Ever notice that all these people/organizations that speak of choice support anything but? To the Left, "choice" means their choice only. Lets looks at a few examples:
"Pro-choice"-One of the most heated topics of debate in this country at present is the topic of abortion. The pro-life side believes that life happens at conception and that growing life deserves all the protections and chances that everyone else gets. The pro-choice side believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and that a baby is not a life, merely a fetus, until it has a "reasonable chance to survive outside the womb." I will admit fully and proudly that I am a pro-life person. And I, like most people that are, believe is the sanctity of life and will fight vociferously to outlaw abortion. However, I also am loyal to the constitution and, while I do not agree, as long as it is legal if you wish to have an abortion that is your right. I would try to convince you to do otherwise, and will pray for you not to, but ultimately that is your choice as long as it is legal.
On the other side of the issue you have people that identify themselves as pro-choice. They feel that it is their own personal choice, and right, to end their pregnancy when and how they wish. Their continual defense is the argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one." Their actions tell a far different belief system. When these two sides meet and clash it are the "choice" people that insist that they get preference. When legislation is passed that makes no judgement on the legality of the issue, merely to cut off public funds that come from people who do not agree with abortion, they claim their rights are being infringed. They hit the streets and airwaves calling pro-life adherents "fascists," bigots," and "Nazis." They demonize women who do not choose abortion labelling them as narrow minded idiots, basically saying "we are for choice, as long as you choose our way."
They even frame the debate as such. I, and those like me, refer to this issue as "pro-life vs pro-choice." The Left on the other hand, label it "pro-choice vs anti-abortion." The subtle manipulation is repulsive.
This issue has been brought into the fore again recently by the decision of the Susan G. Komen foundation's to not fund Planned Parenthood anymore. Again, they make no assertion on the validity or legality of the issue. They simple said they would not support the organization anymore. The Left was immediately in the streets and on the air complaining. They said this violated their rights, completely forgetting that Komen is a private organization and can do what it wants with its own money. They Planned Parenthood touted increased donations to support their claim that the public disagrees with Komen, again ignoring that they are not a public company, while Komen reported a 100% increase in support. And, as usual with liberals, as soon as things don't go their way, they call for indictments and investigations.
"Feminism"--For the past 30 years the Feminist movement has been striving for "equality in gender." Their mantra is typical of the Left: equality and fairness for all. Men and Women should be treated the same and that women, especially children, should be free to choose how they want to act, what the want to like and do, and how society should see them. However, just like everything else, what they mean is hat you should be able to choose as long as you choose their way. Feminists say that a little girl should be able to choose, and should be encouraged, to play with army toys and toy weapons and that a little boy should have access to dolls. In reality, they vilify any children, and their parents, who conform to gender rolls. If a girl chooses dresses and Barbie they try and sue the parent for child abuse because they "did not let their child choose their own identity."
Lego felt the full force of the Left's lack of choice recently when the announced their new tow line. Lego is now producing a line of play sets specifically marketed to girls. The building sets are pink and frilly and are things like hair salons and daycares and the lego people are no longer the squat blocky design but something distinctly feminine. Their reasoning for this was nothing sinister. The fact is that the market is there for these toys. Little girls, and their parents, over-whelmingly still choose and gravitate towards princesses, the color pink, and activities such as doing their hair and playing house.
And what is the Left's reaction? Feminists groups have denounced the beloved toy company as "pandering to traditional values," "limiting women's right to choose," and so on.
"Politics"--Liberals love to support democracy and the will of the people until it doesn't go their way. When the vote goes against them. They insist that they know better than the people and do what they want. Take the recent election in Wisconsin. The people of the state, by a large margin, voted in Gov. Walker. In the short time he has been in office he turned a budget deficit into a surplus, allowed most municipalities and school districts to rise into the black, decreased property taxes and inceased wages. But since this came at the expense of Democrats and bloated unions, the Left is now attempting a recall election for him and four other senate seats they lost. Obamacare? The majority of Americans did not want it passed into law, as is seen by the number of states filling lawsuits against the federal government and having their own state-wide votes against it, yet the Left passed it anyway. Immigration? Several states now have put anti-illegal immigration laws in place with mass support from the their citizens. Liberals don't like it so the DOJ is now procecuting the states.
For the past 70 years, Liberals, the Left, Progressives, whatever you want to call them. Have envoked the "will of the people" and their right to choose their own path until they choose not to support them. When that happens the people no longer know whats best for them, only government does.
In this thinking the err severly. History has shown that time and again the American people do not like being told what to do. If there is one flaw to the American people it is comlacency. We are slow to action. As long as our lives are not too adversely affected we are willing to put up with many hardships and injustices. In 1941, the Japanese admiral responisble for Pearl Harbor, Isoroku Yamamoto, called the US "the sleeping giant" and they feared that all they did with the attack was to awaken that giant and "fill him wit ha terrible resolve." In our 236 year history, others have mistaken that complacency. The "giant" of the American people has already started to toss and turn as has been seen in the Tea Party and the number of states bucking the assumed authority of the federal government. The transgressions of the Liberals are reaching the point of becoming unbarable.
The American people may be slow to action, but once roused they will be satisfied with nothing less than every single Liberal, in both parties, being run out of Washington.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Voting the Chicago Way
It has long been a truth in Chicago politics that after you die you are only truly dead when its not voting season. For years hundreds of deceased individuals somehow make their way to the polls to put their name on ballots every time an election happens. They have also been accompanied by such illustrious names as Mickey Mouse, Captain America and Bugs Bunny. And the amazing thing is they always vote Democrat. I guess cartoons and comic book characters have unions, too.
Chicago voting practices are alive and well even today as yet again the dead and the fictitious have turned out to vote this time in South Carolina and Wisconsin, respectively.
In Wisconsin, the issue at hand is Gov. Walker's recall election. The Governer, a conservative has raised union and Liberal ire by making deep cuts and reforms. Namely, he, along with the conservative state legislature, reigned in the collective bargaining right of unions to cover basic pay only. Also, state workers must now pay 5.8% to their pension and 6.6% to their healthcare. The result? The state of Wisconsin went from having a $200 billion deficit to a $300 billion surplus, property taxes state wide were reduced, and schools and municipalities now have more control over their budgets eliminating the deficit of nearly all of them. Despite all of this, the unions are calling for a recall election in the hopes of ousting Walker, the Lt. Governer, and four newly elected republican senators.
According to Wisconsin law 540,208 signatures are needed. To this end ballots have been submitted with names from Disney's and Warner Bros.'s cast of character. The egregious part of this is that not only is Eric Holder's Justice Department not investigating, let alone prosecuting, this obvious voter fraud but they are insisting that these bogus ballots be counted. Even threatening legal action if they are not.
In SC Attorney General Wilson asked Kevin Shwedo, Director of the DMV, to do a thorough data review which found that in recent elections in the state over 900 deceased people appeared to have "voted." Again, they all voted Democrat. Again, these "voters" were registered by groups like ACORN, 19 members of which have been convicted of gross voter fraud in the years before Eric Holder came to lead the Justice Dept. Yet again the DOJ is not persuing legal action and threating the full weight of the Federal Government if they are not counted.
In light of examples like these several states, including SC and Wisconsin, have recently enacted voter identification laws. The main stipulation of these laws is that all voters must produce state issued photo ID when voting. True to form, the DOJ has either out right blocked such measures or brought suit against any state trying to enact similar legislation. This is despite the fact that the DOJ approved such a law in Georgia in 2005 and the Supreme Court, in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion Co. Election Board, ruled that the requirement of a photo ID is not an undue burden on voters.
Holder, along with the rest of the Obama regime, who argue that despite the evidence to the contrary voter fraud simply doesn't exist, maintain that any legislation requiring an ID is purely racist and meant to deter minorities from voting, claiming that they do not have photo ID's. These claims ring hollow when, as in the case of SC, photo Id's are offered free of charge along with transportation to any place to get an ID, if someone doesn't have a birth certificate the state will provide one for only $12, and the Governer herself is willing to drive anyone to the polls who needs it.
In truth, what reason is there to oppose such a law? These laws do not prevent anyone from voting, merely insisting that each person have an ID to vote, ensuring that everyone votes only once. What is there to oppose?
The only reason that I could see for anyone to oppose such measures is that they wish to rig and cheat an election. The only thing that voter registration supresses is fraud, people voting multiple times. Despite Liberal claims, voter fraud not only exists but is always done by their rank and file. For the average citizen who either has an ID or can get one easily and cheap, why is it a big deal to have to present said ID? Unless your expressed intent is to vote more than once. And, let's face it, this is the only way Democrats can win elections. So, for them, this is a big problem.
This issue has even greater impact to both the individual and the country. If such blatant voter fraud is allowed to continue, where a few vote as many to get their way over the will of the people, then what does your vote count for? Those of us who follow the rules and vote just the once will always be eclipsed by unscrupulous few.
AS this election approaches, as our country hangs in the balance, this is an issue that need to be addressed immediately. For if ACORN and their ilk are allowed to submit multiple ballots per voter, or just forge ballots with names of the dead and fictious, Obama may well just steal the presidency for a second term. At that point there will be no more veils, smoke or mirrors hiding his intent. It will be full bore down the path of socialism.
To this end, the Governer of SC, along with other states have filed a law suit against the Federal Government and the DOJ for interfering with state voter law. The suit was filed in DC to hopefully bring it before the supreme court quickly. It is every patriot's duty to support not only the lawsuit but any voter registration law in their state. Because, honestly, looking at Europe do you really want to go down that road?
Chicago voting practices are alive and well even today as yet again the dead and the fictitious have turned out to vote this time in South Carolina and Wisconsin, respectively.
In Wisconsin, the issue at hand is Gov. Walker's recall election. The Governer, a conservative has raised union and Liberal ire by making deep cuts and reforms. Namely, he, along with the conservative state legislature, reigned in the collective bargaining right of unions to cover basic pay only. Also, state workers must now pay 5.8% to their pension and 6.6% to their healthcare. The result? The state of Wisconsin went from having a $200 billion deficit to a $300 billion surplus, property taxes state wide were reduced, and schools and municipalities now have more control over their budgets eliminating the deficit of nearly all of them. Despite all of this, the unions are calling for a recall election in the hopes of ousting Walker, the Lt. Governer, and four newly elected republican senators.
According to Wisconsin law 540,208 signatures are needed. To this end ballots have been submitted with names from Disney's and Warner Bros.'s cast of character. The egregious part of this is that not only is Eric Holder's Justice Department not investigating, let alone prosecuting, this obvious voter fraud but they are insisting that these bogus ballots be counted. Even threatening legal action if they are not.
In SC Attorney General Wilson asked Kevin Shwedo, Director of the DMV, to do a thorough data review which found that in recent elections in the state over 900 deceased people appeared to have "voted." Again, they all voted Democrat. Again, these "voters" were registered by groups like ACORN, 19 members of which have been convicted of gross voter fraud in the years before Eric Holder came to lead the Justice Dept. Yet again the DOJ is not persuing legal action and threating the full weight of the Federal Government if they are not counted.
In light of examples like these several states, including SC and Wisconsin, have recently enacted voter identification laws. The main stipulation of these laws is that all voters must produce state issued photo ID when voting. True to form, the DOJ has either out right blocked such measures or brought suit against any state trying to enact similar legislation. This is despite the fact that the DOJ approved such a law in Georgia in 2005 and the Supreme Court, in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion Co. Election Board, ruled that the requirement of a photo ID is not an undue burden on voters.
Holder, along with the rest of the Obama regime, who argue that despite the evidence to the contrary voter fraud simply doesn't exist, maintain that any legislation requiring an ID is purely racist and meant to deter minorities from voting, claiming that they do not have photo ID's. These claims ring hollow when, as in the case of SC, photo Id's are offered free of charge along with transportation to any place to get an ID, if someone doesn't have a birth certificate the state will provide one for only $12, and the Governer herself is willing to drive anyone to the polls who needs it.
In truth, what reason is there to oppose such a law? These laws do not prevent anyone from voting, merely insisting that each person have an ID to vote, ensuring that everyone votes only once. What is there to oppose?
The only reason that I could see for anyone to oppose such measures is that they wish to rig and cheat an election. The only thing that voter registration supresses is fraud, people voting multiple times. Despite Liberal claims, voter fraud not only exists but is always done by their rank and file. For the average citizen who either has an ID or can get one easily and cheap, why is it a big deal to have to present said ID? Unless your expressed intent is to vote more than once. And, let's face it, this is the only way Democrats can win elections. So, for them, this is a big problem.
This issue has even greater impact to both the individual and the country. If such blatant voter fraud is allowed to continue, where a few vote as many to get their way over the will of the people, then what does your vote count for? Those of us who follow the rules and vote just the once will always be eclipsed by unscrupulous few.
AS this election approaches, as our country hangs in the balance, this is an issue that need to be addressed immediately. For if ACORN and their ilk are allowed to submit multiple ballots per voter, or just forge ballots with names of the dead and fictious, Obama may well just steal the presidency for a second term. At that point there will be no more veils, smoke or mirrors hiding his intent. It will be full bore down the path of socialism.
To this end, the Governer of SC, along with other states have filed a law suit against the Federal Government and the DOJ for interfering with state voter law. The suit was filed in DC to hopefully bring it before the supreme court quickly. It is every patriot's duty to support not only the lawsuit but any voter registration law in their state. Because, honestly, looking at Europe do you really want to go down that road?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Santorum: The first volley
As predictable as ever, right on the heels of Pres. Candidate Rick Santorum's virtual tie with fellow candidate Mitt Romney, the liberal wrecking crew changed targets to the new rising conservative. As with every other Republican candidate, from Bachmann to Cain to Newt, the mainstream media and the Obama regime is determined to destroy Santorum before he can get much traction. Earlier this week they fired their first shot...though the overwhelming opinion, even among liberals is that it was misfired below the belt.
Alan Colmes, liberal commentator and contributor to FoxNews, chose to take exception to the way the Santorums dealt with the tragedy of the death of their infant son, Gabriel, 16 years ago. Let's put aside that it is incredibly bad taste, and down right cruel, to bring up such a subject after so long and focus on the fact that he chose to portray the incident in the absolute worst light possible, claiming that the Sen. Santorum took his dead son home to "play with it."
Here is the real story:
Sixteen years ago Rick and Karen Santorum were blessed with the news that they were expectinig a child. Now keep in mind that the Santorums are devout in their Catholic Faith and staunchly pro-life. So, at 20 weeks, just five months along, the baby, whom they named Gabriel, was diagnosed with a birth defect that is fatal unless treated. It was determined that surgery was needed and mother and baby were eligible for the procedure. The operation was a complete success and Gabriel was healed. Unfortunately, an infection developed in the amniotic sac. Ms. Santorum was rushed to the hospital wit ha high fever and having contractions. While begging for the doctors to stop her going into labor they were informed that it was impossible and if they were to try she would die from the infection as it was untreatable.
At 20 weeks, Gabriel Santorum was born grossly premature and survived only two hours. The controversial part of this tragedy was that instead of the simply forgetting about the child and having it taken away to the morgue, they decided to celebrate even this brief bit of life. Rick and Karen baptized the child slept the night in the hospital with Gabriel between them and in the morning, on thier way to bury him, they stopped by their home to show the baby to their other children so that they would understand the situation.
Has our society become so apathetic to the sanctity of human life that a grieving family is brought under fire for how the cope with such a loss?
My question is what right has Colmes, or anyone for that matter, to judge Mr. and Ms Santorum? Have they been through anything even remotely similar?
I have, thankfully, never had to experience such a tragedy. I am not even a parent yet, so I can't even speak to the joys of fatherhood. However, I have known people who have gone through the heartache of a miscarriage of stillbirth. That kind of anguish is hell on the mind, body and soul. It is a blow to both heart and faith. So much so that doctors encourage mothers to name these children to help cope with the loss. To make it real and bring them closure. Is what the Santorum family did so different?
Being such pro-life conservatives they could not simply let an orderly take the child off to the morgue and be done with it. So they baptized him as family and spent at least one night as parents comforting their child.
And I am sure, as any parent would do who already has kids and is again expecting, that they kept their children involved and excited for the new addition to the family. Perhaps they had the children put a had to the mother's belly telling them that this was their brother they were going to meet. Being faithful Catholics, I am sure they told their children how precious each and every life is. So what message would they be giving their children if they simply came home without a baby and just said, "Oh well, there is no brother coming lets move on."
Kids are not dumb and are very intuitive. They can feel when something is wrong and would be just as affected by such a loss as the parents. So the Santorums, on the way to bury thier infant son, made sure that their children saw their brother. They took the time to show them that the child was real, and precious, and family but something awful had happened. They didn't defile a corpse. There was no heathen ritual performed at the Santorum home. There was only true and deep felt grief and a family trying the best they could to deal with their emotions.
To bring up such a painful memory to take a cheap political shot at the new conservative front runner is beyond low. It is truly disgusting and calls into question the existence of Colmes' soul, in my opinion if no one else's.
Perhaps more chilling is that there is, as usual, not one peep from the President, and his party, that preaches to Republicans about civility in discourse. While conservative are excoriated for simply reporting unsavory facts about liberals, liberals can say vile things, as Alan Colmes has done, and get away with a half-hearted apology if even that
Colmes did apologize quickly when he realized that his cheap shot misfired. Like a true christian, Rick Santorum turned the other cheek and graciously accepted the insincere apology. What a shame that he had to accept such an apology.
Alan Colmes, liberal commentator and contributor to FoxNews, chose to take exception to the way the Santorums dealt with the tragedy of the death of their infant son, Gabriel, 16 years ago. Let's put aside that it is incredibly bad taste, and down right cruel, to bring up such a subject after so long and focus on the fact that he chose to portray the incident in the absolute worst light possible, claiming that the Sen. Santorum took his dead son home to "play with it."
Here is the real story:
Sixteen years ago Rick and Karen Santorum were blessed with the news that they were expectinig a child. Now keep in mind that the Santorums are devout in their Catholic Faith and staunchly pro-life. So, at 20 weeks, just five months along, the baby, whom they named Gabriel, was diagnosed with a birth defect that is fatal unless treated. It was determined that surgery was needed and mother and baby were eligible for the procedure. The operation was a complete success and Gabriel was healed. Unfortunately, an infection developed in the amniotic sac. Ms. Santorum was rushed to the hospital wit ha high fever and having contractions. While begging for the doctors to stop her going into labor they were informed that it was impossible and if they were to try she would die from the infection as it was untreatable.
At 20 weeks, Gabriel Santorum was born grossly premature and survived only two hours. The controversial part of this tragedy was that instead of the simply forgetting about the child and having it taken away to the morgue, they decided to celebrate even this brief bit of life. Rick and Karen baptized the child slept the night in the hospital with Gabriel between them and in the morning, on thier way to bury him, they stopped by their home to show the baby to their other children so that they would understand the situation.
Has our society become so apathetic to the sanctity of human life that a grieving family is brought under fire for how the cope with such a loss?
My question is what right has Colmes, or anyone for that matter, to judge Mr. and Ms Santorum? Have they been through anything even remotely similar?
I have, thankfully, never had to experience such a tragedy. I am not even a parent yet, so I can't even speak to the joys of fatherhood. However, I have known people who have gone through the heartache of a miscarriage of stillbirth. That kind of anguish is hell on the mind, body and soul. It is a blow to both heart and faith. So much so that doctors encourage mothers to name these children to help cope with the loss. To make it real and bring them closure. Is what the Santorum family did so different?
Being such pro-life conservatives they could not simply let an orderly take the child off to the morgue and be done with it. So they baptized him as family and spent at least one night as parents comforting their child.
And I am sure, as any parent would do who already has kids and is again expecting, that they kept their children involved and excited for the new addition to the family. Perhaps they had the children put a had to the mother's belly telling them that this was their brother they were going to meet. Being faithful Catholics, I am sure they told their children how precious each and every life is. So what message would they be giving their children if they simply came home without a baby and just said, "Oh well, there is no brother coming lets move on."
Kids are not dumb and are very intuitive. They can feel when something is wrong and would be just as affected by such a loss as the parents. So the Santorums, on the way to bury thier infant son, made sure that their children saw their brother. They took the time to show them that the child was real, and precious, and family but something awful had happened. They didn't defile a corpse. There was no heathen ritual performed at the Santorum home. There was only true and deep felt grief and a family trying the best they could to deal with their emotions.
To bring up such a painful memory to take a cheap political shot at the new conservative front runner is beyond low. It is truly disgusting and calls into question the existence of Colmes' soul, in my opinion if no one else's.
Perhaps more chilling is that there is, as usual, not one peep from the President, and his party, that preaches to Republicans about civility in discourse. While conservative are excoriated for simply reporting unsavory facts about liberals, liberals can say vile things, as Alan Colmes has done, and get away with a half-hearted apology if even that
Colmes did apologize quickly when he realized that his cheap shot misfired. Like a true christian, Rick Santorum turned the other cheek and graciously accepted the insincere apology. What a shame that he had to accept such an apology.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
"Separation of Church and State" myth
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)