On February 26, 2012 Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Sanford Florida. He was 17 years old. No matter how you slice it, this is a tragedy. Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal makes no difference. A young man is dead, a family is grieving, and another man, whether he turns out to be innocent or guilty, must now live with the fact that he has taken a life.
How does this tie into the title? Simple. In a volatile and charged situation the Mainstream Media, far from attempting to diffuse the situation, has stoked the fires and inflamed the public. They did it deliberately by falsifying information, selectively editing audio and video, and ignoring pertinent information all to further and portray a "narrative," as they call it.
First off, I admit that I do not have all of the facts. No one does as the information is still coming out. I do not know who was at fault. Did George Zimmerman act in self defense? Or did he "hunt Martin down and shoot him like a dog in the street," as suggested by Rep. Maxine waters on the floor of Congress, merely for "Walking while black in a gated community," as Rep. Hank Johnson states? I don't know. But what I do know is that we have a tradition of innocence until proven guilty.
This has not stopped the Left-shilling media from pushing the agenda that all white folk are racist and exist specifically to keep the black community down.
Lets start with the facts.
Trayvon Martin was walking through a community late at night, hood up in the pouring rain. George Zimmerman, the local neighborhood watch volunteer, noticed him and, as a man who knew everybody in the neighborhood, did not recognize him. Fresh from a rash of break-ins in the neighborhood he was suspicious of someone he did not know and decided to keep an eye on him while he called 911. Zimmerman gave them a description of Martin as best he could and the dispatcher told him to discontinue following. A short time later, Zimmerman and Martin had a confrontation at the end of which Martin was shot and killed. Police and paramedics arrived arrived, secured the scene, cleaned Zimmerman up and took him to the police station where he was questioned for 5 hours.
Zimmerman's story is that while on the phone with 911 he followed Martin behind a row of houses. When the dispatcher instructed him to stop the pursuit he complied and went to the nearest intersection to get street names to give to authorities. He was on his way back when Martin confronted him. Martin threw the first punch and quickly overwhelmed Zimmerman and took him to the ground where he proceeded to beat him and repeatedly slam his head into the ground. Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman tried to prevent him while still trying to fend of the physical assault. Zimmerman shot in self defense.
The story the Media is trying to push is that Right-wing, racist Zimmerman saw poor little Trayvon decided to kill a black man, hunted him down like a dog, and killed him in cold blood. After which, the "white man establishment" refused to arrest him because he was white.
Lets take the Lib Media narrative from the beginning...
George Zimmerman was a racist white man. First off, he is not white. He is hispanic. And I have heard reports, which I have not been able to verify, that he even had African and Jewish blood in his family tree. In an attempt to begrudgingly acknowledge this fast while still pushing their narrative, they reclassified him with a new term: White-hispanic. They had to keep the "white" in there. Secondly, far from being racist, Zimmerman and his wife used their spare time to mentor and tutor neighborhood black and disadvantage children for free. And several blacks in the community have stated that they do not consider the man racist and trust completely as the neighborhood watch volunteer.
NBC, to further their agenda, took the 911 call where Zimmerman only gave a description of race when asked, took out the dispatcher's question asking for that information, and strung it together to make it sound like he was racially profiling Martin.
Actual call: Zimmermann: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."
Dispatcher: "Oh, ok, and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?"
Zimmermann: "He looks black."
NBC edit: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about. He looks black."
To their credit, NBC has fired the employee responsible, but only after they were caught and received intense pressure. However, there has been no apology to Zimmerman for the disparaging edit.
Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Martin in cold blood. Again, the evidence is not all in so nothing can be said conclusively. That being said, there are eyewitnesses that state that Martin was on top of Zimmermann and was slamming his head to the ground repeatedly. The initial police report noted severe lacerations and bleeding about the head and face.
This is where ABC did their part to further the Left narrative. They produced a video of Zimmerman at the police station that supposedly shows no bleeding or injury. Now, leaving out the fact that it was noted in the police report, the same people are the ones that think all cops are corrupt and akin to baby killers, paramedics were called to the scene and treated him before police took him into custody. I am not sure how things are done where you are, but paramedics usually clean up and treat cuts, scrapes, bleeding and other injuries of both victim and suspect, thereby erasing evidence of bleeding.
Again, to ABC's credit they reversed their claim, stating that under "enhanced video," a gash is clearly seen on the back of his head. However, just like NBC, they did so only after being caught and receiving pressure about it.
Then you have all the little things done to sway public opinion:
The media chose a photo of Martin as a 10-12 year old kid instead of the a current where he is reportedly a 6-foot-plus muscular athlete. The photo the chose of Zimmerman was as close to a mugshot that you can get and they have all but ignored the one of a smiling, well-dressed working man
The eyewitness that states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman came forward within days of the incident and was only reported by a handful of local papers. This was ignored by teh national media for almost a month. To save face after they were pressured into reporting this fact they claimed it as an "new, exclusive development."
Martin's father came forward and said the screaming on the 911 audio was not his son. However, after getting a lawyer, he miraculously changed his story.
The media claimed Zimmerman was let go from the scenebefore the video came out of him at the station and the police report stating he was questioned for hours.
Lastly, the media reports the neighborhood was your typical upper middle class suburban white community. In reality, while being a gated community, it is only about 46% white. The majority of residents are black and hispanic
Under normal circumstances this would be just one more instance of media changing facts to support their previously conceived notions and to sway public opinion. The situation, though, is far from normal. The atmosphere around this case has become increasingly charged and volatile. A responsible media would try to difuse the tension. Maybe remind the public that people are innocent until proven guilty, or publicly ask people to remain calm until the investigation is concluded.
Instead, they have fanned the flames. Now, we have retaliation crimes being committed "for Trayvon." In early march, a 13 year old white boy was set on fire by two black kids. A 76 year old man was beaten by 6 teenagers after the mention of Martin's name. And to tip it off, the New Black Panther Party has offered a bounty "dead or alive," to anyone who takes out Zimmerman, a man who has not been proven guilty.
Journalism is dead. The Mainstream media, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, are nothing more than shills for the Left and whatever agenda they want. They will apparently go to any length to support that agenda, facts be damned.
If they were really so outraged over this incident, and not just using it to make a point, then where is theri out rage of the fore-mentioned 13 year old victim? Or the 76 year old man? Or the recent weekend of violence in Chicago where 46 people were shot and 9 killed in just 3 days? Or the Uniform Crime Report mention last post that states blacks are involved in 80% of violent crimes while being only 16% of the population and that 90% of black victims has other blacks as their assailants? When the Left media shows just as much outrage over these and other incidents, I will take thier moral outrage a little more seriously.
I do not know if George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. And it doesn't change the fact that a young man is dead. If it turns out he is guilty of homicide, then throw the book at him! Convict him of murder and give him the chair. However, as mentioned earlier, we have a trdition of "innocent until proven guilty" and he should be treated as such until then.
Finally, is it not possible that neither party is guilty? Zimmerman acted to protect his community after a rash of crimes. Martin, if innocent of any wrong doing, and not knowing why this man was following him, acted to protect himself. What happened could simply be a tragic accident with no body to blame. Think about it...
Addition (4/08/12):
More stories where the Left's flimsy "moral outrage" is conspicuously absent...
http://www.katu.com/news/national/7-California-boys-arrested-in-attack-on-teen-145286335.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/04/08/blacks_can_murder_whites_and_it_wont_make_national_news
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
THE Problem...
There are a lot of issues facing our once great Republic. Yes, I said "once great." Our constitutional, representative Republic has long since ceased to function or exist as founded. Our country is on the decline. It has come to this after almost a hundred years of small moves and shifts in our rights. However, this downward spiral does not have to continue. We can reverse it and put this nation back to what it was...but that is a different post.
Back on topic...
There are many issues on the national scene these days: Barrack Obama, the intrusion of socialism into our government, the intrusion of government into our daily lives, the erosion of the Constitution(specifically the 1st, 5th, and 10th Amendments), etc. While these are grave issues that infringe our rights as The People, they are not the problem. Don't get me wrong, they are problems. However, more than that, they are mere symptoms of an THE underlying problem.
That problem is: the destruction of social values and the family.
Now, I know I just lost some of you. "But, Hawk, we are tired of hearing about 'social issues.'" "Social issues aren't relevant." "Only those crazy right-wing tea party people care about social issues." Now, for those of you who were brave enough to stay and listen, let me ask you one question...
Why do you think that? Do social issues really mean nothing to you? Or is that what you were taught to say? If you really think that you might want to reconsider.
Social and family values are the bedrock upon which Law and Liberty are founded. The Founding Fathers understood this implicitly. Nothing about the Declaration and the Constitution was done by happenstance. Every word was written for a specific reason. That is why they wrote that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They specifically declared that Rights are derived from God and faith..."social issues."
A strong family unit is the key to a thriving economy and a strong society. By family unit I mean father, mother, children. This unit is what teaches us proper behavior, moral, and the life skills that aid us throughout our adulthood. The traditional family teaches proper gender roles (yes, despite what the Left says there is a distinct difference between men and women). It teaches respect and admiration for sex as well as love and respect for the opposite sex. It gives self confidence, the care and comfort that only a mother can give plus the support and example of a strong father figure.
In addition to this, there are economic benefits as well. A single individual is likely to seek gainful employment past the needs of themselves and a single parent is less likely to have the ability to hold a steady job because they are doing the job of both parents. On the other hand, a household where the parenting is shared by two people affords the time and energy necessary to seek, acquire, and maintain a good job as well as the drive to do so, the need to provide for the family.
Most importantly though, a strong traditional family allows these values to be passed on from generation to generation.
To see the consequences of the breakdown of the traditional family we need look no further than our own society. Over the past century there has been a concentrated effort to de-legitimize the family in our society. Gay marriage (and before any rumors start circulating, just because I do not believe in gay marriage does not mean I hate homosexuals. As human beings they still deserve respect and have all rights that others have. If two homosexual people want to live together that is fine and dandy, but it is not marriage) has de-emphasized the family unit itself. A household of two women parents lacks a strong male role model for boys and a family with two dads lacks the caring, nurturing, comfort that most young children crave from a mother.
Abortion and the prevalence of contraceptives has cheapened the act of sex removed personal responsibility from an act that can have severe, far reaching consequences. 60 years ago sex was something that a responsible person waited to do until married. Because there were consequences to frivolous sex. The most obvious was pregnancy. If you did not want a child or were not ready for one, you didn't have sex. A baby was your responsibility as you were the one who irresponsibly had sex without thought to the consequences. This was reinforced by the social stigma that came along with premarital sex, being an unwed or single mother, and giving a child up for adoption if you chose to do that. Today, our society teaches that sex is no big deal and has no consequences. If you are a little cavalier with your sex life there are contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. If you happen to get pregnant it is neither your fault or responsibility as you can get an abortion and get rid of the "fetus." If you are careless enough to get pregnant and carry the baby to term, no problem. Go to a state that allows partial-birth abortions and you do not have to be burdened with the consequences of your actions.
The consequences of this demonization of the traditional family are glaring. As a country, the US has reached a dubious milestone. More than half of all births in the US now occur out of wedlock to single parents. And, most likely, that parent has two or three children. As I pointed out before, that parent is now unlikely to be able to juggle gainful employment and parenthood at the same time. When they can not keep a job, where are they likely to turn? The Government and Food Stamps and Medicaid. In addition, that parent is most likely to be a single mother. If she has a son, the child grows up without a father figure and, in the absence of that, is more likely to turn to gangs for acceptance and guidance. You don't have to be a Harvard professor to see where that will lead. And this cycle starts again as these males are more likely to have meaningless, "no consequence" sex than to actually settle down and start a family.
And men are by no means alone in this scenario. If that single parent is a male, a daughter grows up with the absence of a female role model and is more susceptible to teen pregnancy and frivolous sec as opposed to starting a family.
Consequently, as these single parents turn to the government to fill their needs, dependence increases and they increasingly vote for whoever will keep the gravy train coming. Politicians will keep pandering to that dependence to get the votes. This is when an entitlement society is born. And this is what we have now in our country where for every dollar the government spends it brings in $.40 and borrows $.60. However, it spends 60% on entitlements (welfare, medicare, medicaid), and only 40% on actually running the government.
As for the violent crime that comes from the breakdown of the family, the black community is usually hit hardest. According to the Uniform Crime Report, while blacks make up only 16% of the population at most, they are involved in 80% of violent crime. Also, when a black person is the victim 90% of the time the assailant is also black.
Family is a reflection of society and vice versa. To see this just turn your attention to Hollywood. Movies and TV are a powerful tool that can help spread ideas and values. It is a reflection of how a society portrays itself. So what does Hollywood have to say for itself?
Look at the movies 60, even 70, years ago. You had Jimmy Stewart portraying strong family values in "It's a Wonderful Life," John Wayne championing rugged American independence and individualism is just about every western he did, Bing Crosby and Danny Kay showed individual charity and kindness, not state subsidies and redistribution, in "White Christmas," Charlton Heston unashamedly protrayed Moses in the "Ten Comandments," and the list goes on. What happened?
Somewhere along the line, there was a dramatic shift. Suddenly, American soldiers were not heroic but psychopathic, drug addled killers. The Family was passe; the father was a moron or timid and ineffectual, the mother was an inebriated stepford wife who needed the sauce to stay married, and the children were defiant, loud mouthed snots and were shown as heroes for sticking it to their parents. the bad guys were no longer monsters, or Nazis, or communists. They were "evil corporations" and business men, or 2nd Amendment people. The comic relief was now christians, conservatives and people who clung to family values.
And all of this is broadcast, streamed, and preached to the masses 24/7/365.
So now I ask you again...are social issues really passe? or do they resonate with you?
If they resonate with you, you are not alone. America is still fundamentally a conservative nation. For evidence just look at the current Republican Primary. Back in January, Rick Santorum was barely a blip on the screen, a novelty. He was protrayed as just the latest social conservative who didn't have a prayer. The Left Media tried to keep it that way by hounding him with questions about social issues. Not one Mainstream Media outlet has asked him a single question about foreign affairs, teh economy, etc. eventhough he has clear stands and ideas on these subjects, which are easily found.
So, with only his social stances being portrayed to the public, Santorum has risen from last place to second and has given Romney, the "presumed candidate," a run for his money. He surpassed the other two candidates that were steering clear of social issues.
The economy is not the problem. Barack Obama is not the problem. He is reeking havoc on this country, but he is still one man. The People elected him through a lack of understanding of the social issues and, more importantly, the Constitution. If we want to get our fiscal house in order, we must first secure the foundation
Back on topic...
There are many issues on the national scene these days: Barrack Obama, the intrusion of socialism into our government, the intrusion of government into our daily lives, the erosion of the Constitution(specifically the 1st, 5th, and 10th Amendments), etc. While these are grave issues that infringe our rights as The People, they are not the problem. Don't get me wrong, they are problems. However, more than that, they are mere symptoms of an THE underlying problem.
That problem is: the destruction of social values and the family.
Now, I know I just lost some of you. "But, Hawk, we are tired of hearing about 'social issues.'" "Social issues aren't relevant." "Only those crazy right-wing tea party people care about social issues." Now, for those of you who were brave enough to stay and listen, let me ask you one question...
Why do you think that? Do social issues really mean nothing to you? Or is that what you were taught to say? If you really think that you might want to reconsider.
Social and family values are the bedrock upon which Law and Liberty are founded. The Founding Fathers understood this implicitly. Nothing about the Declaration and the Constitution was done by happenstance. Every word was written for a specific reason. That is why they wrote that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They specifically declared that Rights are derived from God and faith..."social issues."
A strong family unit is the key to a thriving economy and a strong society. By family unit I mean father, mother, children. This unit is what teaches us proper behavior, moral, and the life skills that aid us throughout our adulthood. The traditional family teaches proper gender roles (yes, despite what the Left says there is a distinct difference between men and women). It teaches respect and admiration for sex as well as love and respect for the opposite sex. It gives self confidence, the care and comfort that only a mother can give plus the support and example of a strong father figure.
In addition to this, there are economic benefits as well. A single individual is likely to seek gainful employment past the needs of themselves and a single parent is less likely to have the ability to hold a steady job because they are doing the job of both parents. On the other hand, a household where the parenting is shared by two people affords the time and energy necessary to seek, acquire, and maintain a good job as well as the drive to do so, the need to provide for the family.
Most importantly though, a strong traditional family allows these values to be passed on from generation to generation.
To see the consequences of the breakdown of the traditional family we need look no further than our own society. Over the past century there has been a concentrated effort to de-legitimize the family in our society. Gay marriage (and before any rumors start circulating, just because I do not believe in gay marriage does not mean I hate homosexuals. As human beings they still deserve respect and have all rights that others have. If two homosexual people want to live together that is fine and dandy, but it is not marriage) has de-emphasized the family unit itself. A household of two women parents lacks a strong male role model for boys and a family with two dads lacks the caring, nurturing, comfort that most young children crave from a mother.
Abortion and the prevalence of contraceptives has cheapened the act of sex removed personal responsibility from an act that can have severe, far reaching consequences. 60 years ago sex was something that a responsible person waited to do until married. Because there were consequences to frivolous sex. The most obvious was pregnancy. If you did not want a child or were not ready for one, you didn't have sex. A baby was your responsibility as you were the one who irresponsibly had sex without thought to the consequences. This was reinforced by the social stigma that came along with premarital sex, being an unwed or single mother, and giving a child up for adoption if you chose to do that. Today, our society teaches that sex is no big deal and has no consequences. If you are a little cavalier with your sex life there are contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. If you happen to get pregnant it is neither your fault or responsibility as you can get an abortion and get rid of the "fetus." If you are careless enough to get pregnant and carry the baby to term, no problem. Go to a state that allows partial-birth abortions and you do not have to be burdened with the consequences of your actions.
The consequences of this demonization of the traditional family are glaring. As a country, the US has reached a dubious milestone. More than half of all births in the US now occur out of wedlock to single parents. And, most likely, that parent has two or three children. As I pointed out before, that parent is now unlikely to be able to juggle gainful employment and parenthood at the same time. When they can not keep a job, where are they likely to turn? The Government and Food Stamps and Medicaid. In addition, that parent is most likely to be a single mother. If she has a son, the child grows up without a father figure and, in the absence of that, is more likely to turn to gangs for acceptance and guidance. You don't have to be a Harvard professor to see where that will lead. And this cycle starts again as these males are more likely to have meaningless, "no consequence" sex than to actually settle down and start a family.
And men are by no means alone in this scenario. If that single parent is a male, a daughter grows up with the absence of a female role model and is more susceptible to teen pregnancy and frivolous sec as opposed to starting a family.
Consequently, as these single parents turn to the government to fill their needs, dependence increases and they increasingly vote for whoever will keep the gravy train coming. Politicians will keep pandering to that dependence to get the votes. This is when an entitlement society is born. And this is what we have now in our country where for every dollar the government spends it brings in $.40 and borrows $.60. However, it spends 60% on entitlements (welfare, medicare, medicaid), and only 40% on actually running the government.
As for the violent crime that comes from the breakdown of the family, the black community is usually hit hardest. According to the Uniform Crime Report, while blacks make up only 16% of the population at most, they are involved in 80% of violent crime. Also, when a black person is the victim 90% of the time the assailant is also black.
Family is a reflection of society and vice versa. To see this just turn your attention to Hollywood. Movies and TV are a powerful tool that can help spread ideas and values. It is a reflection of how a society portrays itself. So what does Hollywood have to say for itself?
Look at the movies 60, even 70, years ago. You had Jimmy Stewart portraying strong family values in "It's a Wonderful Life," John Wayne championing rugged American independence and individualism is just about every western he did, Bing Crosby and Danny Kay showed individual charity and kindness, not state subsidies and redistribution, in "White Christmas," Charlton Heston unashamedly protrayed Moses in the "Ten Comandments," and the list goes on. What happened?
Somewhere along the line, there was a dramatic shift. Suddenly, American soldiers were not heroic but psychopathic, drug addled killers. The Family was passe; the father was a moron or timid and ineffectual, the mother was an inebriated stepford wife who needed the sauce to stay married, and the children were defiant, loud mouthed snots and were shown as heroes for sticking it to their parents. the bad guys were no longer monsters, or Nazis, or communists. They were "evil corporations" and business men, or 2nd Amendment people. The comic relief was now christians, conservatives and people who clung to family values.
And all of this is broadcast, streamed, and preached to the masses 24/7/365.
So now I ask you again...are social issues really passe? or do they resonate with you?
If they resonate with you, you are not alone. America is still fundamentally a conservative nation. For evidence just look at the current Republican Primary. Back in January, Rick Santorum was barely a blip on the screen, a novelty. He was protrayed as just the latest social conservative who didn't have a prayer. The Left Media tried to keep it that way by hounding him with questions about social issues. Not one Mainstream Media outlet has asked him a single question about foreign affairs, teh economy, etc. eventhough he has clear stands and ideas on these subjects, which are easily found.
So, with only his social stances being portrayed to the public, Santorum has risen from last place to second and has given Romney, the "presumed candidate," a run for his money. He surpassed the other two candidates that were steering clear of social issues.
The economy is not the problem. Barack Obama is not the problem. He is reeking havoc on this country, but he is still one man. The People elected him through a lack of understanding of the social issues and, more importantly, the Constitution. If we want to get our fiscal house in order, we must first secure the foundation
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Free Market works!! Just ask the Aero-space industry
What we are seeing lately in this country is a war. A war of ideology. The Liberal Left has backed the failed policies of Socialism and Marxism in direct opposition to the Conservative Right and its support of the tried and true ideals of Small Government and Free Markets. In other words Capitalism.
There many ways that one can compare and contrast each of these drastically different world views. But the most glaring difference, especially lately with all the rhetoric against corporations, Wall Street, and the "1%," is the economy.
Socialism proposes a top-down approach where the large central government keeps the Market in the iron grip of a mountain of regulation and red tape. The Left believes that they can dictate fairness and appropriate behavior and order people to conform to their subjective definitions. This never leads to prosperity because as soon as an individual or entity wants to something that is against the small ruling elite, they bring the force of government to bare and make that person or company do what they don't wnat to do, consequences be damned. If government will still is not obeyed, they heap even more regulation on the pile until you submit.
Captilism, on the other hand, demands that a small de-centralized government enact as little regulation as possible and get out of the way of the Market. A Free Market works with human nature, competition and self interest, to good of all involved. This leads to the betterment of all because the Market can not force anyone to buy a product or service. It has to convince the consumer through better quality, cheaper prices, better service, etc. Also, as an added bonus of having multiple companies compete for your business, a Free Market produces diversity in product.
This contrast can be seen all through the long history of not just Aero-space but of manned flight itself...
In 1898 the War Department of the US government gave a federal grant to Samuel P. Langley to develop heavier-than-air flight. After 5 years, $70,000, and his only successes being an unmanned flight of a model aircraft, Langley gave up in 1903. The publicgrant was given to Langley regardless of results so he had no incentive for innovation or experimentation especially because it was not his money financing the project.
It was the Wright Brothers who would go down in the history books as the pioneers in aviation. Two independent businessmen free from government regulation who saw a profit in developing this field and so were willing to invest their own capital (money). Because it was their personal wealth and reputation on the line they had an incentive to make the best product they could for the lowest cost possible and to do it as quickly as possible to get a return on their investment. And in just 4 years, 1899-1903, a year shorter than Langley, the Wright Brothers made three successful full-size glider models and culminated in the world's first manned, powered, heavier-than-air craft, the Wright Flyer I, in 1903. In just two more years they improved their design through two more models, Flyer II and III, and went from a flight time and distance of 12 sec/120 ft. to 38 min 3 sec/24.5 miles with the Flyer III
So, as we can see, because of Free Market principals of investment of private capital, no regulation, and individual innovation two bicycle mechanics were able to, in a shorter time frame, far outshine a government-backed physicist.
In 1915, ten years after the Wright Brothers flew the Flyer III, the US government formed the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. True, this was a government agency and subject to government regulation. However, there was minimal regulation and NACA encouraged the participation of commercial and private clients in both research and facility usage. They even encouraged governemnt employees to explore "bootleg" projects of their own on the side. As a result, from 1915-1958 NACA took manned flight from the basic fliers of the Wright Brothers to the X-1 supersonic flights (the NACA XS-1) in 1946.
In 1958 Congress signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA. In the beginning, NASA carried on the tradition of private sector participation in the research and development of its missions and technology. They even enlisted the help of American universities. This resulted in the first Apollo moon landing just 11 years later in July of 1969.
However, as the government beauracracy increased within the ageny the private sector participation has been de-emphasized. Over the next 40 years, as the central federal government edged out independent free market interests, far from exceeding that pinnacle accomplishment, NASA has not even come close, settling for regular orbital missions.
Fast forward to the present. Government beauracracy is more than ten times what it was in the 60's and NASA is no different. The shuttle age is over and there no realistic plans to go back into space. After $10 billion the Shuttle Replacement Program has been scrapped with nothing to show for it except one unmanned orbital test and a capsule with no delivery system. In fact, the only space commitment we have is to the International Space Station and we can't even get our own astronauts there. They have to beg rides from the Russians.
In recent years, to help spread out the costs, NASA has, actually, started to again involve the private sector, contracting out to companies like Boeing and Lockheed/Martin. The problem here is that government does not know how to participate in the Market. NASA operates on a "cost-plus" system. This means they simply re-imburse the contractors for whatever costs in time, labor and materials they incur and add a fixed profit. Just like what happened with Langley at the turn of the century, there is no incentive to produce a viable product on time and every advantage to dragging your feet to run up the cost.
Enter the Free Market.
Just because a government agency, NASA, is grounded from a government inability to be fiscally responsible doesn't mean that America is. Yet again, private capital, talent and innovation have come together where there is a profit to be made. Right now, and for several years now, the beginnings of a Free Market, private sector Aero-space industry have been taking shape. Since 2004, a handful of independent aero-space firms and companies have taken the initiative not to wait for the federal government to get its house in order.
John Carmack, programmer of Doom and Quake, has taken his fortune to form Armadillo Aero-space. Bigelow Aero-space was started by hotelier Robert Bigelow. Other firms include Mastin Space Systems, Excor Aero-space, Scaled Composites, and Spacex. All of these companies are working independently to explore and develop Outer Space. And, because of the Free Market, keeping an eye on cost, quality and service, and because of the competition of Capitalism, they can all do it for a fraction of the cost. Sure, NASA is still involved, it would be foolish to ignore 60 years of research and development. But now instead of a "cost-plus" contract, they have a "fixed-price" contract which gives a desire to complete a project on time and under budget.
The result? For $300 billion of NASA funds, 1/30th of the cost of a typical "cost-plus" contract, Spacex produced, from scratch, two separate and functional launch vehicles, a new generation of engines and a 7-passenger, pressurized capsule that had a flawless maiden flight, though unmanned.
From just this handful of private companies have already come two different designs for a vertical take off and landing systems, one of which can even shut down mid-flight, restart and immediately return to stability, a developing orbital hotel, and the latest generation of rocket engines that are safer and more efficient than anything NASA has. In addition, Scaled Composites performed the first commercial manned space flight and did it, not in a shuttle strapped to a giant rocket, but in an innovative one-man pod.
So, to sum up, the Free Market championed by Capitalism has done in 8 years what it took the governments of the US, China, Russia, and the EU more than 60 years to accomplish. And they are not stopping there. They are going further.
Right now you can by tickets on Scaled Composites orbital shuttle, Spacex is in the midst of planning the first manned flight of their dragon rocket and capsule, with a few more years development of the vertical take off engines space flight will never again be dependent on a three-stage delivery system, and right now these companies are preparing for the first commercial landing on the moon.
Command, Socialist governments can't even come close to this.
There many ways that one can compare and contrast each of these drastically different world views. But the most glaring difference, especially lately with all the rhetoric against corporations, Wall Street, and the "1%," is the economy.
Socialism proposes a top-down approach where the large central government keeps the Market in the iron grip of a mountain of regulation and red tape. The Left believes that they can dictate fairness and appropriate behavior and order people to conform to their subjective definitions. This never leads to prosperity because as soon as an individual or entity wants to something that is against the small ruling elite, they bring the force of government to bare and make that person or company do what they don't wnat to do, consequences be damned. If government will still is not obeyed, they heap even more regulation on the pile until you submit.
Captilism, on the other hand, demands that a small de-centralized government enact as little regulation as possible and get out of the way of the Market. A Free Market works with human nature, competition and self interest, to good of all involved. This leads to the betterment of all because the Market can not force anyone to buy a product or service. It has to convince the consumer through better quality, cheaper prices, better service, etc. Also, as an added bonus of having multiple companies compete for your business, a Free Market produces diversity in product.
This contrast can be seen all through the long history of not just Aero-space but of manned flight itself...
In 1898 the War Department of the US government gave a federal grant to Samuel P. Langley to develop heavier-than-air flight. After 5 years, $70,000, and his only successes being an unmanned flight of a model aircraft, Langley gave up in 1903. The publicgrant was given to Langley regardless of results so he had no incentive for innovation or experimentation especially because it was not his money financing the project.
It was the Wright Brothers who would go down in the history books as the pioneers in aviation. Two independent businessmen free from government regulation who saw a profit in developing this field and so were willing to invest their own capital (money). Because it was their personal wealth and reputation on the line they had an incentive to make the best product they could for the lowest cost possible and to do it as quickly as possible to get a return on their investment. And in just 4 years, 1899-1903, a year shorter than Langley, the Wright Brothers made three successful full-size glider models and culminated in the world's first manned, powered, heavier-than-air craft, the Wright Flyer I, in 1903. In just two more years they improved their design through two more models, Flyer II and III, and went from a flight time and distance of 12 sec/120 ft. to 38 min 3 sec/24.5 miles with the Flyer III
So, as we can see, because of Free Market principals of investment of private capital, no regulation, and individual innovation two bicycle mechanics were able to, in a shorter time frame, far outshine a government-backed physicist.
In 1915, ten years after the Wright Brothers flew the Flyer III, the US government formed the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. True, this was a government agency and subject to government regulation. However, there was minimal regulation and NACA encouraged the participation of commercial and private clients in both research and facility usage. They even encouraged governemnt employees to explore "bootleg" projects of their own on the side. As a result, from 1915-1958 NACA took manned flight from the basic fliers of the Wright Brothers to the X-1 supersonic flights (the NACA XS-1) in 1946.
In 1958 Congress signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA. In the beginning, NASA carried on the tradition of private sector participation in the research and development of its missions and technology. They even enlisted the help of American universities. This resulted in the first Apollo moon landing just 11 years later in July of 1969.
However, as the government beauracracy increased within the ageny the private sector participation has been de-emphasized. Over the next 40 years, as the central federal government edged out independent free market interests, far from exceeding that pinnacle accomplishment, NASA has not even come close, settling for regular orbital missions.
Fast forward to the present. Government beauracracy is more than ten times what it was in the 60's and NASA is no different. The shuttle age is over and there no realistic plans to go back into space. After $10 billion the Shuttle Replacement Program has been scrapped with nothing to show for it except one unmanned orbital test and a capsule with no delivery system. In fact, the only space commitment we have is to the International Space Station and we can't even get our own astronauts there. They have to beg rides from the Russians.
In recent years, to help spread out the costs, NASA has, actually, started to again involve the private sector, contracting out to companies like Boeing and Lockheed/Martin. The problem here is that government does not know how to participate in the Market. NASA operates on a "cost-plus" system. This means they simply re-imburse the contractors for whatever costs in time, labor and materials they incur and add a fixed profit. Just like what happened with Langley at the turn of the century, there is no incentive to produce a viable product on time and every advantage to dragging your feet to run up the cost.
Enter the Free Market.
Just because a government agency, NASA, is grounded from a government inability to be fiscally responsible doesn't mean that America is. Yet again, private capital, talent and innovation have come together where there is a profit to be made. Right now, and for several years now, the beginnings of a Free Market, private sector Aero-space industry have been taking shape. Since 2004, a handful of independent aero-space firms and companies have taken the initiative not to wait for the federal government to get its house in order.
John Carmack, programmer of Doom and Quake, has taken his fortune to form Armadillo Aero-space. Bigelow Aero-space was started by hotelier Robert Bigelow. Other firms include Mastin Space Systems, Excor Aero-space, Scaled Composites, and Spacex. All of these companies are working independently to explore and develop Outer Space. And, because of the Free Market, keeping an eye on cost, quality and service, and because of the competition of Capitalism, they can all do it for a fraction of the cost. Sure, NASA is still involved, it would be foolish to ignore 60 years of research and development. But now instead of a "cost-plus" contract, they have a "fixed-price" contract which gives a desire to complete a project on time and under budget.
The result? For $300 billion of NASA funds, 1/30th of the cost of a typical "cost-plus" contract, Spacex produced, from scratch, two separate and functional launch vehicles, a new generation of engines and a 7-passenger, pressurized capsule that had a flawless maiden flight, though unmanned.
From just this handful of private companies have already come two different designs for a vertical take off and landing systems, one of which can even shut down mid-flight, restart and immediately return to stability, a developing orbital hotel, and the latest generation of rocket engines that are safer and more efficient than anything NASA has. In addition, Scaled Composites performed the first commercial manned space flight and did it, not in a shuttle strapped to a giant rocket, but in an innovative one-man pod.
So, to sum up, the Free Market championed by Capitalism has done in 8 years what it took the governments of the US, China, Russia, and the EU more than 60 years to accomplish. And they are not stopping there. They are going further.
Right now you can by tickets on Scaled Composites orbital shuttle, Spacex is in the midst of planning the first manned flight of their dragon rocket and capsule, with a few more years development of the vertical take off engines space flight will never again be dependent on a three-stage delivery system, and right now these companies are preparing for the first commercial landing on the moon.
Command, Socialist governments can't even come close to this.
Friday, February 3, 2012
"Freedom to choose" means choose them
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.
"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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)