The Washington Times recently announced that the National Debt has now surpassed the 13 trillion dollar mark. The problem is that Congress barely passed a Bill raising the debt ceiling to 12.394 TRILLION dollars. Mr. Obama, master of everyone else’s checkbook, signed it into law on December 28, 2009. Now, barely 5 months later, we’re some $600 billion beyond that! At $13 trillion, the debt has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion each and every day. That’s about three times the daily increase of $1.7 billion under the Bush administration. So, every time someone tells you that Obama needs us to cut him some slack, and that he’s doing the best he can with what President Bush left for him to deal with, remember that Mr. O has extended our debt almost 5 billion dollars a day as he continues to fail the Country. The present administration can’t manage the Auto Industry, Wall Street, Health Care industry, or the Insurance industry. It certainly can’t manage the economy! It can’t handle foreign affairs or military action, and it can’t stop petty dictators from getting nuclear weapons or sinking the neighbor’s ships! But failure doesn’t seem to slow Team Obama’s desire to spend more and more of our money in the hopes of finally getting things right. We’ve seen none of our problems “solved” since he’s been in office… and no return on our tax dollar investment either. This has got to be the most inept and incompetent Administration in recent history! And now, the latest attempt to manage a crisis in the Gulf of Mexico only reinforces that impression of incompetence.
Obama formed his commission on the oil spill and stated his reason; “…so that the American people will have answers on exactly what happened.” That’s all well and fine, and a goal I can agree with. But then he tipped his hand with: “We have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, and these are risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes. We also have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren.” Okay, here’s a minor technical point… The problem with the Deepwater Horizon well has nothing to do with the fact that it’s a 3-1/2 mile deep well. The problem is that it’s in water a mile deep! With that one sentence, Mr. Obama has combined deep-sea oil drilling with all oil and gas exploration. He’s also demonstrating his environmentalist leanings and that he probably wouldn’t know an oil well even if he fell into one! But, is it his intent to use this crisis to get Cap and Trade legislation back on the table?
In his latest appointments to the commission on the oil spill, Mr. Obama reveals that he’s going much further than finding out what went wrong aboard Deepwater Horizon and fixing it. The commission will include two more experts who have been global warming activists, and who will join former Florida Sen. Bob Graham and former Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly. The background of these panel members suggest the commission will be looking at much more than just what went wrong, and will probably include the country’s conflicting problems of environmental and energy needs. According to the AP, other new commission members will be Donald Boesch, president of the Center for Environmental Science at the University of Maryland, and former Alaska Lt. Gov. Fran Ulmer, presently a University of Alaska chancellor. So what, pray tell, has Global Warming and Wildlife got to do with the cause of a mechanical failure at the wellhead? Failing to appoint a couple of engineering specialists indicates the purpose of the panel is purely political, and has nothing to do with what actually happened or what to do about it. It’s somewhat akin to appointing a hairdresser to determine what went wrong in a brain surgery! At least Mr. Obama gets a chance to put his Alinsky teachings to work, beginning with: “Pick the target [big oil], freeze it [big oil always bad], personalize it [BP], and polarize it.[green energy=angels, oil=Satan].” This will allow him to slip into campaign mode (which he apparently confuses with leadership), and where he is much more comfortable.
Mr. Obama and Interior Secretary Salazar have done their best to shift the blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster to the Bush Administration, the Republicans, BP, and the supposed ‘cozy relationship’ between the Minerals Management Service who “turned a blind eye to the shenanigans of their oil and gas company buddies”. In reality offshore safety performance improved significantly throughout the Bush years, as did a greatly reduced blowout incident rate. Bush-era internal investigations led to a significant improvement in ethics throughout the organization. Bush also increased the offshore royalty rates for the first time in years. Still, there’s plenty of blame to spread around. BP is after all liable for the operational errors that led up to the explosion. MMS Director Liz Birnbaum, Mr. Obama’s choice of Minerals Management Service chief, has strong credentials… her qualifications include attending Brown/Harvard Law, a record as an environmental lawyer, and experience setting environmental policy. But experienced with oil and gas technology? Well… Her department heads were heavy on environmental activism as well, but rather light on oil and gas experience. Probably because ex-industry hands tend to develop ‘cozy relationships’ with the folks they’re regulating. Mr. Obama, who was quick to criticize President Bush for his appointment of lightly-qualified Michael Brown as FEMA director, has apparently learned little from his predecessor’s mistake.
Under Obama and Salazar, the Minerals Management Service has become little more than an instrument by which the government pushes its Green Energy/Green Jobs vision.
As to solving the problem, the Houston Chronicle reports that the Netherlands, a highly experienced oil producing nation, offered the United States help in dealing with the BP spill shortly after it started, but the Obama Administration turned them down flat. Additionally, the present “cap” on the well was the first thing BP wanted to attempt, but MMS officials refused permission. Now we have another bright idea from the White House, and I quote Mr. Obama; “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.” He’s talking to experts not to find out how to solve the problem but to find out whose ass to kick? Those are somewhat crude words from the President of the United States, but they are his own words. There is one well owned by one company leaking, and that was caused by the collapse of one oil platform owned by one company. Not only has Barack Obama overreacted and shut down every company’s offshore drilling, putting tens of thousands of people on the unemployment line, and he’s not talking to experts to figure out how to solve the problem, but to figure out who to assign blame to!?
That is not leadership!
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
More gun control
Those wonderful people who brought us rabid environmentalism, political correctness, the Stimulus program, and amnesty for illegal aliens are at it again. Once more we’re faced with the specter of “Gun Control” decreed by Washington. One of the leading mouthpieces for this is “Handgun Control Inc.”, who claims that it “only wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people”. Fine sounding words I suppose, if you’re a bleeding heart leftist. Really, these nuts all know that banning guns works to stop crime, and haven’t they told us that, time and again? I suppose we’re expected to ignore the fact that New York and Chicago have such high murder rates. Ignore the fact that Washington D.C. has strict gun controls and a murder rate of 69 victims per 100,000 population. Ignore the fact that Indianapolis, without severe gun laws, has a murder rate of only 9 per 100,000. Australia had a high profile mass shooting a number of years back that brought about a nationwide gun grab, yet their crime rate hasn’t declined... in fact it’s skyrocketed! Just last week in England, where all gun ownership is tightly restricted, a taxi driver described as "friends with everybody" went on a shooting spree killing 12 people and wounding 25 others. In America, rural areas with few gun restrictions have a surprisingly low crime rate, but urban areas with strict gun laws suffer the highest murder rates in much of the world! So the left claims that gun control works! But no, the feds are supposed to keep guns out of the wrong hands, so, leading with their usual left wing logic, if you are a law abiding citizen who happens to own a handgun, you obviously have the wrong hands.
Such logic further dictates that you can incapacitate an intruder with oven spray, but if you shoot him with a .357 magnum he will get angry and kill you. (Wanna bet!?) And of course a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a live woman with a smoking gun in hand, and a dead rapist at her feet. The “evidence” often quoted by the left is from their usual line of impeccable sources, as we all know that the "New England Journal of Medicine" carries excellent articles on gun control, just as "The American Rifleman" carries such great articles about open-heart surgery. With all this, I guess we should consult Wall Street CEO’s about the nations economy, the loony left about our nations political problems, and Sara Brady for advise about firearms. We’re told that the Second Amendment to our Constitution, which was ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which you might note, was created by Act of Congress in 1903, a mere 112 years later. Then of course logic tells them that “The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers only to the state. Still, as most citizens cannot be trusted, we need strict firearms laws because we can trust our citizens to abide by them. The leftists don't get it -- criminals don't obey the law, only law-abiding citizens do. So how does denying the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens ensure that criminals won't have guns? Pardon me while I scratch my head and try to figure out all this.
Back in 2006, the UN adopted resolution 61/89, intended to develop an international treaty that would severely limit international trafficking in “conventional arms”. I’m sure that when this was first thought up, it actually was targeted at the international military arms trade. The Bush administration turned it down on the grounds that national controls would be more effective at limiting a very lucrative business, than would a rather broad based and difficult to enforce UN treaty. Now however, team Obama has reversed President Bush’s decision (why am I not surprised at that). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Oct. 14 last, that the U.S. would now support the treaty, as without U.S. support, the "negotiations would not have been conducted at a high political level". Now, representing the US, she’s signed on, and the “treaty” is due in 2012. If you are not familiar with most of this, you haven’t been following the firearms debate. Perhaps you haven’t been tuned in to the liberals who are trying to get their grubby hands on your shoot’in iron!
Essentially the treaty would include all weapons – all military, security and police arms, related equipment, ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment. All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer, transhipment, state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts, aid, and all transactions including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security. This does not mean that weapons sales are outlawed, merely that any sale or transfer is required to have some sort of government permit that would be issued at the whim of… yet another federal bureaucrat! That would include your leaving Grandpappy’s old musket to the Grandkids! The plan is to develop a treaty that ensures no transfer is permitted if there is any risk that it is likely to be used in violation of human rights, act of genocide, or crime against humanity. Or, if it might facilitate terrorist attacks, gender based violence, violent crime or organized crime. The “violent crime” component instantly includes ANY sort of firearm, and I’d suspect knives, clubs, or a bow and arrow as well!
If the UN wants to limit international trade in tanks, artillery pieces, and machineguns, that’s understandable, and it might even be a good idea given the number of wars and assorted genocidal pogroms going on around the planet. But they can darn well keep their fingers off of my Constitutional rights! The 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. At the time the 2nd was ratified, that meant rifles, muskets, etc., as those were the weapons used by militias as well as for hunting and personal protection. As firearms technology expanded, the 2nd amendment expanded as well, to include weapons that are much more advanced (automatic weapons, high-powered rifles, "assault" rifles) than those used in the late 1700s. But there's also some limit on what arms the people are allowed to keep and bear. It's my opinion that at the time the 2ed amendment was written one of its functions was to insure that the citizenry had the ability to stop the government if it turned to tyranny. If that is the case, then the common folk would need weapons that could match the governments. The key here is that you have the right to keep and bear any arms, as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights. My possession of any particular weapon doesn’t intrude on anyone’s rights, even though using it might be an infringment. (Launching an ICBM from my back yard might possibly cause major problems for the neighbors!)
As for me, I’ll keep my Constitutional Rights and my rifle. I will so inform my congressman of that fact… and he can have the change.
Such logic further dictates that you can incapacitate an intruder with oven spray, but if you shoot him with a .357 magnum he will get angry and kill you. (Wanna bet!?) And of course a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a live woman with a smoking gun in hand, and a dead rapist at her feet. The “evidence” often quoted by the left is from their usual line of impeccable sources, as we all know that the "New England Journal of Medicine" carries excellent articles on gun control, just as "The American Rifleman" carries such great articles about open-heart surgery. With all this, I guess we should consult Wall Street CEO’s about the nations economy, the loony left about our nations political problems, and Sara Brady for advise about firearms. We’re told that the Second Amendment to our Constitution, which was ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which you might note, was created by Act of Congress in 1903, a mere 112 years later. Then of course logic tells them that “The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers only to the state. Still, as most citizens cannot be trusted, we need strict firearms laws because we can trust our citizens to abide by them. The leftists don't get it -- criminals don't obey the law, only law-abiding citizens do. So how does denying the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens ensure that criminals won't have guns? Pardon me while I scratch my head and try to figure out all this.
Back in 2006, the UN adopted resolution 61/89, intended to develop an international treaty that would severely limit international trafficking in “conventional arms”. I’m sure that when this was first thought up, it actually was targeted at the international military arms trade. The Bush administration turned it down on the grounds that national controls would be more effective at limiting a very lucrative business, than would a rather broad based and difficult to enforce UN treaty. Now however, team Obama has reversed President Bush’s decision (why am I not surprised at that). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Oct. 14 last, that the U.S. would now support the treaty, as without U.S. support, the "negotiations would not have been conducted at a high political level". Now, representing the US, she’s signed on, and the “treaty” is due in 2012. If you are not familiar with most of this, you haven’t been following the firearms debate. Perhaps you haven’t been tuned in to the liberals who are trying to get their grubby hands on your shoot’in iron!
Essentially the treaty would include all weapons – all military, security and police arms, related equipment, ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment. All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer, transhipment, state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts, aid, and all transactions including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security. This does not mean that weapons sales are outlawed, merely that any sale or transfer is required to have some sort of government permit that would be issued at the whim of… yet another federal bureaucrat! That would include your leaving Grandpappy’s old musket to the Grandkids! The plan is to develop a treaty that ensures no transfer is permitted if there is any risk that it is likely to be used in violation of human rights, act of genocide, or crime against humanity. Or, if it might facilitate terrorist attacks, gender based violence, violent crime or organized crime. The “violent crime” component instantly includes ANY sort of firearm, and I’d suspect knives, clubs, or a bow and arrow as well!
If the UN wants to limit international trade in tanks, artillery pieces, and machineguns, that’s understandable, and it might even be a good idea given the number of wars and assorted genocidal pogroms going on around the planet. But they can darn well keep their fingers off of my Constitutional rights! The 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. At the time the 2nd was ratified, that meant rifles, muskets, etc., as those were the weapons used by militias as well as for hunting and personal protection. As firearms technology expanded, the 2nd amendment expanded as well, to include weapons that are much more advanced (automatic weapons, high-powered rifles, "assault" rifles) than those used in the late 1700s. But there's also some limit on what arms the people are allowed to keep and bear. It's my opinion that at the time the 2ed amendment was written one of its functions was to insure that the citizenry had the ability to stop the government if it turned to tyranny. If that is the case, then the common folk would need weapons that could match the governments. The key here is that you have the right to keep and bear any arms, as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights. My possession of any particular weapon doesn’t intrude on anyone’s rights, even though using it might be an infringment. (Launching an ICBM from my back yard might possibly cause major problems for the neighbors!)
As for me, I’ll keep my Constitutional Rights and my rifle. I will so inform my congressman of that fact… and he can have the change.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Memorial Day
Dateline Memorial Day, 2010. (As often happens, I’m running a bit late in getting this weeks column ready for press.)
I’ll start with reminding everyone that “Decoration Day” was begun by a group of Confederate women in Mississippi who, in the midst of our Civil War, while caring for the graves of their husbands and sons that had been killed in combat, noticed that the nearby graves of Union soldiers had been completely ignored and were being overgrown by brambles and weeds. Realizing that those Union soldiers had also left wives and sweethearts behind, the Confederate Ladies began caring for the Union graves as well. That kindness quickly spread to the North, and soldier’s graves across the nation were cared for, often by complete strangers, who understood what those soldiers had fought and died for. Following the war, Lt. Gen. John Logan, then commander of the Union veteran’s organization “The Grand Army of the Republic” issued the document that semi-officially made Memorial Day a national holiday. It reads in part;
The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.
General Logan’s order was posted to veterans of the Civil War, and was soon adopted by nearly all Americans across the land. Observed on the last Monday of May (May 31 in 2010), it was intended to commemorate U.S. soldiers who died while in military service, and was enlarged following WW I to honor American soldiers from all wars. A day of remembrance of those who answered the call, served their country in a most honorable manner, and who all too often didn’t get to come home again.
Mr. Obama’s relationship with the military is on somewhat shaky ground, so his decision to take a vacation with his family in Chicago rather than pay his Memorial Day respects at Arlington National Cemetery is somewhat hard to understand. Retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Orson Swindle said of that decision; “The President seems to demonstrate almost weekly just how, at least to me, little he cares about this country and our history and our heritage,” “He seems almost to resent it, which is the most mind-boggling thing in the world, because without a country like America Barack Obama could not be President. He seems to dislike our institutions… and that’s a sad, sad thing.” Swindle is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and was Sen. John McCain’s cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton.
I’m not going to disparage Mr. Obama’s decision, even though it does seem rather strange to me. Rather than Arlington, he visited the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery south of Chicago (conveniently close to his vacation site), where the memorial ceremony was quickly cancelled due to rain showers. Still, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and advisor to Presidents Ford and Carter, Mr. Steven Hess said that “Presidents go to Arlington for three reasons, one is tradition, obviously when there’s a tradition, one prefers to follow it rather than break it.” Then, “The second would be just the size and importance of it, the number of veterans from all wars that are there and that’s significant. And the third is a rather practical one, it is very convenient. Presidents go across the bridge and there they are. Their time is valuable, I don’t mean that that’s much in their minds but it’s probably somewhat in the minds of their schedulers. I don’t know of previous Presidents doing what Obama’s done.” It happens that nearly every region in the country has a veterans cemetery, so Mr. Obama didn’t break with tradition all that severely I suppose. Still, David Corn, former editor of the ultra-liberal magazine “The Nation”, wrote that “So what the hell do these conservatives want out of Obama? And does it matter if Obama throws some leaves on a tomb?” Well Mr. Corn, perhaps Memorial Day matters to the families of the soldiers whose names appear on the Vietnam Memorial Wall, and even more so to the families of servicemen who were killed in action and whose remains have yet to be identified and returned. Or ask the living Mr. Corn, ask the old vet standing at attention and holding a salute while Taps is being played. Or perhaps you might ask the young soldier proudly standing guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Those “leaves” you speak of, Mr. Corn, are placed there in respect for their sacrifice. Why Arlington you might ask? Well, consider… Of all the stones standing silent watch in these dangerous times, one modest white-marble slab on a green hillside stands out. On it is engraved:
I’ll start with reminding everyone that “Decoration Day” was begun by a group of Confederate women in Mississippi who, in the midst of our Civil War, while caring for the graves of their husbands and sons that had been killed in combat, noticed that the nearby graves of Union soldiers had been completely ignored and were being overgrown by brambles and weeds. Realizing that those Union soldiers had also left wives and sweethearts behind, the Confederate Ladies began caring for the Union graves as well. That kindness quickly spread to the North, and soldier’s graves across the nation were cared for, often by complete strangers, who understood what those soldiers had fought and died for. Following the war, Lt. Gen. John Logan, then commander of the Union veteran’s organization “The Grand Army of the Republic” issued the document that semi-officially made Memorial Day a national holiday. It reads in part;
The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.
General Logan’s order was posted to veterans of the Civil War, and was soon adopted by nearly all Americans across the land. Observed on the last Monday of May (May 31 in 2010), it was intended to commemorate U.S. soldiers who died while in military service, and was enlarged following WW I to honor American soldiers from all wars. A day of remembrance of those who answered the call, served their country in a most honorable manner, and who all too often didn’t get to come home again.
Mr. Obama’s relationship with the military is on somewhat shaky ground, so his decision to take a vacation with his family in Chicago rather than pay his Memorial Day respects at Arlington National Cemetery is somewhat hard to understand. Retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Orson Swindle said of that decision; “The President seems to demonstrate almost weekly just how, at least to me, little he cares about this country and our history and our heritage,” “He seems almost to resent it, which is the most mind-boggling thing in the world, because without a country like America Barack Obama could not be President. He seems to dislike our institutions… and that’s a sad, sad thing.” Swindle is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and was Sen. John McCain’s cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton.
I’m not going to disparage Mr. Obama’s decision, even though it does seem rather strange to me. Rather than Arlington, he visited the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery south of Chicago (conveniently close to his vacation site), where the memorial ceremony was quickly cancelled due to rain showers. Still, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and advisor to Presidents Ford and Carter, Mr. Steven Hess said that “Presidents go to Arlington for three reasons, one is tradition, obviously when there’s a tradition, one prefers to follow it rather than break it.” Then, “The second would be just the size and importance of it, the number of veterans from all wars that are there and that’s significant. And the third is a rather practical one, it is very convenient. Presidents go across the bridge and there they are. Their time is valuable, I don’t mean that that’s much in their minds but it’s probably somewhat in the minds of their schedulers. I don’t know of previous Presidents doing what Obama’s done.” It happens that nearly every region in the country has a veterans cemetery, so Mr. Obama didn’t break with tradition all that severely I suppose. Still, David Corn, former editor of the ultra-liberal magazine “The Nation”, wrote that “So what the hell do these conservatives want out of Obama? And does it matter if Obama throws some leaves on a tomb?” Well Mr. Corn, perhaps Memorial Day matters to the families of the soldiers whose names appear on the Vietnam Memorial Wall, and even more so to the families of servicemen who were killed in action and whose remains have yet to be identified and returned. Or ask the living Mr. Corn, ask the old vet standing at attention and holding a salute while Taps is being played. Or perhaps you might ask the young soldier proudly standing guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Those “leaves” you speak of, Mr. Corn, are placed there in respect for their sacrifice. Why Arlington you might ask? Well, consider… Of all the stones standing silent watch in these dangerous times, one modest white-marble slab on a green hillside stands out. On it is engraved:
Michael Joseph Mansfield
PVT U.S. Marine Corps
Mar 16 1903
Oct 5 2001
Private Mansfield did not fall in battle like so many soldiers whose last post is at our National Cemetery. Mike was fortunate to have lived to know his grandchildren, and he died at age 98, at Walter Reed Medical Center. In these days of greed and stolen honor, he ordered that his headstone disclose nothing more than that he shared a singular honor with millions of other Americans, that of holding the lowest rank in the US Marine Corps. Not that he had been America's ambassador to Japan, or that he was a United States senator from Montana. There’s no mention that he was our longest serving majority leader of the Senate, through unpopular wars, terrorism, battles for equal rights, filibusters and financial furies, mushroom cloud nightmares, clashes of church and state, guns and taxes, and even Watergate.
What's tragic is that at the end of his life Mike saw the America he'd fought for in a civil and respectful fashion, turn into sound-bite nastiness, TV slogans, Internet smears, blind faith ideology, and tempered by "gimme" power grabs. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan led the memorial service for the troops stationed there. "The fact that people are willing to stand up and do what's difficult, they're willing to stand up and do what's frightening, and they're willing to stand up and do what often costs, really is the measure of not just a person, but of a people." Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, urged that we all "take time today to think about those who made their freedom possible."
As for me, following Monday’s Memorial Day ceremony here in Grangeville, I went with another “old veteran” to hoist a glass, “To times long past, places far away, and friends who won’t be with us today”. And we both shed a tear for those long ago friends who gave their young lives to the nation that we all held so dear.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Primaries
Apparently established politicians consider primary elections to be of little importance (unless they’re running for one office or another), and the last few days seem to indicate the truth in that. I notice that the White House is busily ignoring the whole “Super Tuesday” massacre, with an explanation for each failure: weak candidates, campaigns that failed to sufficiently embrace the president, and a toxic political environment that is hostile to incumbents. But still, when the party in power looses over half the primaries held on that day, those primaries just might be indicative of considerable voter unrest. ‘Course the republicans didn’t do a lot better, with a number of officially approved candidates coming in a poor second or even third place. The real winners seemed to be the candidates supported by the Tea Party movement! A new poll says 63 percent of likely Republican primary voters in Idaho "generally support the agenda of the tea party movement," with one in six calling themselves members. The poll in Idaho, the nations “most Republican state”, came from an Idaho Statesman/KBOI-TV poll conducted May 17-19 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research in Washington, D.C. A national poll in late April found 27 percent supporting the tea party movement. Yet the same poll asked respondents of all political parties if they were "active" in the movement, and just 2 percent said yes. Asked a slightly different question in Idaho, "Do you consider yourself a member of the tea party?" 16 percent said yes.
Dealt a setback from an angry electorate, Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington have been studying the defeats of hand-picked candidates in hopes of learning lessons for other upcoming primaries, and probably the fall election as well. Any doubt about how toxic the political environment is for congressional incumbents and candidates preferred by party leaders disappeared when voters fired Sen. Arlen Specter, forced Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff, and chose tea party darling Rand Paul to be the GOP nominee in Kentucky's Senate race. The message is clear: It's an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year, with voter frustrations fired by a sluggish economy, seemingly unending joblessness, bottom-of-the-barrel Congressional approval ratings, and only lukewarm support of Mr. Obama. People just aren't very happy with anyone linked to power it seems. Taken together, the outcome of the Super Tuesday primaries, following voter rejections of GOP Sen. Bob Bennett, and Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan in West Virginia, provides further evidence that anyone affiliated with Washington or traditional party organizations is at risk, regardless of their affiliation.
Future implications for both parties could be huge. Candidates like Paul and Sestak owe little or nothing to their respective parties. The art of coalition building could become a thing of the past if more freshman congressmen come to Washington as free agents with no political baggage, and disconnected from the usual party politics. Still, those victories are being called a rejection of the establishment by upstarts who beat the opposition of their party’s leaders, swept in by angry voters who are in no mood to take orders from assorted party bosses. This could also create a rather awkward situation for the White House, with candidates hungrily looking to the November election, and owing nothing to Mr. Obama, who, in order to see his agenda through, desperately needs the loyalty of all democrats. Seventy percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in Washington, including twenty-two percent who say they are "angry" about the situation. Only fifteen percent approve of the job being done by Congress.
Looking to the future, half of all Americans say that life for the next generation will be worse than it is now, while only twenty-eight percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in Washington, a number that includes less than one Republican in ten. Among Americans who describe themselves as angry, the top reasons given were not representing the people, partisan politics, unemployment and the economy, and government spending. That frustration crosses party lines, as both Republicans and Democrats are viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans. Democrats' favorable rating has fallen from 57 percent to 37 percent, while the Republicans have improved (and that's not saying much) as 33 percent have a favorable view of the party, while 55 percent have an unfavorable view. Sixty-one percent currently say the county is on the wrong track, with only 32 percent saying America is on the right track. Were I a politician, I’d be real concerned with those numbers.
Personally I’m rather amused by this sudden flurry of “fire the incumbents” anger, as I’ve been saying much the same for quite a few years now. Like many of the Tea Party folks, I’m mad. I’m mad at the democrats for pushing their far left socialist agenda on America. I’m mad at the republicans for not fighting tooth and nail against that progressive socialism. I’m also mad at the republicans for their attempts at compromise with the progressives rapidly destroying my country! Compromise Hell! But most of all I’m mad… infuriated might be a better term, with the American voters, complacently sitting on their thumbs and constantly re-electing the same proven enemies of our freedom and democracy, while the nation goes down the drain.
Remember to vote in November, and while you’re at it, remember what the democratic majority has been doing to us for the last few years.
Dealt a setback from an angry electorate, Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington have been studying the defeats of hand-picked candidates in hopes of learning lessons for other upcoming primaries, and probably the fall election as well. Any doubt about how toxic the political environment is for congressional incumbents and candidates preferred by party leaders disappeared when voters fired Sen. Arlen Specter, forced Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff, and chose tea party darling Rand Paul to be the GOP nominee in Kentucky's Senate race. The message is clear: It's an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year, with voter frustrations fired by a sluggish economy, seemingly unending joblessness, bottom-of-the-barrel Congressional approval ratings, and only lukewarm support of Mr. Obama. People just aren't very happy with anyone linked to power it seems. Taken together, the outcome of the Super Tuesday primaries, following voter rejections of GOP Sen. Bob Bennett, and Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan in West Virginia, provides further evidence that anyone affiliated with Washington or traditional party organizations is at risk, regardless of their affiliation.
Future implications for both parties could be huge. Candidates like Paul and Sestak owe little or nothing to their respective parties. The art of coalition building could become a thing of the past if more freshman congressmen come to Washington as free agents with no political baggage, and disconnected from the usual party politics. Still, those victories are being called a rejection of the establishment by upstarts who beat the opposition of their party’s leaders, swept in by angry voters who are in no mood to take orders from assorted party bosses. This could also create a rather awkward situation for the White House, with candidates hungrily looking to the November election, and owing nothing to Mr. Obama, who, in order to see his agenda through, desperately needs the loyalty of all democrats. Seventy percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in Washington, including twenty-two percent who say they are "angry" about the situation. Only fifteen percent approve of the job being done by Congress.
Looking to the future, half of all Americans say that life for the next generation will be worse than it is now, while only twenty-eight percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in Washington, a number that includes less than one Republican in ten. Among Americans who describe themselves as angry, the top reasons given were not representing the people, partisan politics, unemployment and the economy, and government spending. That frustration crosses party lines, as both Republicans and Democrats are viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans. Democrats' favorable rating has fallen from 57 percent to 37 percent, while the Republicans have improved (and that's not saying much) as 33 percent have a favorable view of the party, while 55 percent have an unfavorable view. Sixty-one percent currently say the county is on the wrong track, with only 32 percent saying America is on the right track. Were I a politician, I’d be real concerned with those numbers.
Personally I’m rather amused by this sudden flurry of “fire the incumbents” anger, as I’ve been saying much the same for quite a few years now. Like many of the Tea Party folks, I’m mad. I’m mad at the democrats for pushing their far left socialist agenda on America. I’m mad at the republicans for not fighting tooth and nail against that progressive socialism. I’m also mad at the republicans for their attempts at compromise with the progressives rapidly destroying my country! Compromise Hell! But most of all I’m mad… infuriated might be a better term, with the American voters, complacently sitting on their thumbs and constantly re-electing the same proven enemies of our freedom and democracy, while the nation goes down the drain.
Remember to vote in November, and while you’re at it, remember what the democratic majority has been doing to us for the last few years.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Remember November
The “tea party” movement can carve yet another notch in its (hypothetical) pistol grip. The election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts to Ted Kennedy’s long held seat sent a tremor through the DNC, and a warning to the RNC. Now, at Utah’s GOP nominating convention, incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett came in a distant third behind other Republican candidates. A political earthquake has been rumbling, and with Sen. Bennett’s demise (and Orrin Hatch’s future in doubt as well), that quake is thankfully growing in intensity. The TEA movement has been instrumental in several election campaigns, despite losing only a few more. The next Tea Party target is, I understand, the Kentucky Republican establishment.
According to University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin, "The tea party movement has achieved a prominence in the conversation in part because of the silence from the traditional elected Republican leadership, and now that leadership has been driven right by tea party rhetoric." Perhaps so, but as far as I can see, the Tea Partiers are a big chunk of the “Silent Majority” that’s been lurking in the shadows for decades. The difference now is that they finally got fed-up with the business as usual runaround in Washington, and are finally making their voices heard. Franklin went on to say "That has moved the party in the tea party direction, but it can't help but also bring the tea party a little bit closer to the political mainstream." No, I don’t think they ever left, they just got almighty tired of the shenanigans. And the “TEA Party” isn’t a political party as such, or at least it’s about as disorganized as any organization I’ve ever seen! It’s purely a “movement”, much the same as the Ron Paul supporters were, and I’d guess it appeals to many of the same people.
And you just know its effects are being felt across the political spectrum, particularly when the Democratic Governors Association is hysterical calling the Tea Party a “political terrorist” organization. ‘Course if I was a member of the Democratic Party, I guess anybody that didn’t agree with me about Mr. O’s “change” could be considered a terrorist. At least that sounds like something that team Obama would come up with. The Democratic Governors Association is demanding that the Republican Governors Association remove an online video that the DGA claims glorifies domestic political terrorism. "In light of the dangerous overtones of their radical 'Remember November' video, we are calling on Haley Barbour and the Republican Governors Association to put a stop to this ad now," Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, said in a Huffington Post statement. The RGA had opened a website, “RememberNovember.com” that used the story and symbolism of 17th-century British radical Guy Fawkes, an anti-government terrorist who attempted to blow up the Parliament and kill King James I. The RGA video did not promote political terrorism, just the concept of a sweeping change in government. RGA spokesman Mike Schrimpf said "The DGA deserves an Oscar for their wild imagination and faux outrage. The only thing incendiary about the video is their response."
The best I can determine is that the key words the Democrats find offensive are "Remember November"... and that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with upcoming elections, and some changes in Washington now could it? No, it makes much better press to think of “POLITICAL TERRORISM” launched against the democratic majority in congress. After-all, the Democrats are the party of victims (real or imaginary) and replacing a few democratic incumbents makes them yet another group of victims! But then Mr. Obama’s well known idea of "fundamentally changing" America is in no way, shape, or form "Political Terrorism" because "the One" knows so much better than "we the common people" do about what’s best for us.
Sen. Bennett isn’t a victim of the Tea Party, but rather he’s a victim of his own wistful thinking. A veteran conservative, influential in the party's inner councils, and tossed out in large measure because he voted for the financial bailout legislation of 2008 in defiance of the voters wishes (and later stated that he’d have voted the same way even if he’d known it would cost him his seat). Some people have said they were unhappy with Bennett’s co-sponsoring legislation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance, while others noted he had once pledged to serve only two terms.
Establishment politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, seem to think that if they take care of themselves and a few vested interests that all will be well. They forget that the vast majority of the unwashed masses (read “electorate”) don’t own large parts of the stock market or investment banks. We’re not impressed with government failures such as the FEMA response to Katrina or the fluttering of hands and panicky search for scapegoats. In particular we object to the insinuation that we’re to dumb to see that government is busily taking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness away from us. We object to corrupt officials and special treatment for any elected official. Many of us, including myself, object to government intrusion into our private lives, which government is increasingly prone to do.
A memo to RGA and the Tea Party folks might read: “No backing down. Are the Democrats the only ones allowed to rally to a cause, to protest, to try and make change, and have it be genuine? If anyone else tries it I suppose, like say… the tea partiers, I guess its just misguided political terrorism from the Radical Right? The Left hates bare-knuckle politics because it’s effective and they want exclusive rights to its use. Perhaps the left is indeed terrified… terrified that a good chunk of the American population has finally woken up, and are concerned that the nation is heading down the wrong path. Perhaps they’re terrified that they may actually have to answer for their legislation and policies. Or perhaps they’re just terrified for their political careers.”
“Remember November” does sound like a threat I guess, to any politician that consistently ignores the wishes of his (or her) constituents. Still, I rather like the old TV show punch line “No threat, just a promise”.
According to University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin, "The tea party movement has achieved a prominence in the conversation in part because of the silence from the traditional elected Republican leadership, and now that leadership has been driven right by tea party rhetoric." Perhaps so, but as far as I can see, the Tea Partiers are a big chunk of the “Silent Majority” that’s been lurking in the shadows for decades. The difference now is that they finally got fed-up with the business as usual runaround in Washington, and are finally making their voices heard. Franklin went on to say "That has moved the party in the tea party direction, but it can't help but also bring the tea party a little bit closer to the political mainstream." No, I don’t think they ever left, they just got almighty tired of the shenanigans. And the “TEA Party” isn’t a political party as such, or at least it’s about as disorganized as any organization I’ve ever seen! It’s purely a “movement”, much the same as the Ron Paul supporters were, and I’d guess it appeals to many of the same people.
And you just know its effects are being felt across the political spectrum, particularly when the Democratic Governors Association is hysterical calling the Tea Party a “political terrorist” organization. ‘Course if I was a member of the Democratic Party, I guess anybody that didn’t agree with me about Mr. O’s “change” could be considered a terrorist. At least that sounds like something that team Obama would come up with. The Democratic Governors Association is demanding that the Republican Governors Association remove an online video that the DGA claims glorifies domestic political terrorism. "In light of the dangerous overtones of their radical 'Remember November' video, we are calling on Haley Barbour and the Republican Governors Association to put a stop to this ad now," Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, said in a Huffington Post statement. The RGA had opened a website, “RememberNovember.com” that used the story and symbolism of 17th-century British radical Guy Fawkes, an anti-government terrorist who attempted to blow up the Parliament and kill King James I. The RGA video did not promote political terrorism, just the concept of a sweeping change in government. RGA spokesman Mike Schrimpf said "The DGA deserves an Oscar for their wild imagination and faux outrage. The only thing incendiary about the video is their response."
The best I can determine is that the key words the Democrats find offensive are "Remember November"... and that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with upcoming elections, and some changes in Washington now could it? No, it makes much better press to think of “POLITICAL TERRORISM” launched against the democratic majority in congress. After-all, the Democrats are the party of victims (real or imaginary) and replacing a few democratic incumbents makes them yet another group of victims! But then Mr. Obama’s well known idea of "fundamentally changing" America is in no way, shape, or form "Political Terrorism" because "the One" knows so much better than "we the common people" do about what’s best for us.
Sen. Bennett isn’t a victim of the Tea Party, but rather he’s a victim of his own wistful thinking. A veteran conservative, influential in the party's inner councils, and tossed out in large measure because he voted for the financial bailout legislation of 2008 in defiance of the voters wishes (and later stated that he’d have voted the same way even if he’d known it would cost him his seat). Some people have said they were unhappy with Bennett’s co-sponsoring legislation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance, while others noted he had once pledged to serve only two terms.
Establishment politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, seem to think that if they take care of themselves and a few vested interests that all will be well. They forget that the vast majority of the unwashed masses (read “electorate”) don’t own large parts of the stock market or investment banks. We’re not impressed with government failures such as the FEMA response to Katrina or the fluttering of hands and panicky search for scapegoats. In particular we object to the insinuation that we’re to dumb to see that government is busily taking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness away from us. We object to corrupt officials and special treatment for any elected official. Many of us, including myself, object to government intrusion into our private lives, which government is increasingly prone to do.
A memo to RGA and the Tea Party folks might read: “No backing down. Are the Democrats the only ones allowed to rally to a cause, to protest, to try and make change, and have it be genuine? If anyone else tries it I suppose, like say… the tea partiers, I guess its just misguided political terrorism from the Radical Right? The Left hates bare-knuckle politics because it’s effective and they want exclusive rights to its use. Perhaps the left is indeed terrified… terrified that a good chunk of the American population has finally woken up, and are concerned that the nation is heading down the wrong path. Perhaps they’re terrified that they may actually have to answer for their legislation and policies. Or perhaps they’re just terrified for their political careers.”
“Remember November” does sound like a threat I guess, to any politician that consistently ignores the wishes of his (or her) constituents. Still, I rather like the old TV show punch line “No threat, just a promise”.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Diversity
Even with the commotion over Arizona’s new illegal alien law, I for one find it very hard to understand the position taken by so many people in this country. We’re sometimes told that this ongoing flood of illegals is a wonderful thing for our country. “Oh?” I might ask “In what way?” First-off I’ll be told that among other things “These are people who will take the jobs most Americans don’t want.” Or, “Our national work force is rapidly aging, and these immigrants bring in badly needed young blood.” With that, they stay out of trouble I’ve heard, they use few public services and they don’t vote. Hmmm… Well, first and foremost, all of these people are criminals, pure and simple. They have violated our laws by sneaking into our country. Granted that they probably have what they consider to be very good reason for coming to the “promised land” in any way they can (and under the circumstances they face I might be temped to try as well), but they are still in violation of our laws. And no country that I’ve ever heard of wants a criminal, no matter how minor the charge, as an immigrant.
America is unique in that it was founded by immigrants a great many other countries. Those immigrants had a dream of individual liberty, they had a work ethic, moral values, fortitude, and a pioneering spirit. Most of those immigrants came here by choice, despite the dangers of crossing a stormy ocean in a slow and often leaky boat. All eventually integrated themselves into a uniquely American society and became a homogenous people. They, and their descendents, ultimately became "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." Many of our modern immigrants to the United States are not much different. Today’s illegals however, have no apparent desire to become a part of America, as they usually huddle together in assorted barrios, ghettoes, or whatever, and doggedly hold on to the culture they came from, even demanding that we learn to speak their language and do things “their way”. This “culturalism” is showing up as a rapidly increasing Balkanization of the US. In return, what does America get from this flood of illegals, besides a slightly lower price for tomatoes? For one, we can see a massive increase in crime, such as the drug smuggling that recently cost Arizona a murdered rancher and a severely wounded Deputy Sheriff, or even the flood of MS-13 gang members from Central America who are slipping into our larger cities and more populous states. This upswing also leads to a major surge in foreign nationals incarcerated in our prison system, prisoners that taxpayers will have to support for years on end. With no control over our borders, we’re seeing the introduction of many third world diseases that our medical community is ill prepared to handle. We see a dramatic and detrimental impact on our national society and infrastructure, which includes our overcrowded educational system, while we also face greatly increased welfare costs. An even worse threat in the short term is that our porous borders have become an easy conduit for terrorists entering the country. (Remember, three of the four 9/11 terrorist “pilots” were in this country illegally.)
Very few Americans are opposed to reasonable legal immigration, regardless of race, nationality or ethnicity, but with the possible exception of the Swedish Bikini Team, most Americans are against illegal immigration, again regardless of race, nationality or ethnicity. We might further note that illegal aliens are not just a "Mexican" or "Hispanic" problem as they come from all corners of the world. In 2004, the Border Patrol arrested 65,814 “OTM’s” (Other Than Mexican) along our southwest border. However, at the present time, most of these illegal aliens are Hispanic, a result of geography and the poor economic conditions south of our border more than anything else. Acknowledging this fact is not prejudiced, racist, xenophobic, or bigoted, despite the “political correctness” being forced upon us by the loony left.
Part of the reason the Soviet Union collapsed is that it was far to large geographically, and to diverse culturally, to be effectively controlled by any centralized government. Here in the US we’re seeing the beginnings of a somewhat similar situation. For the last hundred and fifty years our government has become more and more centralized, with the federals assuming a very large portion of the authority supposedly assigned to the several states. And now, with this huge influx of illegals, we are definitely seeing the development of a highly diverse population! Unfortunately for America, diversity does lead to “Balkanization”. East-Central Europe consists of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. Nearly a hundred million people live in those countries, divided into more than a dozen (and many minor) ethnic groups, each with their own particular language and culture. Adding to the confusion is the division along religious lines, predominately (but not limited to) Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Muslim. For hundreds of years, particularly vicious wars, and spells of “ethnic cleansing”, have regularly boiled up in the region, brought on by assorted (real or perceived) “tribal” conflicts that have generally embroiled the rest of Europe, and have twice in the last century entangled the remainder of the civilized world as well.
Cultural diversity, a liberal goal that we see developing in the United States today, brings with it a seriously fragmented society that has no sense of community, and a generally very low moral. With that shattered community sense, it’s nearly impossible for any community to find the will to suppress public obscenity, punish crime, reform welfare, expect any sort of public morality, or resist the insistent demands of self-proclaimed “victim” groups for preferential treatment. Or even to maintain any reasonable standards of reason. That’s what we are looking at today… and what will we see tomorrow?
If our congressional representatives had gonads only slightly larger than a pair of English peas, they would be doing their job of protecting America, Americans, and our culture, despite the apparent desire of the White House to ignore what has become a quite serious problem. But, in any case, we can feel safe knowing that illegal aliens are simply “Undocumented Democrats” who are hard working contributors to American society, and that are only doing the jobs Americans won't do.
Or can we?
America is unique in that it was founded by immigrants a great many other countries. Those immigrants had a dream of individual liberty, they had a work ethic, moral values, fortitude, and a pioneering spirit. Most of those immigrants came here by choice, despite the dangers of crossing a stormy ocean in a slow and often leaky boat. All eventually integrated themselves into a uniquely American society and became a homogenous people. They, and their descendents, ultimately became "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." Many of our modern immigrants to the United States are not much different. Today’s illegals however, have no apparent desire to become a part of America, as they usually huddle together in assorted barrios, ghettoes, or whatever, and doggedly hold on to the culture they came from, even demanding that we learn to speak their language and do things “their way”. This “culturalism” is showing up as a rapidly increasing Balkanization of the US. In return, what does America get from this flood of illegals, besides a slightly lower price for tomatoes? For one, we can see a massive increase in crime, such as the drug smuggling that recently cost Arizona a murdered rancher and a severely wounded Deputy Sheriff, or even the flood of MS-13 gang members from Central America who are slipping into our larger cities and more populous states. This upswing also leads to a major surge in foreign nationals incarcerated in our prison system, prisoners that taxpayers will have to support for years on end. With no control over our borders, we’re seeing the introduction of many third world diseases that our medical community is ill prepared to handle. We see a dramatic and detrimental impact on our national society and infrastructure, which includes our overcrowded educational system, while we also face greatly increased welfare costs. An even worse threat in the short term is that our porous borders have become an easy conduit for terrorists entering the country. (Remember, three of the four 9/11 terrorist “pilots” were in this country illegally.)
Very few Americans are opposed to reasonable legal immigration, regardless of race, nationality or ethnicity, but with the possible exception of the Swedish Bikini Team, most Americans are against illegal immigration, again regardless of race, nationality or ethnicity. We might further note that illegal aliens are not just a "Mexican" or "Hispanic" problem as they come from all corners of the world. In 2004, the Border Patrol arrested 65,814 “OTM’s” (Other Than Mexican) along our southwest border. However, at the present time, most of these illegal aliens are Hispanic, a result of geography and the poor economic conditions south of our border more than anything else. Acknowledging this fact is not prejudiced, racist, xenophobic, or bigoted, despite the “political correctness” being forced upon us by the loony left.
Part of the reason the Soviet Union collapsed is that it was far to large geographically, and to diverse culturally, to be effectively controlled by any centralized government. Here in the US we’re seeing the beginnings of a somewhat similar situation. For the last hundred and fifty years our government has become more and more centralized, with the federals assuming a very large portion of the authority supposedly assigned to the several states. And now, with this huge influx of illegals, we are definitely seeing the development of a highly diverse population! Unfortunately for America, diversity does lead to “Balkanization”. East-Central Europe consists of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. Nearly a hundred million people live in those countries, divided into more than a dozen (and many minor) ethnic groups, each with their own particular language and culture. Adding to the confusion is the division along religious lines, predominately (but not limited to) Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Muslim. For hundreds of years, particularly vicious wars, and spells of “ethnic cleansing”, have regularly boiled up in the region, brought on by assorted (real or perceived) “tribal” conflicts that have generally embroiled the rest of Europe, and have twice in the last century entangled the remainder of the civilized world as well.
Cultural diversity, a liberal goal that we see developing in the United States today, brings with it a seriously fragmented society that has no sense of community, and a generally very low moral. With that shattered community sense, it’s nearly impossible for any community to find the will to suppress public obscenity, punish crime, reform welfare, expect any sort of public morality, or resist the insistent demands of self-proclaimed “victim” groups for preferential treatment. Or even to maintain any reasonable standards of reason. That’s what we are looking at today… and what will we see tomorrow?
If our congressional representatives had gonads only slightly larger than a pair of English peas, they would be doing their job of protecting America, Americans, and our culture, despite the apparent desire of the White House to ignore what has become a quite serious problem. But, in any case, we can feel safe knowing that illegal aliens are simply “Undocumented Democrats” who are hard working contributors to American society, and that are only doing the jobs Americans won't do.
Or can we?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Arizona
We’ve finally found something to debate that at least some Republicans and some Democrats can disagree on equally. Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigrants seems to have stirred up a raging bipartisan political inferno. Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect that someone is an illegal alien. The Governor insists that the bill will be implemented with no tolerance for racial profiling, but it’s causing fears among some legal immigrants and some U.S. citizens that they'll be targeted by police just because they look Hispanic. (I rather doubt that Arizona’s cops have so much spare time that they’ll be out hassling “Hispanic looking people” just to pass the time!) Supporters of the bill claim it will take the handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration and drug smuggling from Mexico. Arizona is the nations most heavily traveled entry point for both human and drug smugglers, while being home to an estimated half a million illegal immigrants. Maricopa County’s Attorney General reveals that in 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for: 10% of sex crimes convictions, 11% of murders convictions, 13% of stolen cars convictions, 13% of aggravated assaults convictions, 17% of those sentenced for violent crimes, 19% of those sentenced for property crimes, 20% of those sentenced for felony DUI, 21% of crimes committed with weapons, 34% of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale or transport of drugs, 36% of those sentenced for kidnapping, 44% of forgeries, 50% of those sentenced for crimes related to “chop shops”, 85% of false ID convictions, and 96% of smuggling convictions. Illegals make up 19 percent of those convicted of crimes in Maricopa County and 21 percent of those in county jails, while being an estimated 9 percent of the county’s population. The estimates are that each violent crime cost the county $20,000, and property crimes cost $4363 per offense. That’s a lot of taxpayers dollars being wasted on a problem that the US Government should have solved years ago! Gov. Brewer said that; "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation." The feds in the meantime claim the new state law is “overreacting”, “premature”, and “ill-conceived”. At the same time, Mr. Obama has ordered a federal investigation to determine if the law is illegal.
I applaud the Governor of Arizona, for with the stroke of the pen she has brought to a head the festering boil that no administration, and certainly not our “do-nothing” congress has had any desire to deal with. Certainly I don’t think that the question of illegal aliens is something that the individual states should have to deal with. But as the federal government will not make an effort to control the situation, then the individual states will have to. I have no animosity towards legal aliens, or Mexican immigrants (or any immigrants for that mater). But, as the situation in Arizona indicates, our nation is being inundated with illegal aliens, and that is just what these people are, ALIENS, not immigrants! Immigrants are by definition here legally, while illegal aliens are not.
We are told that they take the jobs that “Americans don’t want”. Yet how many Americans, immigrant or natural born, are literally pleading for jobs, any jobs, today! Personally I know several of those Americans who would be quite happy with any job, low paying or not. The trick is that the illegals hold those “low paying jobs”, with the low pay being held that way artificially by employers who well know that these people are not going to complain to the NLRB! The vast majority of them do not pay taxes, but they enjoy the benefits of living in this country. The LA Times claims that over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers. 40% of all workers in L. A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes, because they are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegals. At the same time, 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. (All of these facts were published in the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Arizona’s new law makes illegal immigration a state crime and gives police the authority to question people about their immigration status. Now of course we have any number of “Do-Gooders” and “Bleeding Hearts” proclaiming that Arizona’s action is oh so terrible in that it will lead to profiling, and forcing suspects to show proof that they are in this country legally. The Mexican government is upset, assorted congressmen are upset, and the leftist media has opened the floodgates in the crocodile tears department. News reports of rioting leftist protestors don’t mention that most of those “protestors” were Hispanics bussed in from southern California, as the vast majority of Arizona residents support the bill. I also seem to recall that AZ has a quite large population of legal Hispanics… just how did they let their legislators pass a law to enforce immigration policies, unless they don't like illegal immigration either? Rev. Al $harpton has said that he will go to Arizona to lead a civil disobedience demonstration, and I’d suspect that Rev. Je$$e Jack$on will probably show up as well.
We certainly live in interesting times, but there's no doubt Americans are fed up with "business as usual" in Washington. Are Americans beginning to feel in 2010 that our government is treating us unfairly, as did the Confederate citizens of a hundred and fifty years ago?
I applaud the Governor of Arizona, for with the stroke of the pen she has brought to a head the festering boil that no administration, and certainly not our “do-nothing” congress has had any desire to deal with. Certainly I don’t think that the question of illegal aliens is something that the individual states should have to deal with. But as the federal government will not make an effort to control the situation, then the individual states will have to. I have no animosity towards legal aliens, or Mexican immigrants (or any immigrants for that mater). But, as the situation in Arizona indicates, our nation is being inundated with illegal aliens, and that is just what these people are, ALIENS, not immigrants! Immigrants are by definition here legally, while illegal aliens are not.
We are told that they take the jobs that “Americans don’t want”. Yet how many Americans, immigrant or natural born, are literally pleading for jobs, any jobs, today! Personally I know several of those Americans who would be quite happy with any job, low paying or not. The trick is that the illegals hold those “low paying jobs”, with the low pay being held that way artificially by employers who well know that these people are not going to complain to the NLRB! The vast majority of them do not pay taxes, but they enjoy the benefits of living in this country. The LA Times claims that over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers. 40% of all workers in L. A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes, because they are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegals. At the same time, 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. (All of these facts were published in the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Arizona’s new law makes illegal immigration a state crime and gives police the authority to question people about their immigration status. Now of course we have any number of “Do-Gooders” and “Bleeding Hearts” proclaiming that Arizona’s action is oh so terrible in that it will lead to profiling, and forcing suspects to show proof that they are in this country legally. The Mexican government is upset, assorted congressmen are upset, and the leftist media has opened the floodgates in the crocodile tears department. News reports of rioting leftist protestors don’t mention that most of those “protestors” were Hispanics bussed in from southern California, as the vast majority of Arizona residents support the bill. I also seem to recall that AZ has a quite large population of legal Hispanics… just how did they let their legislators pass a law to enforce immigration policies, unless they don't like illegal immigration either? Rev. Al $harpton has said that he will go to Arizona to lead a civil disobedience demonstration, and I’d suspect that Rev. Je$$e Jack$on will probably show up as well.
We certainly live in interesting times, but there's no doubt Americans are fed up with "business as usual" in Washington. Are Americans beginning to feel in 2010 that our government is treating us unfairly, as did the Confederate citizens of a hundred and fifty years ago?
Mr. Obama's Polls
After his health care victory, Mr. Obama's popularity with the nation continues it’s slow downhill slide according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll. Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats are also loosing ground, giving quite a boost to Republican hopes for the mid-term elections. Currently just 49 percent of the electorate presently approve of the job Obama's doing, down from September’s 50% rating and way down from the 67% he enjoyed last February. The news is even worse for other Democrats. For the first time this year, Americans nearly equally approve of congressional Republicans as Democrats, 38 percent to 41 percent, and neither party has an edge. Democrats have also lost their advantage on matters economic, with people now trusting both parties about the same on that subject, which pretty well means “not much”.
Adding to the Democratic woes, Americans increasingly oppose the health care overhaul rammed through Congress by the Democrats, with roughly 50 percent of voters vehemently opposed, and a whole lot more of ‘em “somewhat opposed”. Despite official claims to the contrary, most people still take a dim view of the economy, with nearly 76 percent of our people rating it poor, and a lot of other folks are wondering if we’ve even got an economy! Things could get even worse for the Democrats, with one-third of the survey respondents considering themselves tea party supporters. Now, the liberal “evil triad” are threatening us with the “Cap and Trade” bill, and a “VAT tax”. If you think your taxes are high now, wait until these two dandies are passed! While the left refuses to believe in reality, the majority of American voters are either Republicans or right-leaning Independents. That means they are more likely to vote with the GOP in this fall's midterms, when base voters will be crucial amid the typical low turnout of a non-presidential election year. Even scarier from the politicians viewpoint, roughly half of American voters currently want to fire their own congressman.
With the electorate angry, Republicans enthusiastic, and Democrats seemingly less so, Obama's leftists increasingly fear they could lose control of the House, if not the Senate, in his first midterms. (As one commenter says, “one midterm, and only one term”.) The GOP is somewhat emboldened as voters warm to its opposition to much of Mr. O’s agenda. On the minds of both Democrats and Republicans is the political bloodletting in 1994 when the GOP seized control of Congress after two years of “Billary” Clinton liberalism. But the best news for Democrats is that it's only April — a long way to November, particularly with the voters notoriously short memory. Still, persuading irate voters to keep the status quo will be no easy task for the Democrats, given that most people recall the details of the health care battle, and that neither the economy, or the unemployment rate, is likely to improve by voting season.
As a reminder to the fence-sitters who are “to busy”, or that are just lazy to get involved in our national politics, I’ll throw this item in… There is a quotation attributed to President Theodore Roosevelt, which has become somewhat of a mantra to our military special operations folks through the years. Still, it does pertain to nearly everything we, as Americans, set out minds to do despite entrenched opposition. As an old special ops type myself, I believe these words of wisdom, and they have a rather special place in my heart. President Roosevelt said that:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
While I’ve been in more than one fight in my life, and lost quite a few of those, I’ve never been known to go out looking for problems. But I’ve got a bad habit, probably inherited from my Irish ancestors, of not backing down from anybody when I think they’re wrong. At present, I darn well think that the radical Democrats currently in power, and their planned socialization of America, are dead wrong. So folks, don’t look for me to roll over and play dead for anybody. I may loose the war, but I’ll fight anyone who would destroy my country and the freedom we enjoy under the Constitution, for as long as I can still write, and as long as breath remains in my body. I started fighting the enemies of our nation, our Constitution, and our way of life fifty years ago when the Cold War was booming, and I certainly don’t plan to roll over and play dead now just because of recently attaining “old geezer” status. I’ve walked in harm's way for this nation in the past, and once again I’m willing to do so. If being a dissenter makes me a potential terrorist, or a threat to the man with three Muslim names, so be it. Despite his oath of office, Barack Hussein Obama... REFUSES to honor the Constitution... REFUSES to prove that he is not a FRAUD and a USURPER... REFUSES to prove that the orders he gives our men and women in uniform are lawful... and REFUSES to release his actual birth certificate.
Adding to the Democratic woes, Americans increasingly oppose the health care overhaul rammed through Congress by the Democrats, with roughly 50 percent of voters vehemently opposed, and a whole lot more of ‘em “somewhat opposed”. Despite official claims to the contrary, most people still take a dim view of the economy, with nearly 76 percent of our people rating it poor, and a lot of other folks are wondering if we’ve even got an economy! Things could get even worse for the Democrats, with one-third of the survey respondents considering themselves tea party supporters. Now, the liberal “evil triad” are threatening us with the “Cap and Trade” bill, and a “VAT tax”. If you think your taxes are high now, wait until these two dandies are passed! While the left refuses to believe in reality, the majority of American voters are either Republicans or right-leaning Independents. That means they are more likely to vote with the GOP in this fall's midterms, when base voters will be crucial amid the typical low turnout of a non-presidential election year. Even scarier from the politicians viewpoint, roughly half of American voters currently want to fire their own congressman.
With the electorate angry, Republicans enthusiastic, and Democrats seemingly less so, Obama's leftists increasingly fear they could lose control of the House, if not the Senate, in his first midterms. (As one commenter says, “one midterm, and only one term”.) The GOP is somewhat emboldened as voters warm to its opposition to much of Mr. O’s agenda. On the minds of both Democrats and Republicans is the political bloodletting in 1994 when the GOP seized control of Congress after two years of “Billary” Clinton liberalism. But the best news for Democrats is that it's only April — a long way to November, particularly with the voters notoriously short memory. Still, persuading irate voters to keep the status quo will be no easy task for the Democrats, given that most people recall the details of the health care battle, and that neither the economy, or the unemployment rate, is likely to improve by voting season.
As a reminder to the fence-sitters who are “to busy”, or that are just lazy to get involved in our national politics, I’ll throw this item in… There is a quotation attributed to President Theodore Roosevelt, which has become somewhat of a mantra to our military special operations folks through the years. Still, it does pertain to nearly everything we, as Americans, set out minds to do despite entrenched opposition. As an old special ops type myself, I believe these words of wisdom, and they have a rather special place in my heart. President Roosevelt said that:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
While I’ve been in more than one fight in my life, and lost quite a few of those, I’ve never been known to go out looking for problems. But I’ve got a bad habit, probably inherited from my Irish ancestors, of not backing down from anybody when I think they’re wrong. At present, I darn well think that the radical Democrats currently in power, and their planned socialization of America, are dead wrong. So folks, don’t look for me to roll over and play dead for anybody. I may loose the war, but I’ll fight anyone who would destroy my country and the freedom we enjoy under the Constitution, for as long as I can still write, and as long as breath remains in my body. I started fighting the enemies of our nation, our Constitution, and our way of life fifty years ago when the Cold War was booming, and I certainly don’t plan to roll over and play dead now just because of recently attaining “old geezer” status. I’ve walked in harm's way for this nation in the past, and once again I’m willing to do so. If being a dissenter makes me a potential terrorist, or a threat to the man with three Muslim names, so be it. Despite his oath of office, Barack Hussein Obama... REFUSES to honor the Constitution... REFUSES to prove that he is not a FRAUD and a USURPER... REFUSES to prove that the orders he gives our men and women in uniform are lawful... and REFUSES to release his actual birth certificate.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Anti-TEA party
The left wing raging about the TEA Party folks continues unabated, with the ire directed at Americans whom Mr. Obama describes as a "core group" of people who question whether he is a U.S. citizen and that believe he is a socialist. He told NBC that he “recognizes the movement involves "folks who have legitimate concerns" about the national debt and whether the government is taking on too many difficult issues simultaneously.” But… Mr. Obama also said he feels "there's still going to be a group at their core that question my legitimacy." He further stated that he didn't want to paint Tea Party activists "in broad brushes" and he hopes to win over members who have "mainstream, legitimate concerns." In comparison, many left wingers claim that TEA partiers are “racist”, “mouth breathing rednecks”, “illiterates”, “religious fanatics”, “right wing radicals”, and (horror of horrors) gun owning “militiamen”, along with quite a number of less complimentary descriptors. I guess I can understand where this leftist viewpoint comes from, as the political left is pretty well made up of “intelligentsia” and a wide assortment of over educated, overpaid, and under worked folks with nothing better to do with their time than sit around thinking up new ways for the government to spend what little money the IRS leaves us, new political theories, and insisting they know better than anyone else about almost everything. While I’ve never been able to understand that particular line of thinking, you might note that those same folks never get tired of telling us how smart and wonderful they are either.
Every time some suicidal Muslim blows himself up and kills a few more innocent people, we hear from the Left how we should not judge all Muslims because of a few extremists. Talking heads on TV assure us that Islam is the "Religion of Peace." Well, Okay… Yet these same leftist politicians and media hacks are attacking right wing Americans because somebody allegedly used a politically incorrect racial slur at a Tea Party protest (with no corroboration from numerous video recordings). I’m not defending racial slurs if they were used, but what happened to the tolerance that we're supposed to show others? Don’t our fellow Americans deserve at least the same tolerance as Muslim terrorists?
I’ve attended a couple of TEA party meetings in my role as a columnist, and I apparently see things a bit differently than the liberals. All Tea Party members are ignorant I’m told, (probably because they didn’t attend an Ivy League college). And of course all Christians are close-minded because they believe in Jesus. Then too, it’s okay for a group of gays to run into a church on Sunday morning during the services and scream “Jesus is a homo”, but it's forbiden that anyone should say a prayer in public, despite the fact that even the US Congress opens each session with a prayer... a prayer delivered by the Congressional Chaplain. But counter to those leftist claims, at Tea Party meetings I’ve seen elderly retirees, bankers, lawyers, doctors, ministers, engineers, mechanics, custodians, carpenters, farmers, teachers, and retail workers, all sharing common ideals and values. I’ve seen young and old folks, people with disabilities, rich and poor. I saw people who have the audacity to exercise their Constitutional rights as American citizens, in a responsible and civil manner, almost as if the United States were some sort of democratic society that allowed such free expression of thought.
Even better from my viewpoint, some polls indicate that the “Tea Party” is composed of about 25% Republicans, 50% Independents, and 25% Democrats! That almost sounds like a very broad selection of American voters rather than a handful of “right wing radicals”! Still, I find it rather strange that the left considers pornography to be “free speech”, but if I voice my somewhat conservative political views in public I’m supposed to be a “bigoted racist”. Do we have a double standard here perhaps?
Come November, the voting public needs to remember that what Mr. Obama and his cronies are doing to our nation today has been in the planning stage for many years. Today, the political right is doing nothing more terrible than opposing the socialization of America. Anger in American politics is nothing new, but now the left is happily stoking that fire, a dangerous thing to do in any large group of people. What happens when the people who have been working hard their entire lives to build a future for themselves and their families, suddenly find themselves being forced into poverty by our home grown socialists? Their response might well be something on the line of; “You might try to do this to me, but you really don’t want to try doing this to my children.”
One of the most disturbing things in America today is a mass media that “edits” the news so that no bad things appear in print, or on TV, about the administration. The American media has become a western version of Pravda and that is frightening. But of course anything they can say about the “evil right” is “fair and balanced” in their minds. With the aid of the media, Democrats are exploiting these real or imaginary Tea Party slurs in an effort to portray themselves as victims, political martyrs as it were, and to smear their opponents as racists and bigots. New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently compared the Tea Party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht, which suggests a growing paranoia on the left. Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made "some Americans run off the rails," said Rich, have we seen anything like this. Just where was Mr. Rich in 1964? It certainly wasn't the George Wallace populists or the Barry Goldwater conservatives that went off the rails! That was the work of folks who went "all the way with LBJ." Even more interesting is that one of Mr. Obama’s leading mentors was part of the 1960’s radical left Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombing bunch, while at the same time many of today’s leading leftists were busily chanting praises of Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh, while happily throwing fire bombs at police officers on Detroit’s streets.
Mr. Obama preaches “change” to the left, and promptly nationalizes the auto industry, our banking system, and now our health care system. Ms. Pelosi invites a democratic Congress to “kick in the door” because there are more changes on the way (“Cap and Trade” I suspect). If the Tea Party folks think it’s the leftist elites who wish to destroy the America we all grew up in, they’re quite right.
Every time some suicidal Muslim blows himself up and kills a few more innocent people, we hear from the Left how we should not judge all Muslims because of a few extremists. Talking heads on TV assure us that Islam is the "Religion of Peace." Well, Okay… Yet these same leftist politicians and media hacks are attacking right wing Americans because somebody allegedly used a politically incorrect racial slur at a Tea Party protest (with no corroboration from numerous video recordings). I’m not defending racial slurs if they were used, but what happened to the tolerance that we're supposed to show others? Don’t our fellow Americans deserve at least the same tolerance as Muslim terrorists?
I’ve attended a couple of TEA party meetings in my role as a columnist, and I apparently see things a bit differently than the liberals. All Tea Party members are ignorant I’m told, (probably because they didn’t attend an Ivy League college). And of course all Christians are close-minded because they believe in Jesus. Then too, it’s okay for a group of gays to run into a church on Sunday morning during the services and scream “Jesus is a homo”, but it's forbiden that anyone should say a prayer in public, despite the fact that even the US Congress opens each session with a prayer... a prayer delivered by the Congressional Chaplain. But counter to those leftist claims, at Tea Party meetings I’ve seen elderly retirees, bankers, lawyers, doctors, ministers, engineers, mechanics, custodians, carpenters, farmers, teachers, and retail workers, all sharing common ideals and values. I’ve seen young and old folks, people with disabilities, rich and poor. I saw people who have the audacity to exercise their Constitutional rights as American citizens, in a responsible and civil manner, almost as if the United States were some sort of democratic society that allowed such free expression of thought.
Even better from my viewpoint, some polls indicate that the “Tea Party” is composed of about 25% Republicans, 50% Independents, and 25% Democrats! That almost sounds like a very broad selection of American voters rather than a handful of “right wing radicals”! Still, I find it rather strange that the left considers pornography to be “free speech”, but if I voice my somewhat conservative political views in public I’m supposed to be a “bigoted racist”. Do we have a double standard here perhaps?
Come November, the voting public needs to remember that what Mr. Obama and his cronies are doing to our nation today has been in the planning stage for many years. Today, the political right is doing nothing more terrible than opposing the socialization of America. Anger in American politics is nothing new, but now the left is happily stoking that fire, a dangerous thing to do in any large group of people. What happens when the people who have been working hard their entire lives to build a future for themselves and their families, suddenly find themselves being forced into poverty by our home grown socialists? Their response might well be something on the line of; “You might try to do this to me, but you really don’t want to try doing this to my children.”
One of the most disturbing things in America today is a mass media that “edits” the news so that no bad things appear in print, or on TV, about the administration. The American media has become a western version of Pravda and that is frightening. But of course anything they can say about the “evil right” is “fair and balanced” in their minds. With the aid of the media, Democrats are exploiting these real or imaginary Tea Party slurs in an effort to portray themselves as victims, political martyrs as it were, and to smear their opponents as racists and bigots. New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently compared the Tea Party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht, which suggests a growing paranoia on the left. Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made "some Americans run off the rails," said Rich, have we seen anything like this. Just where was Mr. Rich in 1964? It certainly wasn't the George Wallace populists or the Barry Goldwater conservatives that went off the rails! That was the work of folks who went "all the way with LBJ." Even more interesting is that one of Mr. Obama’s leading mentors was part of the 1960’s radical left Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombing bunch, while at the same time many of today’s leading leftists were busily chanting praises of Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh, while happily throwing fire bombs at police officers on Detroit’s streets.
Mr. Obama preaches “change” to the left, and promptly nationalizes the auto industry, our banking system, and now our health care system. Ms. Pelosi invites a democratic Congress to “kick in the door” because there are more changes on the way (“Cap and Trade” I suspect). If the Tea Party folks think it’s the leftist elites who wish to destroy the America we all grew up in, they’re quite right.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Tyrannos
"Sometimes 'The Majority' only means all the fools are on the same side."
- Ronald Reagan
“Tyrannos” is an ancient Greek word that initially meant nothing more than “master”. But, as free men will not endure masters, the meaning has changed through the centuries, and today the very word is hateful to free people. When John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln at the end of the civil war, he shouted “Sic simper Tyrannis” --Thus be it ever with Tyrants!-- as justification for his heinous act, which it probably would have been had his fellow citizens believed that Lincoln was nothing more than a tyrant. After all, authorities of religion and morality both have openly proclaimed that tyrannicide is not murder. While most people didn’t agree with his act, Booth’s action did release a flood of real claimants to mastership on an unsuspecting nation, everything from carpetbaggers and raging abolitionists on the defeated southerners, to a quite vindictive US Congress on the rest of the nation. However, our Constitution, our laws, and our traditions were far to strong for that post civil war tyranny, and it faded into oblivion after a few short years… almost. The times planted the seeds of tyranny in our government, and while slow to mature, they’ve been growing ever since.
No nation and no people are safe from the grasp of tyranny. Governments force us to do things we’d rather not do, claiming that “it’s for our own good”, “it’s the will of the people”, or perhaps they’re just “redistributing the wealth”. Tyrants and tyranny rarely come with hands dripping blood, eyes burning with hatred, or dragging the chains of our servitude with them. Instead they claim to be friends of the people, workers for the public good, hero’s who will save the nation from the babble of political parties. They promise they will carry out the peoples will. Certainly they come with “heaven sent” promises. If we disarm ourselves they will provide professionals to protect us from evildoers. If we give over our property they will provide us with jobs and the means of a better life. The economy will be strengthened. Crime and poverty will vanish. Together we will build a new nation, worthy of our glorious new future. And of course they would never misuse their enhanced power. With such rhetoric (and the sword) Ferdinand of Naples, generally regarded as the worst despot in European history, took power, as did Adolf Hitler in Germany, Lenin and Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, and Kim Il Sung in Korea.
The tyrant does not just appear out of the blue, the ground must be prepared for him, either deliberately with malice aforethought, or by accidental circumstances as can be seen during the early days of the 20th century. The 19th century could be called the Century of Liberty, starting with the French Revolution. Countless nations cast off the chains of servitude and entered a golden age of individual freedoms. With the rise of personal wealth that individual liberty allows, came the seeds of destruction as well. The political and economic disaster that the western allies allowed to develop in Weimar Germany assured the rise of a political strong man. Adolf Hitler rose to the top of the heap, eliminated his opposition, and made a nearly successful effort to take over all of Europe. Six years of a particularly vicious war, tens of millions of needless deaths, and the expenditure of many trillions of dollars in treasure, finally saw the defeat of Nazi tyranny and the liberation of Europe. The same generalized conditions in Russia gave birth to Stalinist communism, mass murder, forced collectivization, the gulag, and a forty-five year long Cold War. Mao promised to end corruption in China… well, he pretty well did (except for the corruption of his cronies), along with ending a few million more human lives.
A republic of free men can only survive as long as the law of the land severely restricts the activities of the government, or until the common citizen can no longer understand the meaning of the law. When law becomes so complex that only specially trained individuals can make law (as they see fit), or interpret it’s meaning, the republic falls to a tyranny of elitists. It is no longer a government of “We the People” as stated in the preamble to our Constitution, it becomes “We the Congress” or “We the Majority”, and our free society dies at the hand of a “tyranny of the majority”, ignoring the rights of the minority that our political left has so long decried, and now utilizes to advance its own agenda. At some point the thirteenth amendment becomes meaningless because we become slaves to government. Instead of government working for us, government becomes our master. And once governmental authority is passed to unelected bureaucrats that remain in office long after we have voted out the politicians who imposed this illegal regime on us, even the basic right to control our own destiny is taken from us. Our nation’s Founders understood this proclivity toward tyranny; and that is why we have a Constitution of negatives. The Left doesn’t like this, and are willing to destroy our freedom and liberty in following their totalitarian ideology. If Congress, through our inaction, and by it’s assumption of powers outside their constitutional mandate, can compel us to take actions “for our own good” irregardless of our will, then Congress can compel our actions in any manner they so desire.
James Madison, Federalist Papers, no. 45, 313–14 26 Jan. 1788:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
“The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State Governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State Governments will here enjoy another advantage over the Federal Government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendency over the governments of the particular States.”
It’s our watch, and we’re rapidly losing our Constitution, our liberty, and our country, to far left elitists. What are we going to do about it?
- Ronald Reagan
“Tyrannos” is an ancient Greek word that initially meant nothing more than “master”. But, as free men will not endure masters, the meaning has changed through the centuries, and today the very word is hateful to free people. When John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln at the end of the civil war, he shouted “Sic simper Tyrannis” --Thus be it ever with Tyrants!-- as justification for his heinous act, which it probably would have been had his fellow citizens believed that Lincoln was nothing more than a tyrant. After all, authorities of religion and morality both have openly proclaimed that tyrannicide is not murder. While most people didn’t agree with his act, Booth’s action did release a flood of real claimants to mastership on an unsuspecting nation, everything from carpetbaggers and raging abolitionists on the defeated southerners, to a quite vindictive US Congress on the rest of the nation. However, our Constitution, our laws, and our traditions were far to strong for that post civil war tyranny, and it faded into oblivion after a few short years… almost. The times planted the seeds of tyranny in our government, and while slow to mature, they’ve been growing ever since.
No nation and no people are safe from the grasp of tyranny. Governments force us to do things we’d rather not do, claiming that “it’s for our own good”, “it’s the will of the people”, or perhaps they’re just “redistributing the wealth”. Tyrants and tyranny rarely come with hands dripping blood, eyes burning with hatred, or dragging the chains of our servitude with them. Instead they claim to be friends of the people, workers for the public good, hero’s who will save the nation from the babble of political parties. They promise they will carry out the peoples will. Certainly they come with “heaven sent” promises. If we disarm ourselves they will provide professionals to protect us from evildoers. If we give over our property they will provide us with jobs and the means of a better life. The economy will be strengthened. Crime and poverty will vanish. Together we will build a new nation, worthy of our glorious new future. And of course they would never misuse their enhanced power. With such rhetoric (and the sword) Ferdinand of Naples, generally regarded as the worst despot in European history, took power, as did Adolf Hitler in Germany, Lenin and Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, and Kim Il Sung in Korea.
The tyrant does not just appear out of the blue, the ground must be prepared for him, either deliberately with malice aforethought, or by accidental circumstances as can be seen during the early days of the 20th century. The 19th century could be called the Century of Liberty, starting with the French Revolution. Countless nations cast off the chains of servitude and entered a golden age of individual freedoms. With the rise of personal wealth that individual liberty allows, came the seeds of destruction as well. The political and economic disaster that the western allies allowed to develop in Weimar Germany assured the rise of a political strong man. Adolf Hitler rose to the top of the heap, eliminated his opposition, and made a nearly successful effort to take over all of Europe. Six years of a particularly vicious war, tens of millions of needless deaths, and the expenditure of many trillions of dollars in treasure, finally saw the defeat of Nazi tyranny and the liberation of Europe. The same generalized conditions in Russia gave birth to Stalinist communism, mass murder, forced collectivization, the gulag, and a forty-five year long Cold War. Mao promised to end corruption in China… well, he pretty well did (except for the corruption of his cronies), along with ending a few million more human lives.
A republic of free men can only survive as long as the law of the land severely restricts the activities of the government, or until the common citizen can no longer understand the meaning of the law. When law becomes so complex that only specially trained individuals can make law (as they see fit), or interpret it’s meaning, the republic falls to a tyranny of elitists. It is no longer a government of “We the People” as stated in the preamble to our Constitution, it becomes “We the Congress” or “We the Majority”, and our free society dies at the hand of a “tyranny of the majority”, ignoring the rights of the minority that our political left has so long decried, and now utilizes to advance its own agenda. At some point the thirteenth amendment becomes meaningless because we become slaves to government. Instead of government working for us, government becomes our master. And once governmental authority is passed to unelected bureaucrats that remain in office long after we have voted out the politicians who imposed this illegal regime on us, even the basic right to control our own destiny is taken from us. Our nation’s Founders understood this proclivity toward tyranny; and that is why we have a Constitution of negatives. The Left doesn’t like this, and are willing to destroy our freedom and liberty in following their totalitarian ideology. If Congress, through our inaction, and by it’s assumption of powers outside their constitutional mandate, can compel us to take actions “for our own good” irregardless of our will, then Congress can compel our actions in any manner they so desire.
James Madison, Federalist Papers, no. 45, 313–14 26 Jan. 1788:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
“The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State Governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State Governments will here enjoy another advantage over the Federal Government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendency over the governments of the particular States.”
It’s our watch, and we’re rapidly losing our Constitution, our liberty, and our country, to far left elitists. What are we going to do about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)