forget about the bravery of their lost loved ones?
I will never forget. I did not have the misfortune of losing anyone in 9/11. I was not there. At the time, I was a freshman in college in California, PA. I watched in horror on TV as the second plane hit. However, after graduating in 2005 with a degree in Archeology I briefly was assigned to a project in 2007 where I went to New York and spent two month sifting through the rubble and debris from Ground Zero. It was a rather emotional experience to know that a piece of bone you come across was a person, the cross you uncovered was some one's necklace, the bracelet might have been a gift to a spouse that morning...I may not have been in NYC or Washington on that day. I may not have lost a loved one. But I was touched by this terrible tragedy none the less.
Today, as well as everyday in the future, we must remember what happened on September 11, 2001. We must remember without reservation or complaint. We remember with tears and pain and loss. But also pride, love and hope. Pride that our neighbors, when the moment came, rose to the occasion with flying colors. Love for those who were lost and those left behind to pick up the pieces. And hope that this sacrifice will not be in vain, that the lesson will never be forgotten.
We must remember that this tragedy was committed not by a handful of misguided men, but by a group of mass murders. And we must remember that they were sent by a larger group of islamofascists. We must remember that our only "crime" in this scenario is that our way of life is not theirs. Because our way of life put the lie to theirs, they could not stand to see ours flourish. They were terrorists that kidnapped that hijacked four planes, kidnapping their passengers, and used them to murder almost 3,000 people. By this action, they have declared themselves as our enemies. We must remember that they will do it again without the slightest provocation if given the chance.
Always remember that we may never repeat this tragedy...
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Broken record
So...I was gonna write something about 9/11 but in honor of Barak Husein Obama's unremarkable speech, I think I will save that for later.
Aren't you people tired of more of the same yet? He said nothing new tonight. Obama's plan for creating jobs is just the old one: tax and spend, tax and spend. This time its additional $450 BILLION. That is billion with a "b." But hey, when you have already spent over 4 TRILLION in just under three years and made sure that another 10 TRILLION will be spent in the next 10 years whats another $450 billion?
The major point of his "jobs plan," and it is only a plan at this point because he has not actually sent a bill to congress yet, there is no evidence that he even has a draft of it, is of course taxes. Taxes, taxes and more taxes. This time he wants to tax the job creators and employers, saying that they should be willing to pay more taxes. But he insisted this isn't class warfare, which brought laughter around the room. What he failed to mention, and what he and his cronies have always failed to mention, is that the top 5% of tax payers, i.e. the wealthy, pay about 50% of taxes in this country while the bottom 50% don't pay any at all. So, who's paying their fair share?
Anyway...he tried to sweeten the deal by throwing a few "tax credits" to employers. The question here is if an employer is aready paying billions in taxes and you tell them that you want them to pay more are tax credits that barely amount to 1% of the taxes you pay really much of an incentive to hire?
Where is the money coming from to pay for this new stimulus? And make no mistake, this is yet again a stimulus package even if they do no call it one. Well, it probably will come from the new taxes on employers. But just in case he wants Congress to find ways to cut spending "over 10 years." Don't get me wrong...cutting spending is great and needs to happen. BUt it needs to happen NOW. This is the same facade they tried to use in the debt debate a few months ago. While Obama gets to spend billions now, he wants cuts over ten years...the problem is that he has no way to make those cuts happen. Each Congress balances its own budget for that session only. So future congresses have no obligation to follow spending cuts that other congresses pass. Secondly, when spending and national debt are in the multiple trillions, with $10 trillion more to be accumulated in the next 10 years, what good is $1 trillion in cuts over ten years that will never come ti pass? This part is just a ploy so that when conservatives resist, and they will, Obama can run to the media and say "See! I tried. I gave them their spending cuts and they still won't budge." It also allows him to shift the blame yet again when this goes south.
He rounded his speeah out with a "Chicago politics" "agree with me or else" tone, sprinkled in his usual socialism by implying that the economy can only grow when government does, slipped more than a little partisan rhetoric by mocking the Tea Party freshmen who think government is too big, and finally absolved himself by saying if this plan fails it will be Congress's fault for not acting soon enough.
So, basically, Obama played the same broken record yet again. My last question is who got the more ratings last night? Obama, or the NFL?
UPDATE:
The AP showed surprising clarity for once. They actually fact-checked Obama. Every point of his speech they debunked and spoke against. They pointed out that this stimulus will not help jobs anytime within the next two years, if even then. And it will, in fact add to the deficit immediately. They admitted that IF the spending cuts materialize at all it will be down the road while the spending happends now. They admitted that Obama's "infrastructure bank" that would supposedly create jobs won't even be organized for another couple years, but the spending for it happens now.
This is not a conservative or Tea Party organization. This is the Associated Press!! They are the first wave, the grunts, of teh Liberal media. Even they see this for what it is
Aren't you people tired of more of the same yet? He said nothing new tonight. Obama's plan for creating jobs is just the old one: tax and spend, tax and spend. This time its additional $450 BILLION. That is billion with a "b." But hey, when you have already spent over 4 TRILLION in just under three years and made sure that another 10 TRILLION will be spent in the next 10 years whats another $450 billion?
The major point of his "jobs plan," and it is only a plan at this point because he has not actually sent a bill to congress yet, there is no evidence that he even has a draft of it, is of course taxes. Taxes, taxes and more taxes. This time he wants to tax the job creators and employers, saying that they should be willing to pay more taxes. But he insisted this isn't class warfare, which brought laughter around the room. What he failed to mention, and what he and his cronies have always failed to mention, is that the top 5% of tax payers, i.e. the wealthy, pay about 50% of taxes in this country while the bottom 50% don't pay any at all. So, who's paying their fair share?
Anyway...he tried to sweeten the deal by throwing a few "tax credits" to employers. The question here is if an employer is aready paying billions in taxes and you tell them that you want them to pay more are tax credits that barely amount to 1% of the taxes you pay really much of an incentive to hire?
Where is the money coming from to pay for this new stimulus? And make no mistake, this is yet again a stimulus package even if they do no call it one. Well, it probably will come from the new taxes on employers. But just in case he wants Congress to find ways to cut spending "over 10 years." Don't get me wrong...cutting spending is great and needs to happen. BUt it needs to happen NOW. This is the same facade they tried to use in the debt debate a few months ago. While Obama gets to spend billions now, he wants cuts over ten years...the problem is that he has no way to make those cuts happen. Each Congress balances its own budget for that session only. So future congresses have no obligation to follow spending cuts that other congresses pass. Secondly, when spending and national debt are in the multiple trillions, with $10 trillion more to be accumulated in the next 10 years, what good is $1 trillion in cuts over ten years that will never come ti pass? This part is just a ploy so that when conservatives resist, and they will, Obama can run to the media and say "See! I tried. I gave them their spending cuts and they still won't budge." It also allows him to shift the blame yet again when this goes south.
He rounded his speeah out with a "Chicago politics" "agree with me or else" tone, sprinkled in his usual socialism by implying that the economy can only grow when government does, slipped more than a little partisan rhetoric by mocking the Tea Party freshmen who think government is too big, and finally absolved himself by saying if this plan fails it will be Congress's fault for not acting soon enough.
So, basically, Obama played the same broken record yet again. My last question is who got the more ratings last night? Obama, or the NFL?
UPDATE:
The AP showed surprising clarity for once. They actually fact-checked Obama. Every point of his speech they debunked and spoke against. They pointed out that this stimulus will not help jobs anytime within the next two years, if even then. And it will, in fact add to the deficit immediately. They admitted that IF the spending cuts materialize at all it will be down the road while the spending happends now. They admitted that Obama's "infrastructure bank" that would supposedly create jobs won't even be organized for another couple years, but the spending for it happens now.
This is not a conservative or Tea Party organization. This is the Associated Press!! They are the first wave, the grunts, of teh Liberal media. Even they see this for what it is
Sunday, August 14, 2011
History Lesson
So, I've been racking my brain on just what to write about lately. The problem is that there is just so many things, the debt deal, the Obama downgrade, etc., that I don't know where to begin. But then one thing started to get to me above all this past week. I am so sick of the Libs, along with the compliant media, trying to rewrite history to favor themselves. So, I thought we would have a little history lesson today....
The Republican Party and Civil Rights:
The Republican party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party. It was they who abolished slavery and gave black people freedom (13th Amendment), Citizenship (14th Amendment), and the right to vote (15th Amendment). They also passed teh Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that reformed the Democrat controlled states of the South to be less hostile to newly freed slaves. It was the Democrats, or "Dixie"-crats, who fought to keep slavery and, once abolished, passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the KKK and included such members as Sen. Robert Byrd (WV).
In the Civil Rights Era the majority of the black population, including Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., A. Phillip Randolph who organized the 1963 march on DC, were registered Republicans. The Republicans founded the Historic Black Colleges and Universities and started the NAACP and Affirmative Action, which was enacted by Pres. Nixon to reverse Democrat President Woodrow Wilson's order to kick all black Americans out of government jobs. The Liberal Democrats have twisted it into an unfair quota system. Dem. Pres. Harry Truman may have signed the order to desegregate the US military, but it was Rep. Pres. Eisenhower who actually took action to do it. It was he who pushed the Civial Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools. Eisenhower appointed Cheif Justice Earl Warren which enabled Brown v. Board of Education. The Democrats were the ones to stand in school house doors and turned firehoses and vicious dogs on black Americans.
Dem. Pres John F. Kennedy is lauded as a civil rights hero. But it was he while in the Senate, along with other Dem. senators such as Sen. Al Gore Sr., that voted against teh Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he gained teh presidency, JFK opposed the 1963 march on DC and had his brother Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, wiretap and investigate Dr. King through the FBI under suspicion of being a communist.
In 1968, Dr. King left Memphis, TN after riots broke out and a teenager killed. Sen. Robert Byrd(WV), same one who was a "Keagle" in the KKK, accused Dr. King of being a "troublemaker who runs as soon as trouble is started. In response, Dr. King returned to Memphis a few weeks later and was assassinated on April 4th.
Dem. Pres. Lyndon Johnson, another "champion of civil rights," in his 4500 word State of teh Union address devoted only 35 of those words to civil right. Voting rights weren't even mentioned. In 1967, in response to Dr. King's protest of teh Vietnam War, he called Dr. King "that N---- Preacher."
It was a Republican, Sen. Everett Dirksen, who was fore-front in passing civil rights legislation in 1957, '60, '64, and '65. It was he who wrote the language of the Voting rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Andit was Rep. Sen. Barry Goldwater who tried to force Democrats in the South from continuously passing discriminatory legislation which forced Congress to keep passing federal civil rights legislation.
The majority of US inner cities have been run by Democrats for teh past 30-40 years and they have sunk over $7 Trillion into Pres. Johnson's "War on Poverty" with almost no impact. The Democrats have always been the ones to push for more welfare programs and block Republican attempts to reform the existing ones. Can anyone honestly say that life in the inner-cities is better now than it was 30 years ago?
(Majority of previous content gatherd from Ms. Frances Rice, Chairman of the National Black Republican Association)
The Economy:
The Liberal Democrats try to say that their policies will lead to economic growth and prosperty and Conservative economic policies lead to ruin...lets look at the facts. Ronald Reagan, the epitomy of the conservative ideals, championed the cause of lower taxes, small government, private ownership, and fiscal and personal responsibility. Under his presidency private sector growth sky-rocketed, the economy exploded and instances of minority and female job growth, especially in corporate and executive settings, boomed. And this was after he corrected the harm done by Dem. Pres. Jimmy Carter's socialist policy of raising taxes, growing government, deficit spending, and redistribution of wealth that caused a deep depression.
It was Pres. Clinton, along with groups like ACORN, that forced banks to approve home loans to people who could never afford to repay the loans by threating legal, civil, and financial harrassment. This lead to the collapse of teh housing market in the past decade when all those bad loans finally came due and the people couldn't pay.
Under the Bush Tax Cuts, the US economy had 20 quarters of strong growth until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006
Now lets look at the economy under Pres. Obama...unemployment has increased from around 5% under Pres. Bush, to just over 9%. Available jobs has dropped by hundreds of millions. over 50% of americans aren't even working. National debt has increased from $4 Trillion to over $14 Trillion, with at least $3 Trillion more expected over the next ten years thanks to the debt deal. For the first time since WWII our country is spending more money than it brings in. And the cherry on top...our credit rating has been downgrading. The Liberal solution? Higher taxes, more spending and more printing of money without anything to back it. The Conservative solution? At least $4 Trillion is immediate cuts, a cap on further spending, and an Amendment to force Congress to pass a balanced budget every year, something the DEmocrat controled Senate hasn't done in more than 800 days.
It is time that we stop letting the Liberals write their own history. Let the facts speak for themselves.
The Republican Party and Civil Rights:
The Republican party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party. It was they who abolished slavery and gave black people freedom (13th Amendment), Citizenship (14th Amendment), and the right to vote (15th Amendment). They also passed teh Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that reformed the Democrat controlled states of the South to be less hostile to newly freed slaves. It was the Democrats, or "Dixie"-crats, who fought to keep slavery and, once abolished, passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the KKK and included such members as Sen. Robert Byrd (WV).
In the Civil Rights Era the majority of the black population, including Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., A. Phillip Randolph who organized the 1963 march on DC, were registered Republicans. The Republicans founded the Historic Black Colleges and Universities and started the NAACP and Affirmative Action, which was enacted by Pres. Nixon to reverse Democrat President Woodrow Wilson's order to kick all black Americans out of government jobs. The Liberal Democrats have twisted it into an unfair quota system. Dem. Pres. Harry Truman may have signed the order to desegregate the US military, but it was Rep. Pres. Eisenhower who actually took action to do it. It was he who pushed the Civial Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools. Eisenhower appointed Cheif Justice Earl Warren which enabled Brown v. Board of Education. The Democrats were the ones to stand in school house doors and turned firehoses and vicious dogs on black Americans.
Dem. Pres John F. Kennedy is lauded as a civil rights hero. But it was he while in the Senate, along with other Dem. senators such as Sen. Al Gore Sr., that voted against teh Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he gained teh presidency, JFK opposed the 1963 march on DC and had his brother Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, wiretap and investigate Dr. King through the FBI under suspicion of being a communist.
In 1968, Dr. King left Memphis, TN after riots broke out and a teenager killed. Sen. Robert Byrd(WV), same one who was a "Keagle" in the KKK, accused Dr. King of being a "troublemaker who runs as soon as trouble is started. In response, Dr. King returned to Memphis a few weeks later and was assassinated on April 4th.
Dem. Pres. Lyndon Johnson, another "champion of civil rights," in his 4500 word State of teh Union address devoted only 35 of those words to civil right. Voting rights weren't even mentioned. In 1967, in response to Dr. King's protest of teh Vietnam War, he called Dr. King "that N---- Preacher."
It was a Republican, Sen. Everett Dirksen, who was fore-front in passing civil rights legislation in 1957, '60, '64, and '65. It was he who wrote the language of the Voting rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Andit was Rep. Sen. Barry Goldwater who tried to force Democrats in the South from continuously passing discriminatory legislation which forced Congress to keep passing federal civil rights legislation.
The majority of US inner cities have been run by Democrats for teh past 30-40 years and they have sunk over $7 Trillion into Pres. Johnson's "War on Poverty" with almost no impact. The Democrats have always been the ones to push for more welfare programs and block Republican attempts to reform the existing ones. Can anyone honestly say that life in the inner-cities is better now than it was 30 years ago?
(Majority of previous content gatherd from Ms. Frances Rice, Chairman of the National Black Republican Association)
The Economy:
The Liberal Democrats try to say that their policies will lead to economic growth and prosperty and Conservative economic policies lead to ruin...lets look at the facts. Ronald Reagan, the epitomy of the conservative ideals, championed the cause of lower taxes, small government, private ownership, and fiscal and personal responsibility. Under his presidency private sector growth sky-rocketed, the economy exploded and instances of minority and female job growth, especially in corporate and executive settings, boomed. And this was after he corrected the harm done by Dem. Pres. Jimmy Carter's socialist policy of raising taxes, growing government, deficit spending, and redistribution of wealth that caused a deep depression.
It was Pres. Clinton, along with groups like ACORN, that forced banks to approve home loans to people who could never afford to repay the loans by threating legal, civil, and financial harrassment. This lead to the collapse of teh housing market in the past decade when all those bad loans finally came due and the people couldn't pay.
Under the Bush Tax Cuts, the US economy had 20 quarters of strong growth until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006
Now lets look at the economy under Pres. Obama...unemployment has increased from around 5% under Pres. Bush, to just over 9%. Available jobs has dropped by hundreds of millions. over 50% of americans aren't even working. National debt has increased from $4 Trillion to over $14 Trillion, with at least $3 Trillion more expected over the next ten years thanks to the debt deal. For the first time since WWII our country is spending more money than it brings in. And the cherry on top...our credit rating has been downgrading. The Liberal solution? Higher taxes, more spending and more printing of money without anything to back it. The Conservative solution? At least $4 Trillion is immediate cuts, a cap on further spending, and an Amendment to force Congress to pass a balanced budget every year, something the DEmocrat controled Senate hasn't done in more than 800 days.
It is time that we stop letting the Liberals write their own history. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Default Hoax
Alright...I am getting really sick of all the doomsday talk about the "end of life as we know it" on Aug. 2. Will good things happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised?...maybe not. Will it be catastrophic?...probably not. As is always the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. It will not be the end of the world, but it will be tough. I would rather have a little difficulty now than catastrophe later if the ceiling gets raised and the left gets to keep spending the way it does. It is not sustainable!
I am tired of their fear-mongering. Despite what they want you to think, America will not go suddenly bankrupt on Aug. 2. There is still revenue coming in! The time has finally come for the government to start treating their finances like every household in this nation.
If you get into financial trouble what do you do? Do you just keep recklessly spending? No. You become more responsible with your spending. You don't open new credit cards or buy unnecessary things. You start to cut back and make tough decisions between what you really need and what you can live without.
Its time the government started making such decisions. I'm pretty sure there are some government programs that can go without funding for a little while. They will still have enough money to pay social security and public assistance so that no one goes hungry or cold. The insistence that seniors and people of welfare won't get their checks is just bullying through fear.
Why should the government be exempt from the same fiscal responsibility as every family in this country? Why do they get a free pass to spend when they are in so much debt?
I am tired of their fear-mongering. Despite what they want you to think, America will not go suddenly bankrupt on Aug. 2. There is still revenue coming in! The time has finally come for the government to start treating their finances like every household in this nation.
If you get into financial trouble what do you do? Do you just keep recklessly spending? No. You become more responsible with your spending. You don't open new credit cards or buy unnecessary things. You start to cut back and make tough decisions between what you really need and what you can live without.
Its time the government started making such decisions. I'm pretty sure there are some government programs that can go without funding for a little while. They will still have enough money to pay social security and public assistance so that no one goes hungry or cold. The insistence that seniors and people of welfare won't get their checks is just bullying through fear.
Why should the government be exempt from the same fiscal responsibility as every family in this country? Why do they get a free pass to spend when they are in so much debt?
Friday, July 29, 2011
Debt Crisis
The House finally passed a debt reduction plan. Despite what the media and the liberals would like to claim it is a compromise. Lets look at the definition:
Compromise(noun): a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
So two side start with what they what ideally and then meet in the middle. The Republicans are the only ones doing that. Cut, Cap and Balance is everything that conservatives want: an immediate cut is spending, enforcement of a spending cap, and an amendment requiring that the budget be balanced every year. Now lets look at that word:
Balance(noun): a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.
So in terms of the budget "balance" means that the same amount of money that comes in, goes out. For the past few decades, the government has been spending far more than what they pull in. This is what leads to debt.
The Democrat ideal is to raise taxes and the debt limit so that they can raise spending and the size of government.
The Dem's shot down Cut, Cap, and Balance. So the Republicans went back to the drawing board. They gave up the Balanced Budget Amendment, let the Dem's raise the debt limit and even pulled back on the spending cuts. All so they could get some dubious, unspecific cuts in the next ten years, eventhougth the dems get to spend more right now, and call for another vote on the dept limit late this year or early next year. NOw that's a compromise! The republicans gave up 75% of what they wanted to give the Dem's at least 50% of their agenda.
The Dem's shot that down too because they didn't compromise enough. The only way they could compromise anymore would be to totally give in to the Dem's and give them evrything they want! Which isn't a compromise.
The Tea Party freshman have stuck to their guns though (hoorah!) insisting that this is more capitulation than compromise. They happen to be right and I agree with them.
So, the Republicans add the Balanced Budget Amendment back in but still gave in to raising the debt limit and keeping the reduced budget cuts. The Dem's shot that down too. Its pretty clear now that the Dems will except nothing less than total surrender. That is not compromising! That is saying "Its my way or the highway."
You see, this has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. That is just the back-drop. The reason the Dems are digging their heels in is because the House bill will insist on another vote of the issue next year. The Dem's realize that they have made a mess of things, as much as they wish they could ignore that fact and shift the blame in the eyes of The People. They don't want to have to explain their actions during election time. So anything that doesn't postpone this for another year is unacceptable to them.
This, too, is not compromise. Its passing the buck, kicking the can down the road, sweeping it under the rug...choose your cliche.
The Dems have had their way for many, many a year: spending, spending, and spending and look where we are. Now the bill has come due and they refuse to pay. That's not compromising. That's throwing a fit like a two year old who didn't get a cookie.
Compromise(noun): a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
So two side start with what they what ideally and then meet in the middle. The Republicans are the only ones doing that. Cut, Cap and Balance is everything that conservatives want: an immediate cut is spending, enforcement of a spending cap, and an amendment requiring that the budget be balanced every year. Now lets look at that word:
Balance(noun): a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.
So in terms of the budget "balance" means that the same amount of money that comes in, goes out. For the past few decades, the government has been spending far more than what they pull in. This is what leads to debt.
The Democrat ideal is to raise taxes and the debt limit so that they can raise spending and the size of government.
The Dem's shot down Cut, Cap, and Balance. So the Republicans went back to the drawing board. They gave up the Balanced Budget Amendment, let the Dem's raise the debt limit and even pulled back on the spending cuts. All so they could get some dubious, unspecific cuts in the next ten years, eventhougth the dems get to spend more right now, and call for another vote on the dept limit late this year or early next year. NOw that's a compromise! The republicans gave up 75% of what they wanted to give the Dem's at least 50% of their agenda.
The Dem's shot that down too because they didn't compromise enough. The only way they could compromise anymore would be to totally give in to the Dem's and give them evrything they want! Which isn't a compromise.
The Tea Party freshman have stuck to their guns though (hoorah!) insisting that this is more capitulation than compromise. They happen to be right and I agree with them.
So, the Republicans add the Balanced Budget Amendment back in but still gave in to raising the debt limit and keeping the reduced budget cuts. The Dem's shot that down too. Its pretty clear now that the Dems will except nothing less than total surrender. That is not compromising! That is saying "Its my way or the highway."
You see, this has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. That is just the back-drop. The reason the Dems are digging their heels in is because the House bill will insist on another vote of the issue next year. The Dem's realize that they have made a mess of things, as much as they wish they could ignore that fact and shift the blame in the eyes of The People. They don't want to have to explain their actions during election time. So anything that doesn't postpone this for another year is unacceptable to them.
This, too, is not compromise. Its passing the buck, kicking the can down the road, sweeping it under the rug...choose your cliche.
The Dems have had their way for many, many a year: spending, spending, and spending and look where we are. Now the bill has come due and they refuse to pay. That's not compromising. That's throwing a fit like a two year old who didn't get a cookie.
Remember that whole "Global Warming" thing...
You guys remember this one, right? The junk science hoax that CO2 and burning of fossil fuels was destroying the environnment and causing the planet to heat up. You remember that nonsence.
This is not a new concept. The same greenie-weenies were beating this dead horse in the 60's and 70's only then they were preaching global cooling. Recently, Al "planet-has-a-fever" Gore brought this charade to the fore front in 2004 with his "crock-umentary" The Inconvenient Truth. Well, it had its 15 minutes of fame until people started to ask questions and apply real science to this idea.
For instance:
How can the same thing (CO2) be responsible for supposed cooling 50 years ago by blocking sunlight n the atmosphere, yet be responsible for heating today by destroying it?
If Global Warming exists, why is the average global temperature cooler now than it was 10 years ago?
And the latest...they are saying that while the CO2 output of the US is heating the planet, the new CO2 output of China and India is cooling it at the same time....how does that work?
The enviro-fascists realized people were getting wise so they used the time-honored liberal past time of re-naming the hoax. We have changed from Global Warming to "Climate Change" when they realized the planet was getting colder.
Anyway...I really don't want this particular post to be a full attack on Global Warming. However, that post may come later. What I have been trying to lead up to is a news story that came out yesterday. Remember how in 2004 it was a study of polar bears that became the rallying point for all the sheep that bought into this sham? The study proposed tat polar bears were in danger from the melting ice caused by global warming. Well, the first crack in that study came when a count was taken of the polar bear population and found that it was, in fact, increasing!. The latest, and hopeful final, blow to this study is that the federal scientist who made that report, Charles Monnett, has been put on adminstrative leave and is facing charges of "scientific misconduct" in regards to his article about the polar bears.
Remember the days when scientists changed their theories the fit the collected data instead of the other way around? Those were some great times...
This is not a new concept. The same greenie-weenies were beating this dead horse in the 60's and 70's only then they were preaching global cooling. Recently, Al "planet-has-a-fever" Gore brought this charade to the fore front in 2004 with his "crock-umentary" The Inconvenient Truth. Well, it had its 15 minutes of fame until people started to ask questions and apply real science to this idea.
For instance:
How can the same thing (CO2) be responsible for supposed cooling 50 years ago by blocking sunlight n the atmosphere, yet be responsible for heating today by destroying it?
If Global Warming exists, why is the average global temperature cooler now than it was 10 years ago?
And the latest...they are saying that while the CO2 output of the US is heating the planet, the new CO2 output of China and India is cooling it at the same time....how does that work?
The enviro-fascists realized people were getting wise so they used the time-honored liberal past time of re-naming the hoax. We have changed from Global Warming to "Climate Change" when they realized the planet was getting colder.
Anyway...I really don't want this particular post to be a full attack on Global Warming. However, that post may come later. What I have been trying to lead up to is a news story that came out yesterday. Remember how in 2004 it was a study of polar bears that became the rallying point for all the sheep that bought into this sham? The study proposed tat polar bears were in danger from the melting ice caused by global warming. Well, the first crack in that study came when a count was taken of the polar bear population and found that it was, in fact, increasing!. The latest, and hopeful final, blow to this study is that the federal scientist who made that report, Charles Monnett, has been put on adminstrative leave and is facing charges of "scientific misconduct" in regards to his article about the polar bears.
Remember the days when scientists changed their theories the fit the collected data instead of the other way around? Those were some great times...
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Silent Majority
I am Conservative...but what does that really mean? Today it and it's opposite, Liberal, are so over-used as to be almost meaningless. It is a problem that both sides are guilty of. It has become so bad that most people that claim to be one oppose the other just because without any real, clear reason why. You ask a liberal why they don't like conservatives and they answer "Because they are conservative." The same is true of many conservatives in regards to liberals. Though my own personal opinion is that this is more common on the left.
So, I will do you all a favor by attempting to clearly define Conservativism as I see it...
I believe in God and Country and that the former gives authority to the latter through The People. That we are One Nation Under God and that He should be remembered and honored. Not ridiculed and forgotten.
I believe that the Constitution is the most sacred document in this country and should be enforced not "interpreted." That the idea of a "Living Constitution" is preposterous. That the Bill of Rights, not the Government, gives and protects our Freedom and Liberty.
I believe in limited Government. The Constitution lays out very specifically what powers the central government has and does not have and that for the past century the federal government has far exceeded its power and mandate as put down by the Constitution.
I believe in fiscal responsibility. The runaway spending of Congress and the President must stop. Spending in general must be reigned in to within our means. The way to do this is to shrink government.
I believe that a Free Market Economy is the best road to all of these goals. Private ownership, something that is beyond the government's grasp, gives The People freedom. A free market gives everyone the chance to excel and thereby benefit both themselves and the nation, as long as they have the drive.
I believe in lower taxes, both personal and business. People with more disposable income will spend it. Businesses that do not have to spend nearly 50% of their profit in taxes will stay here instead of going to other countries. Taxes should be equal...NOT higher for the rich...
I believe life is sacred. Each new life is a potential resource for this country, not a drain on the system.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is essential is protecting Freedom and Liberty. Government should fear its people, not the other way around. And no...this was not written for hunting and procuring food. It is there specifically to hinder government expansion.
Illegal Immigration is just that...ILLEGAL! I have no problem with people that come to this country legally and contribute. Illegals take from the system without giving back to it.
I believe in States Rights. States should have the right to govern their people without federal interference
I believe Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the last century. Not FDR, JFK, Clinton andmost certainly not Obama.
I believe Obamacare, Stimulus, and bail-outs are abominations and are illegal.
These are just the core of why I am a Conservative and proud. And I have news for Washington...I am not alone. We are the Silent Majority. In the past we have not been outspoken or active because of our responsibilities in our own lives. You have changed that. Like Japan waking the "sleeping giant" of our country during WWII, you have motivated us. Your chronic, blatant, and willful disregard for the Will of the People, whom you work for, has forced this problem into our lives and in our faces.
So, now you must deal with the consequences of your actions: an attentive nation who wants their freedoms back. If you insist on ignoring the people further, you will not be re-elected. You can try and dismiss us all you want, but pretending our presence is marginal and ineffective does not change the fact that we are now organized and motivated. If we are so marginal...then why are you still talking about us? How did the Tea Party candidates sweep the last elections?
Because of you, we have found our voices again and have said, unanimously, "You are on notice!"
So, I will do you all a favor by attempting to clearly define Conservativism as I see it...
I believe in God and Country and that the former gives authority to the latter through The People. That we are One Nation Under God and that He should be remembered and honored. Not ridiculed and forgotten.
I believe that the Constitution is the most sacred document in this country and should be enforced not "interpreted." That the idea of a "Living Constitution" is preposterous. That the Bill of Rights, not the Government, gives and protects our Freedom and Liberty.
I believe in limited Government. The Constitution lays out very specifically what powers the central government has and does not have and that for the past century the federal government has far exceeded its power and mandate as put down by the Constitution.
I believe in fiscal responsibility. The runaway spending of Congress and the President must stop. Spending in general must be reigned in to within our means. The way to do this is to shrink government.
I believe that a Free Market Economy is the best road to all of these goals. Private ownership, something that is beyond the government's grasp, gives The People freedom. A free market gives everyone the chance to excel and thereby benefit both themselves and the nation, as long as they have the drive.
I believe in lower taxes, both personal and business. People with more disposable income will spend it. Businesses that do not have to spend nearly 50% of their profit in taxes will stay here instead of going to other countries. Taxes should be equal...NOT higher for the rich...
I believe life is sacred. Each new life is a potential resource for this country, not a drain on the system.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is essential is protecting Freedom and Liberty. Government should fear its people, not the other way around. And no...this was not written for hunting and procuring food. It is there specifically to hinder government expansion.
Illegal Immigration is just that...ILLEGAL! I have no problem with people that come to this country legally and contribute. Illegals take from the system without giving back to it.
I believe in States Rights. States should have the right to govern their people without federal interference
I believe Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the last century. Not FDR, JFK, Clinton andmost certainly not Obama.
I believe Obamacare, Stimulus, and bail-outs are abominations and are illegal.
These are just the core of why I am a Conservative and proud. And I have news for Washington...I am not alone. We are the Silent Majority. In the past we have not been outspoken or active because of our responsibilities in our own lives. You have changed that. Like Japan waking the "sleeping giant" of our country during WWII, you have motivated us. Your chronic, blatant, and willful disregard for the Will of the People, whom you work for, has forced this problem into our lives and in our faces.
So, now you must deal with the consequences of your actions: an attentive nation who wants their freedoms back. If you insist on ignoring the people further, you will not be re-elected. You can try and dismiss us all you want, but pretending our presence is marginal and ineffective does not change the fact that we are now organized and motivated. If we are so marginal...then why are you still talking about us? How did the Tea Party candidates sweep the last elections?
Because of you, we have found our voices again and have said, unanimously, "You are on notice!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)