Monday, May 25, 2020
I was initially curious if this site was still up and running! Apparently so. I have no delusions that anyone is actually reading this blog on purpose. However, I will cast my opinions into the cacophony of unrestricted diatribes that constitute political discussion on the internet.
I find myself in a disconcerting position. The Republican primaries that resulted in the nomination of now Pres. Trump were truly ridiculous. Several individuals with no real hope of obtaining the nomination remained in the race, or declared, when they had no business doing so. Pres. Trump only won a majority of the primary vote in approximately 16 states. The flagging nominees prevented a consolidation around the better candidates, and the result was that Pres. Trump won the nomination. He also won the presidency, but I feel that the election was much more of a vote against Hillary Clinton then it was for Pres. Trump, at least in the counties and swing states that made the difference. The man appears to lack the fundamental morality necessary for good leadership. He is demeaning in speech, and constantly playing the victim. This used to be the calling card of the Democrats, but Pres. Trump has picked up the banner and carried it forward.
Now there have been clear abuses of power by many in the Democrat party, however, you are only a victim when you permit yourself to be so. People can act towards you in hostile and damaging ways without your consent. The concern is in your reaction. Do you permit your perception of yourself to be defined by the things that others have done to you, or do you refuse to portray yourself as an injured party. Many times you cannot prevent others from politically attacking you or incorrectly portraying you to the world. You can control how you respond. Pres. Trump's responses have been whining, name calling, and blaming. I do not think that sits well with a majority of the American people. An inspirational figure rises from adversity with dignity. In his political career, Pres. Trump has not possessed dignity.
Pres. Trump is loud, rude, and crass. This was on full display in the 2016 election cycle and Pres. Trump was still elected. However, I believe that the American people's perception was greatly influenced by the identity of his opponent. This cycle, his opponent is a Joe Biden. A man whose mental capacity appears to be declining as a result of age. Of course the Democrats other options were extreme socialists. However, if Pres. Trump acts as though he is a victim of Joe Biden, I do not think it will end well for him.
The Republicans held the House and Senate for two years and accomplished almost nothing. Instead, Pres. Trump spent those two years forcing out any Republican that dared disagree with him. It was a terrible waste of political capital. The result is an election that is not based in any coherent way on actual policy issues. Instead, the election is once again a judgment of which candidates has the worse moral failing and personality flaws. Joe Biden himself may win that battle, but as he appears to be devolving into senility, I have no confidence he will actually be running anything. Who then will be pulling the strings behind Joe Biden? I feel like Vizzini from The Princess Bride:
"Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I’m not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me."
Unfortunately, it may be that both goblets are laced with iocane powder yet again.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Back on Track; Enter the NAACP
After a year off for my first year of law school, things seem to have settled down enough for a few more rantings: even if I am merely ranting to myself. I think that I will start with the NAACP and the breaking story of Shirley Shirrod. I personally feel that Shirley Shirrod is not the real story in this Youtube clip, but since everyone else does I will begin by addressing her. Ms. Shirrod offered her resignation after extreme pressure, she called it harrassment, from the White House following Breitbart breaking this story on thier website. This Fox News story quotes the reasons Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack gave for her forced resignation including: (1) possible controversy would make it impossible for her to do her job, and (2) her comments would make it more difficult to fix civil rights problems in the USDA.
I find it hard to believe that these are the two reasons. Shirley says she was thrown under the bus because of the upcoming elections, but Shirley there are better reasons that she was forced to resign. Shirley stated that the quotes were taken out of context, that she was basically explaining that she used to have the attitude that it was white against black, or that she was racist towards whites, but that this experience helped change her to worrying about poor people. However while attempting to explain her "change" she first states that the white person was trying to show he was superior to her, alluding that the white farmer was acting racially. Then in describing her change she states, "it was revealed to me that is about the poor versus those that have, it's not so much about white .... it IS about white and black, but its not, you know. Because I took him to one of his own." If this is supposed to describe the revelation that changed her racist attitude than I think that she needs to go back and get the revelation again because she missed some parts.
Imagine if a white person were to say "it's not so much about black ... it IS about black and white, but its not, you know. Because I took him to one of his own." Is there any doubt that is a racist statement?
I am all for the ability of an individual to change. If you were racist and you are not now, great. I believe people need to be given oppurtunities to change thier minds without being labelled a flip-flopper (which would actually seem to require someone who believes A, to flip to the opposite B, and then flop back to A when it is convenient). There is a difference between a flip-flopper and someone who has genuinely changed position. Of course the problem is discerning who is faking and who is genuine, and the only readily available evidence are the actions of the individual. Ms. Sherrod's words and action denote that her revelation was not nearly as transformitive as she believes, or that she was way more racist then I want to label her in the beginning. In other words, maybe this is a big change for her. She defended herself on CNN, and stated that she is good friends with the white farmers wife.
The real story here is the response from the crowd during her speech. The crowd cheers as she describes her previous racist position. Then, it is unusally silent as describes her revelation. The NAACP has been attacking the Tea Party Movement for supposed racist comments and signs. The organization has called for Tea Party Movement leaders to condemn racist elements within the Tea Party, however, there is no evidence of these racist elements. Breitbart has gone so far as to offer a $100,000 reward for anyone that can produce an authentic picture of a sign or recording of speech at a Tea Party event that is racist, and so far the reward in uncollect.
Brietbart told CNN that the purpose of the story was to illustrate the racists attitudes within the NAACP, not to get Sherrod fired. The NAACP initially rebuked Sherrod and then retracted the rebuke later today stating that it had been misled by the conservative media and unfavorable clips, but having few the whole thing it was not actually racist.
I find it hard to believe that these are the two reasons. Shirley says she was thrown under the bus because of the upcoming elections, but Shirley there are better reasons that she was forced to resign. Shirley stated that the quotes were taken out of context, that she was basically explaining that she used to have the attitude that it was white against black, or that she was racist towards whites, but that this experience helped change her to worrying about poor people. However while attempting to explain her "change" she first states that the white person was trying to show he was superior to her, alluding that the white farmer was acting racially. Then in describing her change she states, "it was revealed to me that is about the poor versus those that have, it's not so much about white .... it IS about white and black, but its not, you know. Because I took him to one of his own." If this is supposed to describe the revelation that changed her racist attitude than I think that she needs to go back and get the revelation again because she missed some parts.
Imagine if a white person were to say "it's not so much about black ... it IS about black and white, but its not, you know. Because I took him to one of his own." Is there any doubt that is a racist statement?
I am all for the ability of an individual to change. If you were racist and you are not now, great. I believe people need to be given oppurtunities to change thier minds without being labelled a flip-flopper (which would actually seem to require someone who believes A, to flip to the opposite B, and then flop back to A when it is convenient). There is a difference between a flip-flopper and someone who has genuinely changed position. Of course the problem is discerning who is faking and who is genuine, and the only readily available evidence are the actions of the individual. Ms. Sherrod's words and action denote that her revelation was not nearly as transformitive as she believes, or that she was way more racist then I want to label her in the beginning. In other words, maybe this is a big change for her. She defended herself on CNN, and stated that she is good friends with the white farmers wife.
The real story here is the response from the crowd during her speech. The crowd cheers as she describes her previous racist position. Then, it is unusally silent as describes her revelation. The NAACP has been attacking the Tea Party Movement for supposed racist comments and signs. The organization has called for Tea Party Movement leaders to condemn racist elements within the Tea Party, however, there is no evidence of these racist elements. Breitbart has gone so far as to offer a $100,000 reward for anyone that can produce an authentic picture of a sign or recording of speech at a Tea Party event that is racist, and so far the reward in uncollect.
Brietbart told CNN that the purpose of the story was to illustrate the racists attitudes within the NAACP, not to get Sherrod fired. The NAACP initially rebuked Sherrod and then retracted the rebuke later today stating that it had been misled by the conservative media and unfavorable clips, but having few the whole thing it was not actually racist.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Yet another confirmation that Joe Biden should never be Vice President of the United States. At a meeting/dinner for elite politicians and media personalities that wish to cozy up to elite politicians, Vice-Pres. Biden disclosed during dinner conversation the existence and location of a secret security bunker located at the Vice President's quarters. The Naval observatory has been the residence of the Vice President since 1976.
I believe that we should simply no build Vice Pres. Biden a new one. Maybe that will teach to reveal national security secrets over dinner! After the witch-hunt that followed the releasing of Valerie Plame's name by the VP office under Cheney, I wonder whether we would now be justified to charge Vice President Biden with revealing national security secrets?
I believe that we should simply no build Vice Pres. Biden a new one. Maybe that will teach to reveal national security secrets over dinner! After the witch-hunt that followed the releasing of Valerie Plame's name by the VP office under Cheney, I wonder whether we would now be justified to charge Vice President Biden with revealing national security secrets?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Unclassified Extremism Lexicon
The biased nature of the current administration is on full display again today in an Unclassified and recalled document originally distributed to law enforcement officials by the Department of Homeland Security. This "dictionary" was an attempt to establish some sort of universal definitions for extremist groups and activities. On the surface that sounds like a great idea; all law enforcement should be on the same page as far as Federal laws are concerned. However, a more detailed reading of the 12 page document reveal the extreme bias of the current administration.
The definition of Leftist Extremism states:
"A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist or Socialist doctorines and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than the established political processes. The term also refers to leftwing, single issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition to war, and the rights of animals."
Contrast that now with Rightwing Extremism:
"A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state and local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
This differences in these two definitions illustrates the intense bias of the author. Evidently the author doesn't feel that it is leftist extremism to embrace anticapitalist, Communisit or Socialist doctorines. It is only extreme if you attempt to bring about changes in the current system through a violent revolution. The way you act and not the way your personal beliefs, make you an extremist. I would love to see any data that actually suggests that this is the way the average American defines leftist extremism.
The author of this document gives no such caveat to the rightwing extremist. Merely believing anything that the author would define at "hate-oriented" is rightwing extremism. The term is so broad that it can be interpreted to mean anything the author wants. If you do not agree with race based affirmative action, the author could feel you are motivated by hate and you are a rightwing extremist. Rightwing extremism can therefore only be defined by its opposition, making it possible to have any ideology become rightwing extremism by merely changing the individual interpreting the phrase "hate-oriented".
There is no burden of proof in order to determine a motivation. In law the appearance of a motive is enough to satisfy the demands of the law. In other words, you have to prove there is a possible motive, but you do not have to prove that an individual actually used the suggested motive when he committed an act. Many times prosecutors will state either multiple motives and tell a jury to pick one that's their favortie, or not offer a motive because they claim to be unable to comprehend what any true motive would be. The point is that the world is full of so many individuals with as many different ways of reasoning any situation that any possible motive can be concieved in any situation. Therefore, any ideology can be twisted by an interpretor to such an extent that it could be labeled "hate-oriented". Give it a try.
Here is a fun one. State welfare is directed to poor people and takes money through taxes from people who have more. If an interpretor states, "The money is being taken from the people who have, merely because the state hates rich people", then the position meets the qualifications outlined in the definition and becomes rightwing extremism. Remember, you don't even have to actually be involved in attemtpting to violently take the money like Robin Hood, you merely would have to share in Robin Hood's ideology that the rich should give their money to the poor. Taxes established through the current political process by correctedly elected officials and obtained without any violence would be rightwing extremism.
Moreover, the author defines anitgovernment not as some form of anarchism, but as those individuals who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It isn't that you don't want any government to be charge of an issue, but that you don't want the Federal government to be in charge of an issue. This means that the a majority of the drafters of the US Constitution were rightwing extremists. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you feel that states should have more control then the Federal government on any issue? If so you are a rightwing extremist according to this lexicon from the Department of Homeland Security.
Try this ridiculous example. If you believe that the states should have the right to decide whether or not they will allow homosexual marriage, even if you support homosexual marriage, and you therefore reject the federal government's authority to define marriage laws, you are a rightwing extremist.
There is little wonder this thing was recalled. Did Napolitano not hire any new proofreaders or editors for the Department of Homeland Security documents?
The definition of Leftist Extremism states:
"A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist or Socialist doctorines and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than the established political processes. The term also refers to leftwing, single issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition to war, and the rights of animals."
Contrast that now with Rightwing Extremism:
"A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state and local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
This differences in these two definitions illustrates the intense bias of the author. Evidently the author doesn't feel that it is leftist extremism to embrace anticapitalist, Communisit or Socialist doctorines. It is only extreme if you attempt to bring about changes in the current system through a violent revolution. The way you act and not the way your personal beliefs, make you an extremist. I would love to see any data that actually suggests that this is the way the average American defines leftist extremism.
The author of this document gives no such caveat to the rightwing extremist. Merely believing anything that the author would define at "hate-oriented" is rightwing extremism. The term is so broad that it can be interpreted to mean anything the author wants. If you do not agree with race based affirmative action, the author could feel you are motivated by hate and you are a rightwing extremist. Rightwing extremism can therefore only be defined by its opposition, making it possible to have any ideology become rightwing extremism by merely changing the individual interpreting the phrase "hate-oriented".
There is no burden of proof in order to determine a motivation. In law the appearance of a motive is enough to satisfy the demands of the law. In other words, you have to prove there is a possible motive, but you do not have to prove that an individual actually used the suggested motive when he committed an act. Many times prosecutors will state either multiple motives and tell a jury to pick one that's their favortie, or not offer a motive because they claim to be unable to comprehend what any true motive would be. The point is that the world is full of so many individuals with as many different ways of reasoning any situation that any possible motive can be concieved in any situation. Therefore, any ideology can be twisted by an interpretor to such an extent that it could be labeled "hate-oriented". Give it a try.
Here is a fun one. State welfare is directed to poor people and takes money through taxes from people who have more. If an interpretor states, "The money is being taken from the people who have, merely because the state hates rich people", then the position meets the qualifications outlined in the definition and becomes rightwing extremism. Remember, you don't even have to actually be involved in attemtpting to violently take the money like Robin Hood, you merely would have to share in Robin Hood's ideology that the rich should give their money to the poor. Taxes established through the current political process by correctedly elected officials and obtained without any violence would be rightwing extremism.
Moreover, the author defines anitgovernment not as some form of anarchism, but as those individuals who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It isn't that you don't want any government to be charge of an issue, but that you don't want the Federal government to be in charge of an issue. This means that the a majority of the drafters of the US Constitution were rightwing extremists. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you feel that states should have more control then the Federal government on any issue? If so you are a rightwing extremist according to this lexicon from the Department of Homeland Security.
Try this ridiculous example. If you believe that the states should have the right to decide whether or not they will allow homosexual marriage, even if you support homosexual marriage, and you therefore reject the federal government's authority to define marriage laws, you are a rightwing extremist.
There is little wonder this thing was recalled. Did Napolitano not hire any new proofreaders or editors for the Department of Homeland Security documents?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
All Hail the New Ridiculousness
This morning as I awoke to come to work, reports were surfacing that the first US swine flu death had been reported. The loss of any human life is saddening. I feel sympathy for anyone who loses a loved one, especially, as in this case, just an infant.
More details are now starting to surface and another instance of media irresponsibility is illustrated. As it turns out, the 23 month old girl is not from the US, she is from Mexico. She contracted the disease in Mexico, and was in the US recieving treatment. There are only 65 confirmed cases of swine flu in the US and outside of this one individual, they are all reported as mild. It is ridiculousness to use the death of a little girl to insight greater viewership. It cheapens the story and the death of the little girl to report partial, false or misleading information.
Now the US government is starting to talk about taking "utmost" precautions. We must be wary of over reaction. This is not the first encounter our country has had with swine flu. In 1976 a version of swine flu hit the US originating in New Jersey on a military base. One private died and Pres. Ford, under extreme pressure, decided to start a compaign to vacinate the US population against this terrible virus. Staring in October, 40 million people were vacinated. The only problem was that the vaccine caused paralysis in a percentage of the population. The program was therefore terminated in December of the same year. When everything was said and done, only the one person ever died from the virus.
Originally we were hearing reports from all over the world that hundreds of people had contracted and died from the disease. However, the World Health Organization is saying this morning that there are only 7 confirmed deaths world wide caused by swine flu. To put that in perspective, 20,000 to 35,000 people die each year in the US due to the contraction of the more normal strains of the flu. The combinatio of flu and pneumonia is the 7th leading cause of death in the US. The fact that we have gone nearly a week with misleading news stories is just another sign that the media groups in the US need a serious overall. Why can't we just get reports of things as they really are?
More details are now starting to surface and another instance of media irresponsibility is illustrated. As it turns out, the 23 month old girl is not from the US, she is from Mexico. She contracted the disease in Mexico, and was in the US recieving treatment. There are only 65 confirmed cases of swine flu in the US and outside of this one individual, they are all reported as mild. It is ridiculousness to use the death of a little girl to insight greater viewership. It cheapens the story and the death of the little girl to report partial, false or misleading information.
Now the US government is starting to talk about taking "utmost" precautions. We must be wary of over reaction. This is not the first encounter our country has had with swine flu. In 1976 a version of swine flu hit the US originating in New Jersey on a military base. One private died and Pres. Ford, under extreme pressure, decided to start a compaign to vacinate the US population against this terrible virus. Staring in October, 40 million people were vacinated. The only problem was that the vaccine caused paralysis in a percentage of the population. The program was therefore terminated in December of the same year. When everything was said and done, only the one person ever died from the virus.
Originally we were hearing reports from all over the world that hundreds of people had contracted and died from the disease. However, the World Health Organization is saying this morning that there are only 7 confirmed deaths world wide caused by swine flu. To put that in perspective, 20,000 to 35,000 people die each year in the US due to the contraction of the more normal strains of the flu. The combinatio of flu and pneumonia is the 7th leading cause of death in the US. The fact that we have gone nearly a week with misleading news stories is just another sign that the media groups in the US need a serious overall. Why can't we just get reports of things as they really are?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter's Unethical Decision
Today Arlen Specter's staff announced that he would be switching to the Democratic party, giving the Democratic party 60 votes in the Senate and ending the ability to filibuster. What about this switch is so egregious?
Arlen Specter ran on the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania. Part of his initial appeal to the people in the area was that he was at least a Republican in name, although he has seldom been a Republican in action. His election would help to prevent a filibuster proof Democratic Senate. He received donations from Republicans and had access to general GOP funds. During the previous election there was a large debate about whether the Republican party would support Mr. Specter who had acted so many times against established party platforms. The fact that he was an incumbent played a huge factor. In the primaries, Mr. Specter had a huge fight to maintain his position that he would be the best Republican candidate.
In the business world we would call this situation fraud. There was a presumed contract between Mr. Specter and his constituents, as well as the Republican party as a whole. He took their money, received their votes, and now is betraying their most valuable asset, the filibuster.
Why is the filibuster important? It keeps any party that is in control from running rough sod over the other party. It tempers the ability of any political party to impose a tyranny of the majority. The usefulness of the threat of filibuster was illustrated earlier this year when the stimulus bill was being debated in the Senate. Threatening a filibuster vote, the Republican party was able to get at least some concessions, though extremely minimal. In the end three Republicans turned coat and sided with the Democratic party to pass a bill that no one read. Of course, Arlen Specter was one of those three turn coats. In this interview with The Hill, Mr. Specter explained that he felt that the filibuster was needed and he assured everyone he would not switch parties.
The Sunny Side
Most conservative Republicans viewed Arlen Specter as less of a Republican then a Democrat anyhow. In the wake of this controversial flip on fiscal responsibility it is understandable that he feels more comfortable on the other side of the isle. The question could be raised about when his unethical action occurred (IE. was it unethical to accept Republican money for re-election last year, or unethical to switch parties now, or both?). I guess he may be able to at least partially atone by returning all GOP and individual Republican contributions that he received for his re-election, but seeing as how he couldn't pass up the pork in the stimulus bill, then there is now way he is going to do something that honorable. At least people who gave him campaign contributions had the expectation that they would get something for their money.
Arlen Specter ran on the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania. Part of his initial appeal to the people in the area was that he was at least a Republican in name, although he has seldom been a Republican in action. His election would help to prevent a filibuster proof Democratic Senate. He received donations from Republicans and had access to general GOP funds. During the previous election there was a large debate about whether the Republican party would support Mr. Specter who had acted so many times against established party platforms. The fact that he was an incumbent played a huge factor. In the primaries, Mr. Specter had a huge fight to maintain his position that he would be the best Republican candidate.
In the business world we would call this situation fraud. There was a presumed contract between Mr. Specter and his constituents, as well as the Republican party as a whole. He took their money, received their votes, and now is betraying their most valuable asset, the filibuster.
Why is the filibuster important? It keeps any party that is in control from running rough sod over the other party. It tempers the ability of any political party to impose a tyranny of the majority. The usefulness of the threat of filibuster was illustrated earlier this year when the stimulus bill was being debated in the Senate. Threatening a filibuster vote, the Republican party was able to get at least some concessions, though extremely minimal. In the end three Republicans turned coat and sided with the Democratic party to pass a bill that no one read. Of course, Arlen Specter was one of those three turn coats. In this interview with The Hill, Mr. Specter explained that he felt that the filibuster was needed and he assured everyone he would not switch parties.
The Sunny Side
Most conservative Republicans viewed Arlen Specter as less of a Republican then a Democrat anyhow. In the wake of this controversial flip on fiscal responsibility it is understandable that he feels more comfortable on the other side of the isle. The question could be raised about when his unethical action occurred (IE. was it unethical to accept Republican money for re-election last year, or unethical to switch parties now, or both?). I guess he may be able to at least partially atone by returning all GOP and individual Republican contributions that he received for his re-election, but seeing as how he couldn't pass up the pork in the stimulus bill, then there is now way he is going to do something that honorable. At least people who gave him campaign contributions had the expectation that they would get something for their money.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Unconditional Talks
In the past Pres. Elect Obama has stated that he would sit down and talk with the leaders of Iran and Venezuela without preconditions. I wonder how he feels now. Take a look at this article picture.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
CS Lewis' Fire Extinguishers
In a book titled "The Screwtape Letters", CS Lewis write a fictional series of letters between a servant of the devil and his young nephew. In letter number XXV he states,
"We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under... "
In this light, let us examine the current Federal government plan for an economic crisis and how we arrived here in the first place.
As previously discussed in other posts, the strongest downturn in the economy was ushered in with the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. As I have also previously discussed the spending habits that led to faulty loans and mass forclosures were required by government oversight during Pres. Clinton's first term. In other words, people were taking loans that they couldn't repay and banks were giving loans that sound lending principles stated wouldn't be repaid while the federal regulators were encouraging and in the case of the Feddie Mac and Fannie Mae it was required by law. We are in the mess we are in now because the federal government encouraged and required mismangament and overspending.
So how do we get out of this mess.....
Currently the House of Representatives in response to the economic crisis is following the advice of Pres. Elect Obama and suggesting a huge spending increase with nearly a trillion dollars or more deficit. To put it simply, Pres. Elect obama has suggest we get our way out of a situation caused by overspending by overspending the national budget. This sounds like CS Lewis' fire extinguisher.
Last night on the O'Reily Factor Glenn Beck was asked if he really thought thatthe answer to our current situation was by letting unresponsible spenders and lenders fail. His repsonse embodies the historically impressive writings of Alexis De Toqueville. It is not that we expect to just let everyone fail, we expect neighbors, charities, churches and fellow human beings to step in and help each other out. The Federal Government is the world's worst big brother. Selfcentered and power hungry.
Alexis De Toqueville quipped that one of America's greatest strengths lied in the populace adn how the government was structured. He gave an example of a local bridge being damaged by nature in France and one in America. In France, he posits that the local people would complain to the mayor, who would complain to a local magistrate, who would complain to a regional magistrate, who would get someone set down from the Federal government to fixt the bridge. In America, he contrasted that the local people would get together, decide how much each individual would be responsible for the repairs, and fix the bridge. If one had no money but could work, he would work. Those with money would purchase the supplies. The point being that the bridge in America would be built faster and better and cost less because the people only built what they really needed and only spent what they actually had.
The real solution to this current problem is fiscal responsibility. We should pepole who made the incorrect decisions responsible and then also hold the rest of society responsible to help each other, not through the means of a Federal Government which has proven that they will send us fire extinguishers in a time of flood, but by holding ourselves to the old standard and authority inherent in the mores that built the nation.
"We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under... "
In this light, let us examine the current Federal government plan for an economic crisis and how we arrived here in the first place.
As previously discussed in other posts, the strongest downturn in the economy was ushered in with the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. As I have also previously discussed the spending habits that led to faulty loans and mass forclosures were required by government oversight during Pres. Clinton's first term. In other words, people were taking loans that they couldn't repay and banks were giving loans that sound lending principles stated wouldn't be repaid while the federal regulators were encouraging and in the case of the Feddie Mac and Fannie Mae it was required by law. We are in the mess we are in now because the federal government encouraged and required mismangament and overspending.
So how do we get out of this mess.....
Currently the House of Representatives in response to the economic crisis is following the advice of Pres. Elect Obama and suggesting a huge spending increase with nearly a trillion dollars or more deficit. To put it simply, Pres. Elect obama has suggest we get our way out of a situation caused by overspending by overspending the national budget. This sounds like CS Lewis' fire extinguisher.
Last night on the O'Reily Factor Glenn Beck was asked if he really thought thatthe answer to our current situation was by letting unresponsible spenders and lenders fail. His repsonse embodies the historically impressive writings of Alexis De Toqueville. It is not that we expect to just let everyone fail, we expect neighbors, charities, churches and fellow human beings to step in and help each other out. The Federal Government is the world's worst big brother. Selfcentered and power hungry.
Alexis De Toqueville quipped that one of America's greatest strengths lied in the populace adn how the government was structured. He gave an example of a local bridge being damaged by nature in France and one in America. In France, he posits that the local people would complain to the mayor, who would complain to a local magistrate, who would complain to a regional magistrate, who would get someone set down from the Federal government to fixt the bridge. In America, he contrasted that the local people would get together, decide how much each individual would be responsible for the repairs, and fix the bridge. If one had no money but could work, he would work. Those with money would purchase the supplies. The point being that the bridge in America would be built faster and better and cost less because the people only built what they really needed and only spent what they actually had.
The real solution to this current problem is fiscal responsibility. We should pepole who made the incorrect decisions responsible and then also hold the rest of society responsible to help each other, not through the means of a Federal Government which has proven that they will send us fire extinguishers in a time of flood, but by holding ourselves to the old standard and authority inherent in the mores that built the nation.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
So how many free passes does the Democratic Party get when it comes to scandals? Gov. Richardson has to resign a post that he never actually did anything in because he was tied to a financial scandal in New Mexico. Something about using his position as Govenor to make money from illegal transactions. So that makes two Democrat Govenors in a few weeks to come under fire. Both of them closely tied to President Elect Obama.
The reaction to both these Govenors' crimes is the most amusing story for the day. Let's see how did everyone react when the story about Blagojevich came out? "Moral outrage, we won't seat anyone he appoints." "We never knew." "This is deplorable." "We will revoke his authority to appoint someone. " What actually happened? The state legislature refused to take action, the Govenor appointed the replacement anyhow. Someone played the race card and now Harry Reid has decided that he will talk with this new nominee anyhow and there is definately room for negociation. What is there to negociate?
To make matters worse, it looks like we get at least four years of this crap. The Presidential term hasn't even begun. Wow, it's almost all of those corruption allegations during the campaign weren't just allegations.
The reaction to both these Govenors' crimes is the most amusing story for the day. Let's see how did everyone react when the story about Blagojevich came out? "Moral outrage, we won't seat anyone he appoints." "We never knew." "This is deplorable." "We will revoke his authority to appoint someone. " What actually happened? The state legislature refused to take action, the Govenor appointed the replacement anyhow. Someone played the race card and now Harry Reid has decided that he will talk with this new nominee anyhow and there is definately room for negociation. What is there to negociate?
To make matters worse, it looks like we get at least four years of this crap. The Presidential term hasn't even begun. Wow, it's almost all of those corruption allegations during the campaign weren't just allegations.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Barack Vs Barak
Well evidentally economic downturn and an FBI investigation is not enough for the next President, he also has to deal with new and dangerous situations in Israel. Today Israel began heavy airstrikes against the Gaza strip. Hamas is claiming at 207 injured so far and Emud Barak in a press conference this morning stated that the operation will expand as much as necessary. Stating that this was a "time for fighting."
Pres. Elect Obama stated on his webpage during the election that his administration would never do anything to weaken the relationship between the US and Israel, and that he believed that Israel had the right to defend itself against attacks from terrorist organizations. The question now remains will he do as he has promised.
So far leaders of the UN, Egypt, France, Great Britain, EU and Russia have managed at least a comment on the situation, but Obama is silently on vacation at his family compound in Hawaii. (How many carbon credits does it take to fly from Washinton DC to Hawaii for a vacation?)
Pres. Elect Obama stated on his webpage during the election that his administration would never do anything to weaken the relationship between the US and Israel, and that he believed that Israel had the right to defend itself against attacks from terrorist organizations. The question now remains will he do as he has promised.
So far leaders of the UN, Egypt, France, Great Britain, EU and Russia have managed at least a comment on the situation, but Obama is silently on vacation at his family compound in Hawaii. (How many carbon credits does it take to fly from Washinton DC to Hawaii for a vacation?)
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Pre-Inaugaration FBI Investigation
What is the record for the shortest amount of a time from a presidential election to the first time that the victor finds himself tied up in a Federal investigation? I admit that I don't actually know the answer to that question, but I would guess that a month before inauguration would probably be pretty close to the number one spot.
Let's start with the Gov. Blagojevich scandal. By this time I hope that everyone has at least a little understanding concerning the Gov. Blagojevich. The Gov. attempted to trade the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama either for favors or cold hard cash. The FBI obtained a wire tap warrant from a Federal judge and recorded multiple conversations. So, other than the fact that Barack Obama used to fill this particular senate seat how is he connected to the whole investigation?
Well it is common for a politician who has vacated a seat due to a new election to speak with those who are in charge of filling his vacant seat. That much is normal. However a look into the Chicago politics has revealed a world where vacancies and cabinet positions can be bought. It is truly a sad day. Now the real question in the all talk is did Barack Obama know about any conversations between his cabinet and Blagojevich? If so did they know that Bagojevich was attempting to sell the seat?
Mr. Obama's initial response was that he had never had any conversations with the governor about his Senate seat. This comment from the beginning is suspicious since, as previously mentioned, it is common for the this type of conversation to occur. Shortly after the elections an Obama aid was on the evening news discussing how he knew for certain that Obama had talked with the Governor. Finally, weeks after the this story first broke, we know for certain that Rahm Emmanuel discussed the issue with some in the governor's office or staff. So what does this really mean? There are actually a few possibilities.
1) After spending months preaching about "Change" that everyone could believe in, Pres. Elect Obama filled his staff with a bunch of DC insiders who far from being different are actually old Clinton administration members. So this would be business as usual for Rahm Emmanuel, the man who once sent a pollster a dead fish because he did not like the results of a poll that he published.
2)Guilt by participation. Now we see that the people that the media refused to investigate last year in connection with Obama's presidential campaign are coming back to produce scandals before the inauguration even occurs. People like Rezko and Blagojevich. Now let's not put too much stock in everybody that Obama hangs out with, forms political coalitions with in the state Senate or has help with his fund raising. Just because Rezko has been convicted of selling positions and contracts in order to get campaign funds for other people doesn't mean that he did it for Obama right.
3) A terrible pattern of lies. Perhaps Obama just forgot that he had given Rahm Emmanuel a list of potential people to fill his vacancies, or maybe Rahm just made it up, but what I really see here is a pattern. It appears that Obama's typical reaction when confronted about a relationship or friend that may cause his political backlash is to lie and feign ignorance. I will set up the examples that illustrate this pattern for you.
A) During his campaign Obama is confronted concerning comments made by his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama's initial reaction was to say that he had never heard Reverend Wright say those kind of things. Eventually Obama "left" the church because of the degrading comments that he had just become aware his pastor had been making for the entire 20 years that he sat in the congregation.
B) William Ayers. Interestingly enough when reporters began talking about Obama's relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, once again Obama's initial response was, well that happened when I was 8, how was I supposed to know that he was a terrorist?
C) Blagojevich. Here we are now. Really, Gov. Blagojevich has been selling contracts since you were with him in the State Congress, he has the same fund raiser you had, and he states in FBI conversations that someone from your campaign would not give him what he wanted for your senate seat and yet somehow you are supposedly innocently ignorant of the fact that the man is using his position to get money in illegal ways? Get real. Even better do you really expect me to believe that you did not know that your staff was speaking with his office?
Now feeling that the pattern is properly established, let me ask this question. Does this situation seem familiar? Where have we seen this pattern of lies before? Of wait I know, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lies, the familiar sound from the Democratic White house.
Let's start with the Gov. Blagojevich scandal. By this time I hope that everyone has at least a little understanding concerning the Gov. Blagojevich. The Gov. attempted to trade the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama either for favors or cold hard cash. The FBI obtained a wire tap warrant from a Federal judge and recorded multiple conversations. So, other than the fact that Barack Obama used to fill this particular senate seat how is he connected to the whole investigation?
Well it is common for a politician who has vacated a seat due to a new election to speak with those who are in charge of filling his vacant seat. That much is normal. However a look into the Chicago politics has revealed a world where vacancies and cabinet positions can be bought. It is truly a sad day. Now the real question in the all talk is did Barack Obama know about any conversations between his cabinet and Blagojevich? If so did they know that Bagojevich was attempting to sell the seat?
Mr. Obama's initial response was that he had never had any conversations with the governor about his Senate seat. This comment from the beginning is suspicious since, as previously mentioned, it is common for the this type of conversation to occur. Shortly after the elections an Obama aid was on the evening news discussing how he knew for certain that Obama had talked with the Governor. Finally, weeks after the this story first broke, we know for certain that Rahm Emmanuel discussed the issue with some in the governor's office or staff. So what does this really mean? There are actually a few possibilities.
1) After spending months preaching about "Change" that everyone could believe in, Pres. Elect Obama filled his staff with a bunch of DC insiders who far from being different are actually old Clinton administration members. So this would be business as usual for Rahm Emmanuel, the man who once sent a pollster a dead fish because he did not like the results of a poll that he published.
2)Guilt by participation. Now we see that the people that the media refused to investigate last year in connection with Obama's presidential campaign are coming back to produce scandals before the inauguration even occurs. People like Rezko and Blagojevich. Now let's not put too much stock in everybody that Obama hangs out with, forms political coalitions with in the state Senate or has help with his fund raising. Just because Rezko has been convicted of selling positions and contracts in order to get campaign funds for other people doesn't mean that he did it for Obama right.
3) A terrible pattern of lies. Perhaps Obama just forgot that he had given Rahm Emmanuel a list of potential people to fill his vacancies, or maybe Rahm just made it up, but what I really see here is a pattern. It appears that Obama's typical reaction when confronted about a relationship or friend that may cause his political backlash is to lie and feign ignorance. I will set up the examples that illustrate this pattern for you.
A) During his campaign Obama is confronted concerning comments made by his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama's initial reaction was to say that he had never heard Reverend Wright say those kind of things. Eventually Obama "left" the church because of the degrading comments that he had just become aware his pastor had been making for the entire 20 years that he sat in the congregation.
B) William Ayers. Interestingly enough when reporters began talking about Obama's relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, once again Obama's initial response was, well that happened when I was 8, how was I supposed to know that he was a terrorist?
C) Blagojevich. Here we are now. Really, Gov. Blagojevich has been selling contracts since you were with him in the State Congress, he has the same fund raiser you had, and he states in FBI conversations that someone from your campaign would not give him what he wanted for your senate seat and yet somehow you are supposedly innocently ignorant of the fact that the man is using his position to get money in illegal ways? Get real. Even better do you really expect me to believe that you did not know that your staff was speaking with his office?
Now feeling that the pattern is properly established, let me ask this question. Does this situation seem familiar? Where have we seen this pattern of lies before? Of wait I know, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lies, the familiar sound from the Democratic White house.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
One European I think has it Right!
I am interested to what changes occur ed in the EU following recent economic downturns. There is an interesting development on the continent. The position of EU president rotates between different countries that are members of the union (for a more detailed explanation you would need to ask someone who knows more about the EU infrastructure). Currently a Czech, Vaclav Klaus is preparing to fill the position. Mr. Klaus is a horse of a different color in Europe. He advocates for strong free markets, and blames the response to fictitious global warming for aiding in the financial demise.
He has called Al Gore an "apostle of arrogance" for his positions and recent actions with global warming. On this point I agree with Mr. Klaus. Other then inventing the Internet, what did Al Gore ever do to qualify himself as an environmental leader? His home uses ridiculous amounts of energy and he flies around the world on a private jet while criticizing other Americans for driving SUV's.
Anyhow, I am interested in what appears to be an unreported shift in some international political venues. Why did we not hear about Mr. Klaus on our evening news sooner? I thought all European heads of state agreed that global warming was bad. I believe it is the same media bias that downplayed the election of Pres. Scharkozy, a Pro-American French President. This election came at a time when the entire media was bashing Pres. Bush for his terrible international policies. It is obvious that we will never please everyone, but the idea that international consensus that the US is deplorable is false. It is a media over exaggeration.
He has called Al Gore an "apostle of arrogance" for his positions and recent actions with global warming. On this point I agree with Mr. Klaus. Other then inventing the Internet, what did Al Gore ever do to qualify himself as an environmental leader? His home uses ridiculous amounts of energy and he flies around the world on a private jet while criticizing other Americans for driving SUV's.
Anyhow, I am interested in what appears to be an unreported shift in some international political venues. Why did we not hear about Mr. Klaus on our evening news sooner? I thought all European heads of state agreed that global warming was bad. I believe it is the same media bias that downplayed the election of Pres. Scharkozy, a Pro-American French President. This election came at a time when the entire media was bashing Pres. Bush for his terrible international policies. It is obvious that we will never please everyone, but the idea that international consensus that the US is deplorable is false. It is a media over exaggeration.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
There is excitement at work today. This story is being ran by ABC 4 News here in Utah. It is about our department. James Anderson the owner of the property tried to establish an illegal Duplex. He tried to give the city the run around about what was really going on at the property. However, when he was finally taken to court he plead "No Contest" to all charges.
After court he evidentally went to the news who agreed to pick up his story. Unfortunately he wasn't completely honest with the news. He claims that he tenants don't pay, but his tenants claim that Mr. Anderson had them pay up front. The story suggests that Provo City kicked out a family that was hard up and homeless. If they are hard up, maybe it is because Mr. Anderson took all that money up front for a unit they couldn't live in.
After court he evidentally went to the news who agreed to pick up his story. Unfortunately he wasn't completely honest with the news. He claims that he tenants don't pay, but his tenants claim that Mr. Anderson had them pay up front. The story suggests that Provo City kicked out a family that was hard up and homeless. If they are hard up, maybe it is because Mr. Anderson took all that money up front for a unit they couldn't live in.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Iran Test Fires New Missles
Do you think they would be doing this is McCain had been elected President? Why or why not?
Can You Keep a Secret?
The Obama camp can't. Shortly after meeting with Pres. Bush, the Obama camp began releasing details concerning the discussion. Who wouldn't think that those conversations are supposed to be kept confidential? Of course the New York Times published a story only quoting a anonymous source. Now I wonder what would happen if a Republican close to Pres. Bush were to give information on a sensitive subject to the media. Would the media name names? Oh wait that has already happened.
Anyhow, I digress.
There a few possible reasons why the Obama camp would release the details. Here are a couple of thoughts.
1. The Obama campaign isn't used to being in the presidential spotlight so they didn't know they weren't supposed to talk about it. If this is the situation then why did the aide wish to be left anonymous? Even better if this explanation is the correct explanation, then that means in the first two public events that Barack Obama has taken part in since the election, he has trample etique and rules. Is this that the change we were hearing about; that change we can believe in? or is he really that inexperienced?
2. It was a malicious attempt by Pres. Elect Obama to take control of the White House two months early. The discussions between Bush and Obama turned out to be negotiations where Obama was asking for Pres. Bush to throw more money at an economic bail for the car manufacturers before the end of the year. Pres. Bush evidentally made a counter offer telling Obama to get the Democrats to approve free trade with Columbia and he would consider it. So in an attempt to push the matter, Obama starts leaking that Pres. Bush is responsible for the car manufacturers going under. Heck they have used him for a scapegoat for everything else.
3. It was the status quo for the type of people Obama has sought to surround himself with. I am NOT talking about Rev. Wright, Father Flager or William Ayers. I am talking about people like Rahm Emanuel. Let's see what did Mr. Emmanuel do... oh yes, he sent dead fish to people while working for the Clinton Administration. That's right. Someone who is supposed to be representing our country sent a dead fish to a pollster because he didn't like his numbers. Then there was that time that he told the opposition to F*** themselves in Hebrew. Evidentally that is acceptable social behavior if you do it in another language. Obama's judgement is flawed beyond all possible belief when it to comes to the people he chooses to associate with.
Anyhow, take your pick of the possible scenerios I have presented, or even better propose one of your own and I will post. As far as I can see right now, none of the scenerios are encouraging, or inspiring any HOPE for the future.
Anyhow, I digress.
There a few possible reasons why the Obama camp would release the details. Here are a couple of thoughts.
1. The Obama campaign isn't used to being in the presidential spotlight so they didn't know they weren't supposed to talk about it. If this is the situation then why did the aide wish to be left anonymous? Even better if this explanation is the correct explanation, then that means in the first two public events that Barack Obama has taken part in since the election, he has trample etique and rules. Is this that the change we were hearing about; that change we can believe in? or is he really that inexperienced?
2. It was a malicious attempt by Pres. Elect Obama to take control of the White House two months early. The discussions between Bush and Obama turned out to be negotiations where Obama was asking for Pres. Bush to throw more money at an economic bail for the car manufacturers before the end of the year. Pres. Bush evidentally made a counter offer telling Obama to get the Democrats to approve free trade with Columbia and he would consider it. So in an attempt to push the matter, Obama starts leaking that Pres. Bush is responsible for the car manufacturers going under. Heck they have used him for a scapegoat for everything else.
3. It was the status quo for the type of people Obama has sought to surround himself with. I am NOT talking about Rev. Wright, Father Flager or William Ayers. I am talking about people like Rahm Emanuel. Let's see what did Mr. Emmanuel do... oh yes, he sent dead fish to people while working for the Clinton Administration. That's right. Someone who is supposed to be representing our country sent a dead fish to a pollster because he didn't like his numbers. Then there was that time that he told the opposition to F*** themselves in Hebrew. Evidentally that is acceptable social behavior if you do it in another language. Obama's judgement is flawed beyond all possible belief when it to comes to the people he chooses to associate with.
Anyhow, take your pick of the possible scenerios I have presented, or even better propose one of your own and I will post. As far as I can see right now, none of the scenerios are encouraging, or inspiring any HOPE for the future.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Proposition 8
So if your gay and the people vote twice not to allow gay marriages what do you do?
Evidently you somehow get "The Governor" to switch sides of the sames sex marriage issue. Then you get him to issue a statement calling on the California Supreme Court to fail to uphold a Constitutional Amendment passed by the citizens through a referendum vote just a week ago. Now don't think that this is just part of the strategy for victory in California. Let's look at what is really going on here.
If the gay rights advocates get the California Supreme Court to shoot down Proposition 8, whether legal or not, the only way to overturn the decision is to file suit against the state of California which would inevitably take the issue to the US Supreme Court. My guess is that in light of the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, the gay rights advocates have decided that they can force a decision in their favor in the US Supreme Court. This is nothing more then the same forced social change of abortion.
Understand they are not looking for gay marriage to be legal in California, but in every place in the world. Think about it. Right now 30 states have Constitutional Amendments banning same sex marriage. If the gay rights advocates were to get the US Supreme Court approval, then they would override the preferences of all these states.
What kind of bigots are some of the gay rights groups? How about groups who put out a false and misleading commercial like this one. Who made that commercial? The Courage Campaign Issues Committee. Who supports the Courage Campaign Issues Committee? Oh just a couple of groups like ActBlue. ActBlue was an avid supporter of NO to Proposition 8 and Barack Obama. In fact according to their own website 15, 428 supporters donated $1,067,535 to his campaign. Imagine that.
Why wasn't this in the news when he was running for President? It seems pretty relevant to me! Now they are talking about making a holiday for a person who has yet to even take the oath of office. The same individual who is going to rescind executive orders that allow for current drilling in the US for natural gas and oil. The same individual who supports condoms over abstinence. Great job America. Some of you voted him because you thought it would be historic. Well it is historic; it will be historically catastrophic. Great job.
Evidently you somehow get "The Governor" to switch sides of the sames sex marriage issue. Then you get him to issue a statement calling on the California Supreme Court to fail to uphold a Constitutional Amendment passed by the citizens through a referendum vote just a week ago. Now don't think that this is just part of the strategy for victory in California. Let's look at what is really going on here.
If the gay rights advocates get the California Supreme Court to shoot down Proposition 8, whether legal or not, the only way to overturn the decision is to file suit against the state of California which would inevitably take the issue to the US Supreme Court. My guess is that in light of the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, the gay rights advocates have decided that they can force a decision in their favor in the US Supreme Court. This is nothing more then the same forced social change of abortion.
Understand they are not looking for gay marriage to be legal in California, but in every place in the world. Think about it. Right now 30 states have Constitutional Amendments banning same sex marriage. If the gay rights advocates were to get the US Supreme Court approval, then they would override the preferences of all these states.
What kind of bigots are some of the gay rights groups? How about groups who put out a false and misleading commercial like this one. Who made that commercial? The Courage Campaign Issues Committee. Who supports the Courage Campaign Issues Committee? Oh just a couple of groups like ActBlue. ActBlue was an avid supporter of NO to Proposition 8 and Barack Obama. In fact according to their own website 15, 428 supporters donated $1,067,535 to his campaign. Imagine that.
Why wasn't this in the news when he was running for President? It seems pretty relevant to me! Now they are talking about making a holiday for a person who has yet to even take the oath of office. The same individual who is going to rescind executive orders that allow for current drilling in the US for natural gas and oil. The same individual who supports condoms over abstinence. Great job America. Some of you voted him because you thought it would be historic. Well it is historic; it will be historically catastrophic. Great job.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I highly doubt anyone who knows will be surprised to find that I am disappointed with the events of this campaign. My blog is a place to rant, and so I will rant.
I blame John McCain and his personal hypocrisy for the loss in this election. He attempted to stand up to what his campaign called "politics as usual" while at the same time using the same cheap political tricks to win the Republican nomination. Lies, vicious lies were the center of his primary campaign. You cannot invigorate a base that puts morals and ethics first and be a liar. Two thirds of the party never fully sealed themselves to the campaign because they could see that John McCain was not the man he claimed to be.
John McCain was unable to pick a truly strong Vice Presidential candidate, because he would be overshadowed. Instead he picked an obscure Governor from Alaska with very little experience and plenty of ammunition for a liberal media to pick up on. When economic crisis hit the nation, he abandoned some simple conservative principles and spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. His economic plan was never well detailed.
In the primaries McCain attacked Mitt Romney's religion. In various push pulls in Iowa and Florida John McCain flooded the public with false images of Romney's religion. Then when something truly frightening came along, Jeremiah Wright and Father Flager, the public didn't want to listen.
He just didn't have it and two thirds of his party didn't want him, as could be said for all the Republican candidates. Tonight in John McCain's speech there was something he said that on which I will completely agree with him; this loss was John McCain's loss.
Well what now, what enough concerning the losses of this election what about the gains.
We definitely have the first black American president. Thankfully, that means no one who is under qualified will be able to pull that card out in the future. Be prepared because there is no affirmative action once in the presidency. There is no time for a president who isn't ready to take a couple years and learn how to really lead anything. If Obama follows through on his campaign promises there are a few things we can definitely expect.
1. American international influence to dwindle.
That's right if you thought that by electing Obama the US would increase in favor in the international arena you are wrong. The world in a large part doesn't want to see the US with as much sovereignty as we currently have. They expect us to pay for all the international assemblies. They want us subject ourselves to their own International Courts where they would be able to put citizens and members of our military on trial without fair representation in the courts themselves. They expect us to rescue anyone who cries for help without fair and proper personal contribution. If the US increases in favor in the international world it will be because Obama has made these concessions. If you think that Obama will in the international opinion of the US I ask you, "Are you really ready for him to make these concessions?"
Perhaps you felt that if we just talked with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that everything would work out. What exactly do you think that Obama will say to these people? To make these countries happy we must cease to be America. They want nothing less than to destroy the very ideals America was founded on.
Without a strong leader who can stand up and tell the international community to stick it, no one will take us seriously. We will be walked all over.
2. America's economic strengthen will decrease.
Here is a thought experiment a friend recently related to me. This experiment was first introduced by Ronald Regan. Say the government instituted a flat tax for all business transactions and that the tax varied from day to day in the following manner. All transactions on Monday were taxed 10%, Tuesday 20%, Wednesday 30%, Thursday 60% and Friday 80%. Tell me, how many days of the week would you do business on? By Tuesday or Wednesday at the very latest I would close shop. As my friend suggested all the really big business would be done on Monday.
In that connection why do you think that the stocks are starting to rise again? Why do you think that fell when Obama had his biggest lead and why did they climb when McCain surged back up? I would suggest the stocks surged when it looked more like Monday was coming and fell when CEOs saw Friday around the bend. I predict that stocks will rise for the next few months. Barring an immense tragedy, they will probably rise into next year, though at a much slower pace then they have in the past. However, with Obama as president, if he fulfills his promise to spread the wealth and legislation is passed to enforce those ideals, we will also see years of Fridays.
What incentive is there for me to go to Law school, get incredibly in debt and then have the government force to give them a large percentage of my money if I make it? The only incentive that looms in the Monday four years from now when perhaps we won't have to deal with Obama and his policies. I already give well more then 10% of my income to charities and causes as well as individuals who need help that I can help. Who is Mr. Obama to decide I haven't given enough? I grew up in Kansas also. My parents did have the money to travel the world and my grandparents didn't have the money to move to Hawaii. Perhaps Pres. Obama's plan will help me pay for college, but if I was a minority he would give me more money. Why? If a black man can be elected president then there is nothing stopping any person, or any race from accomplishing what they set out to do. In America, ultimately if you do not become what you want to be it is your own fault. Quit blaming everyone else. Get up and take responsibility for yourself.
3. American will lose the fight against radicals groups and individuals. They will infiltrate our communities in an attempt to subjugate all that is so right about America.
Perhaps they will try a different tactic. There may not be another visually horrifying bombing, but there will be friendships with unrepentant terrorist, both foreign and domestic. The US will sit down with idealistic dictators and talk. We will turn against Israel and claim they are the cause for unrest in the Middle East.
Without the safeguards that have protected us from attack for the last seven years, we will see more danger on our own soil if we do attempted to stand up to a now emboldened enemy who will seek to destroy us in anyway possible.
4. Moral Corruption will increase.
I don't want the government telling me when they will educate my children about sex. It is not the government's job to instruct my kindergartner concerning reproductive organs. It is not the government's place to hand out condoms to my teenager. It is not the government's place to tell my children that disgusting behaviors such as homosexual relationships are okay.
The government never was suited for spreading morality. It was never intended to be the mechanism to insure the morality that the Founding Fathers felt necessary to enable the country to continue to function. That mechanism was religion. No radical idealism, but true religion based upon traditional Judeo-Christian values, whether you think that is discriminatory or not. Government was supposed to keep its nasty talons out of religion. Instead every time religion tries to teach the values and principles needed to maintain society, factions of government attempt to control what is taught. The result is the indoctrination of an entire generation with absolute lies concerning what is or is not moral.
5. Domestic Poverty will increase.
Why work when someone has promised you someone else's money? Why earn above the minimum amount before you taxes increase if you will get to spend less of the money according to your personal desires?
6. Charitable donations will decrease.
The government will have more of the rich populations money so why should they continue to give to private charities. The number of individuals free riding the system will increase so they won't have money to give.
Conclusion:
There are many more specific predictions I have, but it is too late and I have work in the morning. perhaps I will finish this then. In the meantime, I am disappointed with the position I find myself in this evening. The day will dawn again, politics are cyclical.
I blame John McCain and his personal hypocrisy for the loss in this election. He attempted to stand up to what his campaign called "politics as usual" while at the same time using the same cheap political tricks to win the Republican nomination. Lies, vicious lies were the center of his primary campaign. You cannot invigorate a base that puts morals and ethics first and be a liar. Two thirds of the party never fully sealed themselves to the campaign because they could see that John McCain was not the man he claimed to be.
John McCain was unable to pick a truly strong Vice Presidential candidate, because he would be overshadowed. Instead he picked an obscure Governor from Alaska with very little experience and plenty of ammunition for a liberal media to pick up on. When economic crisis hit the nation, he abandoned some simple conservative principles and spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. His economic plan was never well detailed.
In the primaries McCain attacked Mitt Romney's religion. In various push pulls in Iowa and Florida John McCain flooded the public with false images of Romney's religion. Then when something truly frightening came along, Jeremiah Wright and Father Flager, the public didn't want to listen.
He just didn't have it and two thirds of his party didn't want him, as could be said for all the Republican candidates. Tonight in John McCain's speech there was something he said that on which I will completely agree with him; this loss was John McCain's loss.
Well what now, what enough concerning the losses of this election what about the gains.
We definitely have the first black American president. Thankfully, that means no one who is under qualified will be able to pull that card out in the future. Be prepared because there is no affirmative action once in the presidency. There is no time for a president who isn't ready to take a couple years and learn how to really lead anything. If Obama follows through on his campaign promises there are a few things we can definitely expect.
1. American international influence to dwindle.
That's right if you thought that by electing Obama the US would increase in favor in the international arena you are wrong. The world in a large part doesn't want to see the US with as much sovereignty as we currently have. They expect us to pay for all the international assemblies. They want us subject ourselves to their own International Courts where they would be able to put citizens and members of our military on trial without fair representation in the courts themselves. They expect us to rescue anyone who cries for help without fair and proper personal contribution. If the US increases in favor in the international world it will be because Obama has made these concessions. If you think that Obama will in the international opinion of the US I ask you, "Are you really ready for him to make these concessions?"
Perhaps you felt that if we just talked with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that everything would work out. What exactly do you think that Obama will say to these people? To make these countries happy we must cease to be America. They want nothing less than to destroy the very ideals America was founded on.
Without a strong leader who can stand up and tell the international community to stick it, no one will take us seriously. We will be walked all over.
2. America's economic strengthen will decrease.
Here is a thought experiment a friend recently related to me. This experiment was first introduced by Ronald Regan. Say the government instituted a flat tax for all business transactions and that the tax varied from day to day in the following manner. All transactions on Monday were taxed 10%, Tuesday 20%, Wednesday 30%, Thursday 60% and Friday 80%. Tell me, how many days of the week would you do business on? By Tuesday or Wednesday at the very latest I would close shop. As my friend suggested all the really big business would be done on Monday.
In that connection why do you think that the stocks are starting to rise again? Why do you think that fell when Obama had his biggest lead and why did they climb when McCain surged back up? I would suggest the stocks surged when it looked more like Monday was coming and fell when CEOs saw Friday around the bend. I predict that stocks will rise for the next few months. Barring an immense tragedy, they will probably rise into next year, though at a much slower pace then they have in the past. However, with Obama as president, if he fulfills his promise to spread the wealth and legislation is passed to enforce those ideals, we will also see years of Fridays.
What incentive is there for me to go to Law school, get incredibly in debt and then have the government force to give them a large percentage of my money if I make it? The only incentive that looms in the Monday four years from now when perhaps we won't have to deal with Obama and his policies. I already give well more then 10% of my income to charities and causes as well as individuals who need help that I can help. Who is Mr. Obama to decide I haven't given enough? I grew up in Kansas also. My parents did have the money to travel the world and my grandparents didn't have the money to move to Hawaii. Perhaps Pres. Obama's plan will help me pay for college, but if I was a minority he would give me more money. Why? If a black man can be elected president then there is nothing stopping any person, or any race from accomplishing what they set out to do. In America, ultimately if you do not become what you want to be it is your own fault. Quit blaming everyone else. Get up and take responsibility for yourself.
3. American will lose the fight against radicals groups and individuals. They will infiltrate our communities in an attempt to subjugate all that is so right about America.
Perhaps they will try a different tactic. There may not be another visually horrifying bombing, but there will be friendships with unrepentant terrorist, both foreign and domestic. The US will sit down with idealistic dictators and talk. We will turn against Israel and claim they are the cause for unrest in the Middle East.
Without the safeguards that have protected us from attack for the last seven years, we will see more danger on our own soil if we do attempted to stand up to a now emboldened enemy who will seek to destroy us in anyway possible.
4. Moral Corruption will increase.
I don't want the government telling me when they will educate my children about sex. It is not the government's job to instruct my kindergartner concerning reproductive organs. It is not the government's place to hand out condoms to my teenager. It is not the government's place to tell my children that disgusting behaviors such as homosexual relationships are okay.
The government never was suited for spreading morality. It was never intended to be the mechanism to insure the morality that the Founding Fathers felt necessary to enable the country to continue to function. That mechanism was religion. No radical idealism, but true religion based upon traditional Judeo-Christian values, whether you think that is discriminatory or not. Government was supposed to keep its nasty talons out of religion. Instead every time religion tries to teach the values and principles needed to maintain society, factions of government attempt to control what is taught. The result is the indoctrination of an entire generation with absolute lies concerning what is or is not moral.
5. Domestic Poverty will increase.
Why work when someone has promised you someone else's money? Why earn above the minimum amount before you taxes increase if you will get to spend less of the money according to your personal desires?
6. Charitable donations will decrease.
The government will have more of the rich populations money so why should they continue to give to private charities. The number of individuals free riding the system will increase so they won't have money to give.
Conclusion:
There are many more specific predictions I have, but it is too late and I have work in the morning. perhaps I will finish this then. In the meantime, I am disappointed with the position I find myself in this evening. The day will dawn again, politics are cyclical.
Vote Today!!!
Today is the day to vote. If you haven't voted yet, and still can then vote. Wait in line for however long it takes. Vote Now!!!!!!!!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Palin Still a Poor Choice
I have recently been asked if I still think that picking Gov. Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate was a poor choice. Yes, yes I do.
I do not believe she is the worst choice that John McCain could have made, but she is definately not the best. I credit the media with creating such a fiasco the first few weeks after her nomination that the American public decided to overlook her flaws. The flaws still exist. It is still true that John McCain chose a running mate who was under investigation for misuse of power. I do not like her. Dishonesty is obvious in both of McCain and Palin. McCain produced lies about the other politicians in the primaries. Palin is at best accused of dishonesty. The ridiculous way in which the media chose to lash out at Palin actually restored some for of confidence in the honesty of the ticket.
Unknowingly the media created a victim and Palin supporteres took Liberal tactics and turned them against the left. Claim to be a victim and then every time anyone attacks play the role of the bigger man, the under dog who is fighting a biased system,
In any other campaign she would be a terribly weak VP. Today she is still weaker then other people who could be chosen.
I do not believe she is the worst choice that John McCain could have made, but she is definately not the best. I credit the media with creating such a fiasco the first few weeks after her nomination that the American public decided to overlook her flaws. The flaws still exist. It is still true that John McCain chose a running mate who was under investigation for misuse of power. I do not like her. Dishonesty is obvious in both of McCain and Palin. McCain produced lies about the other politicians in the primaries. Palin is at best accused of dishonesty. The ridiculous way in which the media chose to lash out at Palin actually restored some for of confidence in the honesty of the ticket.
Unknowingly the media created a victim and Palin supporteres took Liberal tactics and turned them against the left. Claim to be a victim and then every time anyone attacks play the role of the bigger man, the under dog who is fighting a biased system,
In any other campaign she would be a terribly weak VP. Today she is still weaker then other people who could be chosen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
