Here is a letter that needs to be sent to every Republican Congressman. There is no point in sending this to any Democrat or any media outlet because they are in denial. I'm not sure the Republicans aren't in denial as well but at least here is a wake up call. It seems clear to me that the people are being ignored by the congress -- and that goes for the entire congress. When I heard John McCain say that the Healthcare Bill needs "tweaking" I almost barfed!!! The man is totally out of touch with reality. I hear Michael Steele blather on and on being politically correct and not willing to attack the administration or voice any inconvenient truth. It seems to me that the entire elected political structure is totally out of touch and needs to be replaced in its entirety. The idea that you can "spend your way to prosperity" is so ludicrous that you have to question the intelligence of the entire gang in Congress and it isn't just the Democrats that have lost their way -- the Repubicans are just as bad. Shouting that "You lie" to the President means nothing other than bad manners unless the congress is willing to act and so far the only action I have seen has been self serving -- from all of them. The linked letter calls for the impeachment of the President, which I think is not just extreme but a bad precedent. The "people" (incuding a lot of dead ones registered by Acorn) elected this man but it is the Congress who truly holds the power -- power they seem incapable of wielding in a responsible manner and in response to the people whom they are alleged to represent. I'm not even sure that most democrats think they are being properly represented. If nothing else comes from this congress the evils of a one party system are clearly evident. Send this letter to your Republican representative and call for action -- loud, clear, and forceful ACTION!!
Callaway
OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL STEELE AND THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
On the first page of your website you have a section that says something to the effect, “tell me what you think.” OK, here it is. How much longer do “we the people” have to sit out here and wait for you to do something? Where is your voice? Where is your spine? Why does a talk show host/entertainer have to do your job? Where is the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress?
If the United States of America survives past 2009 it will certainly not be because the RNC and the congressional leadership stood firm and held news conferences and produced YouTube videos, to keep us, the citizenry informed. What a sad state of affairs when the media controls what we get to hear from you, the elected officials. Are you fearful of what they will call you? Have you no power? Do they own you?
The grassroots have been fighting since April to voice our opposition to what is happening in our government. We have held tea parties, town halls, rants in public places, we have all become proficient on Facebook, twitter, blogs, etc. We stay up most nights trying to Google information, watch Glenn Beck, read and re-read our constitution. We have been like blind people trying to put a puzzle together and now that we are succeeding in seeing what is being done to us, it’s a frightening thing. I can only speak for myself but there have been times in the last six months that I have to pinch myself and ask if I am still in my country.
We have spent time calling, writing, emailing, petitioning our elected officials and we are called un-American, terrorists, mobs, dangerous, right-wing extremists, kooks, etc. I don’t hear national voices calling the main stream media to task for attacking us. I have only heard of one congressman who is going to the Library of Congress before the session begins to look up information on “redressing of grievances”. Why hasn’t the entire Republican congress called a meeting to ask the same thing?
We begged the Republicans to stop cap and trade and they did not. I can’t believe that any thinking person would even be talking about trying to pass something as heinous as HR 3200. When I hear a Republican, especially McCain talk about tweaking the bill and then passing it, I want to scream! What could these people be thinking. The only thing that could help this bill is for it to be flushed!
Do you watch television? Do you watch Fox News? Do you watch Glenn Beck? I’m appalled that there has not been a movement from the Republican Party to impeach this man who is living in our White House. Don’t even try to tell me that we can’t do that. We must impeach him. Are you aware that Van Jones, the green job czar, whose organization, the Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill and is receiving tax dollars to dismantle our country? Van Jones is a self-avowed communist! Those are his words. This man is an advisor to the President? How can that happen? How can any elected official stand by and let this happen? Who is representing us?
What about Cass Sunstein? This man is a fascist nut. Yes, I did say fascist. I’m sick of not being able to speak truths because we’re fearful of not being politically correct. Guess what? We are out of the p.c. closet. Sunstein is a proponent of the ‘nudge’ philosophy – Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Our decisions, our health, our wealth and our happiness. No thank you. This man thinks animals should have the right to take people to court??? This is not a fairy tale.
Now we hear that our internet may be taken from us through legislation. SB 773. Will this be carried out through martial law? I have not heard one Republican official say that they are not going to allow this to happen.
Are all the conspiracy theorists correct when they say that the Republicans are just as instrumental in destroying our country as the liberal fascist arm of the Democratic Party are?
The President is destroying the United States of America. If a Russian Professor can see it, and write articles about it, why can’t you? What do we need to do to start the impeachment process? I could list numerous other things that he has done that I believe are in direct opposition to our constitution but I don’t have the time or the space. You could contact Glen Beck, he will fill you in.
I am going to put this letter on Facebook, Twitter, blogs; I’m going to email it to every address I can get my hands on. I will send it as a press release to every media outlet I can think of and who knows, maybe one or two will print it. I’m going to send it to talk shows and I’m also going to email it to you. I certainly hope I receive an answer and if I do, I will also send that out to all the above mentioned sites.
Thank you for your time and I pray that God will Bless America.
Sincerely,
Pat Wright
Sealy, Texas
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Press and Objectivity
We are being bombarded with extravagant praise by the popular media for Barrack Hussein Obama. They carefully neglect using his middle name for fear of arousing “unfounded” concerns by the fascistic, homophobic, ignoramuses called “Republicans”. These paeans to the new JFK seem to be based on his “blackness’, his youth, and his charming way of saying nothing at all while making it sound really really important. His platform seems to consist of one plank called change, but precisely what he intends to change or how he intends to change it goes unreported. We are told by the media that 86% of blacks voted for Obama but none of the press or media view this as racist. Insead it is announced with pride that the blacks are clearly voting for the best man, not the black man, although the voting pattern among blacks has consistently been racially based (think Marion Barry among others) and independent of qualifications or even past criminal records. The only solid thing coming from Obama is his determination to end the war in Iraq – not by victory but by surrender – surrender to the Muslims – but we are assured that he is not a Muslim or at least not one of those radical Muslims and that surrender is really not surrender but simply wise policy. Wise policy for who seems to go unreported, but we are told that the youth of American are solidly behind Obama. The assumption here is that these youths are capable of critical thinking and have carefully considered Obama as well as the other Democratic and Republican candidates. Of course this is unlikely because the college campuses from which these youths spring are heavily weighted to the left and any critical discourse is discouraged if not outright forbidden.
The press in the US has continued to drift left as the colleges graduate more and more students who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the politics of the left. The highly acclaimed Katie Couric in her visit to Cuba in 1992 announced to the world that the standard of living in Cuba was “very high for a third world country”. Of course this oxymoronic observation was duly reported with no critical comment or comparison. In fact Cuba had been among the wealthiest Latin American nations when Castro obtained power by force but now it ranks among the poorest with even the Dominican Republic having a higher standard. Of course the left leaning media do not criticize Marxist regimes that have taken over by force, criticism is aimed only at those brutal dictators that are not Marxists. In fact even as the USSR was disintegrating before the eyes of the world and the evils of Marxism were becoming clear, Peter Jennings continued to laud Cuba and their Marxist paradise – of course ignoring the hundreds – if not thousands of Cubans risking their lives in leaky boats in their desperate flight to the US. So is it any wonder that the media cannot bring themselves to critically examine the leftist politics of a young black man who promises change without specifying what changes. It is worth noting that this was the mantra of Hugo Chavez when he took over Venezuela and who is now admitting to his Marxist beliefs.
It is also worth noting that Robert Frost once said that “A liberal is a man too broad minded to take his own side in a quarrel”. This quote really sums up the liberal position in most situations, especially when it comes to the US. These are the people who will automatically assume that anything the US wants to do is automatically wrong. These are the people who “blame America first” and certainly never give America credit and blame Republicans for everything that they see as being wrong in the world. It was Ronald Reagan who revived the American economy, restored the vitality of NATO, restored America’s domination of the world stage, and forced the USSR to abandon its drive toward world domination and ended the cold war. All of these are enormous achievements but at the conclusion of this Time magazine made Gorbachev “Man of the Year” and to this day the liberal establishment denies that Reagan won the cold war or that he accomplished anything significant – other than to arm the Contras and crush the incipient Marxists for which he was castigated by the press then and now. Any attack on any Marxist government is roundly condemned by the leftist press in America.
Of course the very foundation to the current Democratic platform – if indeed there is one beyond “we aren’t George Bush” is that we need to withdraw from Iraq. The rationale for this position is a little vague other than American Troops are getting killed and we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. The critical scrutiny of this seems to be restricted to the basis for the decision which is generally believed by the press to be an invasion to support President Bush’s oil interests. Any strategic thinking or examination of the long range effect and impact is missing. Why there is no critical examination of the global situation and the necessity of removing Hussein can only be attributed to a lack of critical thinking, an inability to think strategically, ignorance of geopolitics, or a burning desire to discredit a Republican President – take your pick. Now this same band of geniuses is supporting a very junior senator who has no military experience, no business experience, no administrative experience, very little experience in government, who belongs to a racist and possibly anti-Semitic church and whose only qualification as a candidate seems to be he is black and inexperienced. It would seem that even the media – who are not noted for their high IQ’s – would recognize that the Presidency of the United States is too important of a job to be filled by a candidate who has no experience whatsoever.
The supreme irony here is that the Democrats had a very strong and viable candidate in Governor Richardson. A man whose resume was very strong and who was amply qualified to lead the country. Unfortunately Governor Richardson wasn’t black, wasn’t young, and lacked charisma – all he had were the qualifications necessary to effectively lead the country. Instead the Democrats and the media once again opted for veneers and flash with no substance.
The press in the US has continued to drift left as the colleges graduate more and more students who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the politics of the left. The highly acclaimed Katie Couric in her visit to Cuba in 1992 announced to the world that the standard of living in Cuba was “very high for a third world country”. Of course this oxymoronic observation was duly reported with no critical comment or comparison. In fact Cuba had been among the wealthiest Latin American nations when Castro obtained power by force but now it ranks among the poorest with even the Dominican Republic having a higher standard. Of course the left leaning media do not criticize Marxist regimes that have taken over by force, criticism is aimed only at those brutal dictators that are not Marxists. In fact even as the USSR was disintegrating before the eyes of the world and the evils of Marxism were becoming clear, Peter Jennings continued to laud Cuba and their Marxist paradise – of course ignoring the hundreds – if not thousands of Cubans risking their lives in leaky boats in their desperate flight to the US. So is it any wonder that the media cannot bring themselves to critically examine the leftist politics of a young black man who promises change without specifying what changes. It is worth noting that this was the mantra of Hugo Chavez when he took over Venezuela and who is now admitting to his Marxist beliefs.
It is also worth noting that Robert Frost once said that “A liberal is a man too broad minded to take his own side in a quarrel”. This quote really sums up the liberal position in most situations, especially when it comes to the US. These are the people who will automatically assume that anything the US wants to do is automatically wrong. These are the people who “blame America first” and certainly never give America credit and blame Republicans for everything that they see as being wrong in the world. It was Ronald Reagan who revived the American economy, restored the vitality of NATO, restored America’s domination of the world stage, and forced the USSR to abandon its drive toward world domination and ended the cold war. All of these are enormous achievements but at the conclusion of this Time magazine made Gorbachev “Man of the Year” and to this day the liberal establishment denies that Reagan won the cold war or that he accomplished anything significant – other than to arm the Contras and crush the incipient Marxists for which he was castigated by the press then and now. Any attack on any Marxist government is roundly condemned by the leftist press in America.
Of course the very foundation to the current Democratic platform – if indeed there is one beyond “we aren’t George Bush” is that we need to withdraw from Iraq. The rationale for this position is a little vague other than American Troops are getting killed and we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. The critical scrutiny of this seems to be restricted to the basis for the decision which is generally believed by the press to be an invasion to support President Bush’s oil interests. Any strategic thinking or examination of the long range effect and impact is missing. Why there is no critical examination of the global situation and the necessity of removing Hussein can only be attributed to a lack of critical thinking, an inability to think strategically, ignorance of geopolitics, or a burning desire to discredit a Republican President – take your pick. Now this same band of geniuses is supporting a very junior senator who has no military experience, no business experience, no administrative experience, very little experience in government, who belongs to a racist and possibly anti-Semitic church and whose only qualification as a candidate seems to be he is black and inexperienced. It would seem that even the media – who are not noted for their high IQ’s – would recognize that the Presidency of the United States is too important of a job to be filled by a candidate who has no experience whatsoever.
The supreme irony here is that the Democrats had a very strong and viable candidate in Governor Richardson. A man whose resume was very strong and who was amply qualified to lead the country. Unfortunately Governor Richardson wasn’t black, wasn’t young, and lacked charisma – all he had were the qualifications necessary to effectively lead the country. Instead the Democrats and the media once again opted for veneers and flash with no substance.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Political Rant 2008 Q 1
Well the 2008 Presidential Campaign is now in full swing with the media fawning all over the Democratic candidates because they know that the current fascist, homophobic and Islamophobic administration is about to come to an end as the American public comes to its senses and finally elects the socialist government that will put America back in synch with our European Allies. Of course in the spirit of fairness the ever left leaning media have anointed that laughable hayseed Pastor Huckabee as the shoo-in candidate of the Republicans. This support of course is quite calculated because the Democratic Party and their sycophantic media pundits are convinced that the Pastor could never be elected by the American electorate because even those denizens of “flyover land” could not possibly be dumb enough to vote for such a yahoo, especially when they are presented with truly great alternatives who will put America on the right track – that is bring the country into the conformance with the UN and the socialist European Community. It isn’t certain that this strategy by the media of supporting a rightwing loser in order to guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party will succeed, especially when the Democratic candidates are given a critical review.
The candidates being put forward are truly a wonder and the wonder is how the public can see any of them as a reasonable choice. Depending on your point of view, the front runner is Hillary Clinton – whose credentials are truly amazing—amazing for their lack of substance. It is true she spent eight years in the white house but by that standard the White House Butler is more qualified because he has spent even more time there, this is known as the “Jeeves Effect”. Hillary Clinton view herself as Co-President and attempted to share the power of the President, which was displayed in her universal healthcare program which flopped. She did run for Senator but her experience as a Senator has been minimal and she can not point to any major legislation or success during her tenure. She is widely viewed as the best and most qualified person to run the country, but this conclusion seems to be based exclusively on her gender because she has never had any diplomatic experience, any military command, or actually managed anything including a business. Somehow the Democratic Party views this almost total lack of experience as inconsequential, but perhaps she is an expert in parliamentary procedures.
The other front runner is Barrack Hussein Obama, who has even fewer qualifications than Hillary Clinton who has almost none. The actual facts surrounding Barrack Obama are carefully glossed over or denied altogether. He is NOT a Muslim but both his father and step-father are not only Muslim they are radical Muslims. So for Obama not to have been influenced by these men he must repudiate them altogether, something that has not been done. He is a Christian, and well he might be but the Christian Church he belongs to is all black, focused on black issues (presumably while still enjoying tax exemptions) and a supporter of Louis Farrakhan a noted bigot and anti-Semite. These things must be placed into perspective when considering Obama’s statement that he will withdraw (surrender is the better word) from Iraq. His position on Israel is either vague or non-existent but like most of the left we can assume he is for peace, which always translates into more concessions by Israel and more justifications for the murderous attacks by the Palestinians.
Nevertheless, these things can be ignored and the focus should be on his qualifications. He has never been in the military, he has no diplomatic experience, he has less than one term as a Senator, he has never managed a business or had to turn a profit, he has no administrative experience in government, and he cannot point to any activity in his past that would qualify him to manage a cookie drive must less the country. So the primary reason to vote for Obama is that he is black. He is also given to demagogic speech laced with vague statements like “we will change the world”. He never explains how he intends to change the world, what he intends to change, or how he intends to change it. A few specifics in his rhetoric would help.
This brings us to former Senator John Edwards. To accept that John Edwards is a simple lawyer who has made a fortune defending the poor and downtrodden is to believe that the famous sailor Edward Teach – aka Blackbeard – made his fortune in shipping. There is nothing quite so satisfying as dipping into the pockets of large corporations while protecting the unfortunate and banking some very handsome fees. But here we have another leading candidate who has no experience outside of the courtroom. He has no diplomatic, administrative, or military background. He has been a Senator so he is as qualified as the other two leading candidates, which is to say, unqualified.
The Democratic Party has truly lost its way and should be renamed the “People’s Socialist Party” because they no longer believe in capitalism or a capitalist America. These are indeed harsh words but these candidates are the ones who are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan which is tantamount to surrendering to the very forces that have attacked America and American interests for more than 30 years. This is the party that has eliminated free speech through their dedication to multi—culturalism and political correctness. Conservative voices are routinely drowned out across college campuses through protests and intimidation reminiscent of the Nazi Brown Shirts and any challenge to the politically correct viewpoint on marriage, abortion, or evolution is not tolerated. This is the party that is dedicated to social engineering through government control and this has already been accomplished through legislation against smoking and efforts at gun control, trans-fats, and fat people. This new Democratic Party is pushing universal – and government controlled – healthcare, while denying they are in favor of socialism or that this is a socialist program.
The candidates for the Democratic Party are advocating change but are saying what changes they are advocating or how they intend to implement them. They should have nominated Joe Lieberman or Governor Richardson, but these men have nothing to recommend them except experience and electability.
The candidates being put forward are truly a wonder and the wonder is how the public can see any of them as a reasonable choice. Depending on your point of view, the front runner is Hillary Clinton – whose credentials are truly amazing—amazing for their lack of substance. It is true she spent eight years in the white house but by that standard the White House Butler is more qualified because he has spent even more time there, this is known as the “Jeeves Effect”. Hillary Clinton view herself as Co-President and attempted to share the power of the President, which was displayed in her universal healthcare program which flopped. She did run for Senator but her experience as a Senator has been minimal and she can not point to any major legislation or success during her tenure. She is widely viewed as the best and most qualified person to run the country, but this conclusion seems to be based exclusively on her gender because she has never had any diplomatic experience, any military command, or actually managed anything including a business. Somehow the Democratic Party views this almost total lack of experience as inconsequential, but perhaps she is an expert in parliamentary procedures.
The other front runner is Barrack Hussein Obama, who has even fewer qualifications than Hillary Clinton who has almost none. The actual facts surrounding Barrack Obama are carefully glossed over or denied altogether. He is NOT a Muslim but both his father and step-father are not only Muslim they are radical Muslims. So for Obama not to have been influenced by these men he must repudiate them altogether, something that has not been done. He is a Christian, and well he might be but the Christian Church he belongs to is all black, focused on black issues (presumably while still enjoying tax exemptions) and a supporter of Louis Farrakhan a noted bigot and anti-Semite. These things must be placed into perspective when considering Obama’s statement that he will withdraw (surrender is the better word) from Iraq. His position on Israel is either vague or non-existent but like most of the left we can assume he is for peace, which always translates into more concessions by Israel and more justifications for the murderous attacks by the Palestinians.
Nevertheless, these things can be ignored and the focus should be on his qualifications. He has never been in the military, he has no diplomatic experience, he has less than one term as a Senator, he has never managed a business or had to turn a profit, he has no administrative experience in government, and he cannot point to any activity in his past that would qualify him to manage a cookie drive must less the country. So the primary reason to vote for Obama is that he is black. He is also given to demagogic speech laced with vague statements like “we will change the world”. He never explains how he intends to change the world, what he intends to change, or how he intends to change it. A few specifics in his rhetoric would help.
This brings us to former Senator John Edwards. To accept that John Edwards is a simple lawyer who has made a fortune defending the poor and downtrodden is to believe that the famous sailor Edward Teach – aka Blackbeard – made his fortune in shipping. There is nothing quite so satisfying as dipping into the pockets of large corporations while protecting the unfortunate and banking some very handsome fees. But here we have another leading candidate who has no experience outside of the courtroom. He has no diplomatic, administrative, or military background. He has been a Senator so he is as qualified as the other two leading candidates, which is to say, unqualified.
The Democratic Party has truly lost its way and should be renamed the “People’s Socialist Party” because they no longer believe in capitalism or a capitalist America. These are indeed harsh words but these candidates are the ones who are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan which is tantamount to surrendering to the very forces that have attacked America and American interests for more than 30 years. This is the party that has eliminated free speech through their dedication to multi—culturalism and political correctness. Conservative voices are routinely drowned out across college campuses through protests and intimidation reminiscent of the Nazi Brown Shirts and any challenge to the politically correct viewpoint on marriage, abortion, or evolution is not tolerated. This is the party that is dedicated to social engineering through government control and this has already been accomplished through legislation against smoking and efforts at gun control, trans-fats, and fat people. This new Democratic Party is pushing universal – and government controlled – healthcare, while denying they are in favor of socialism or that this is a socialist program.
The candidates for the Democratic Party are advocating change but are saying what changes they are advocating or how they intend to implement them. They should have nominated Joe Lieberman or Governor Richardson, but these men have nothing to recommend them except experience and electability.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Death of the Democratic Party
The strength of the United States was founded upon or certainly has been maintained by the two party system. True, there have been attempts to establish third parties, the Bull Moose Party and the Dixiecrats come to mind, but these have never been successful and the country has continued to be steered by first one party and then the other, but always by a Republican or Democrat. This situation has moved the country first left and then right and then back again. Certainly at various times both parties have been plagued with failures, corruption, and scandal just as each has been distinguished by courage, principles, and success. But the dignity, honor, and strength that has characterized both parties seems to be waning, but more so with the Democratic Party which seems to have become impotent as its members are driven further and further left.
The Democratic Party began moving left with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but this shift was really barely perceptible and typical of the way the parties had balanced each other because prior to the election of FDR the country had been very conservative and that conservatism – rightfully or wrongfully – was held accountable for the disastrous Great Depression. But the real inflection point came with the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice, an appointment made by the Republican President – Dwight Eisenhower. It was the Warren Court that started the judicial system down the pathway of judicial activism that continues to this day and it was the rulings of this court than began the dramatic shift to the left. Subsequent Republican Presidents have been able to slow this drift but they have not been able to stem the tide toward socialism and left wing activism.
The rule of the majority, the founding principle of the country, has been replaced through judicial activism by the rule of the minority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been stretched by first one judge and then another to include the “right to not be offended” The Freedom of Religion has been distorted to guarantee the right of all minorities to practice their religion (?) while slowly curtailing the right of the Christian majority to practice theirs. The right to not be offended is trampling the Freedom Speech except when that Freedom of Speech is immoral, obscene, anti-American, or anti-Christian. As bad as these things are they still fall within the realm of “correctible”. The real threat to the country comes from the waning power and influence of the Democratic Party and the growing strength of the “progressives” which is the code word for socialists which in turn is code for Marxists.
This dramatic shift to the extreme left began with the founding of Moveon.Org by George Soros, a Hungarian by birth and political activist who claims (with some justification) to have been instrumental in bringing down the communist party in Poland and the governments of Georgia and Czechoslovakia. He has now embarked on a campaign to bring down the government of the United States and to replace it with one more to his liking, which is one where he is the power behind the throne. Clearly he is seeking a role – on a global scale – of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin. In effect, Soros is using his vast wealth to fund various organizations that support various politicians, who if elected, will be beholden to and controlled by him. This bevy of politicians under the sway of Soros includes, Clinton, Roberts, Gore, and Obama. The election of anyone of these would give Soros the power he seeks and the ability to redirect the government and the foreign policy of the United States. As a naturalized citizen he cannot be President but as one of the richest men in the world, he clearly intends to be the shadow president.
The Democratic Party abandoned Joe Lieberman because he supported the foreign policy of the government, he viewed Islam as a great threat and the War on Terror as real. Now we see Moveon.Org attacking General Petraeus without any condemnation from the leading candidates, who either dodge the issue or soft pedal it but do not condemn it. Now we see the same organization plus many of the front organizations supported by Hillary Clinton (who is supported by Soros) attempting to shut down talk radio and censor Rush Limbaugh. This blatant attack on free speech is not condemned by Moveon.Org or any of the Presidential candidates, instead they are again either silent or softly supporting the Moveon.Org positions.
The real issue here is the absolute silence from the “official” Democratic Party. Howard Dean – the Chairman of the Democratic Party appears to have been transported to some distant planet because he has not uttered any word about anything in months. In fact the Democratic Party appears to have disappeared entirely and has been replaced by Moveon.Org. The policies of the left are not being formulated and articulated by the Democratic Party, they are being formulated by George Soros and articulated by his mouthpieces – Clinton, Roberts, and Obama. The real Democrats like Dodd, Biden, and even Kennedy are silent while the extremists like Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha spend all of their time attacking the current administration rather than trying to run the country. All of this is signals a decline in the power and influence of the national Democratic Party and this represents a threat to the entire country. Remember, Soros has the objective of overthrowing the government and he intends to install himself as the power behind the President. Unfortunately I think Obama, Roberts, and Clinton think they can control Soros, just like the German politicians thought they could control Hitler.
The Democratic Party began moving left with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but this shift was really barely perceptible and typical of the way the parties had balanced each other because prior to the election of FDR the country had been very conservative and that conservatism – rightfully or wrongfully – was held accountable for the disastrous Great Depression. But the real inflection point came with the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice, an appointment made by the Republican President – Dwight Eisenhower. It was the Warren Court that started the judicial system down the pathway of judicial activism that continues to this day and it was the rulings of this court than began the dramatic shift to the left. Subsequent Republican Presidents have been able to slow this drift but they have not been able to stem the tide toward socialism and left wing activism.
The rule of the majority, the founding principle of the country, has been replaced through judicial activism by the rule of the minority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been stretched by first one judge and then another to include the “right to not be offended” The Freedom of Religion has been distorted to guarantee the right of all minorities to practice their religion (?) while slowly curtailing the right of the Christian majority to practice theirs. The right to not be offended is trampling the Freedom Speech except when that Freedom of Speech is immoral, obscene, anti-American, or anti-Christian. As bad as these things are they still fall within the realm of “correctible”. The real threat to the country comes from the waning power and influence of the Democratic Party and the growing strength of the “progressives” which is the code word for socialists which in turn is code for Marxists.
This dramatic shift to the extreme left began with the founding of Moveon.Org by George Soros, a Hungarian by birth and political activist who claims (with some justification) to have been instrumental in bringing down the communist party in Poland and the governments of Georgia and Czechoslovakia. He has now embarked on a campaign to bring down the government of the United States and to replace it with one more to his liking, which is one where he is the power behind the throne. Clearly he is seeking a role – on a global scale – of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin. In effect, Soros is using his vast wealth to fund various organizations that support various politicians, who if elected, will be beholden to and controlled by him. This bevy of politicians under the sway of Soros includes, Clinton, Roberts, Gore, and Obama. The election of anyone of these would give Soros the power he seeks and the ability to redirect the government and the foreign policy of the United States. As a naturalized citizen he cannot be President but as one of the richest men in the world, he clearly intends to be the shadow president.
The Democratic Party abandoned Joe Lieberman because he supported the foreign policy of the government, he viewed Islam as a great threat and the War on Terror as real. Now we see Moveon.Org attacking General Petraeus without any condemnation from the leading candidates, who either dodge the issue or soft pedal it but do not condemn it. Now we see the same organization plus many of the front organizations supported by Hillary Clinton (who is supported by Soros) attempting to shut down talk radio and censor Rush Limbaugh. This blatant attack on free speech is not condemned by Moveon.Org or any of the Presidential candidates, instead they are again either silent or softly supporting the Moveon.Org positions.
The real issue here is the absolute silence from the “official” Democratic Party. Howard Dean – the Chairman of the Democratic Party appears to have been transported to some distant planet because he has not uttered any word about anything in months. In fact the Democratic Party appears to have disappeared entirely and has been replaced by Moveon.Org. The policies of the left are not being formulated and articulated by the Democratic Party, they are being formulated by George Soros and articulated by his mouthpieces – Clinton, Roberts, and Obama. The real Democrats like Dodd, Biden, and even Kennedy are silent while the extremists like Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha spend all of their time attacking the current administration rather than trying to run the country. All of this is signals a decline in the power and influence of the national Democratic Party and this represents a threat to the entire country. Remember, Soros has the objective of overthrowing the government and he intends to install himself as the power behind the President. Unfortunately I think Obama, Roberts, and Clinton think they can control Soros, just like the German politicians thought they could control Hitler.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Obama
It seems the party of white guilt has caught Obama Fever – apparently in the vain hope this is a remedy for the Bush Disorder Syndrome, which is characterized by irrational thinking and sometimes by hallucinations regarding facts. Dan Rather succumbed to BDS, so clearly the remainder of the Democratic Party is attempting to recover their sanity by pushing Obama – the fact that he has virtually no qualifications other than his race, seems to be lost in the rush for a cure to BDS.
From the time of his announcement that he was a candidate for President the media has showered him with fulsome praise to the point that one would think he was the second coming of Jesus, but then the radical left doesn’t believe in God much less Jesus, so Obama must be viewed as simply the hero of the hour. Of course hero here is a relative term because the Presidential wannabe has no military experience and is calling for a complete surrender to Al Qaeda, so his heroism seems to be restricted to waving the white flag. So what precisely makes Obama so popular with the left – other than his color and Muslim roots?
Well the media fawn over Obama because of his eloquence, but eloquence really only describes the quality of the delivery not the content, and Obama is certainly slick in his delivery. In his announcement speech Obama stated without hesitation that he firmly believes in “the basic decency of the American People”. Very heady and controversial stuff which certainly sets him apart from most of the Liberals who are rushing to prove how tolerant they are by supporting a black (semi) Muslim.. Unfortunately, while this controversial stand regarding the decency of the American people may distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates, it sort of places him right in the middle of the Republicans, who generally – and I’m not making this up—believe America and Americans are good and decent people.
But Senator Obama went on to condemn the “smallness” in our politics, but precisely what he meant by that isn’t clear. Perhaps this was his eloquent way of saying those people who believe in “small government” shouldn’t vote for me because I am firmly convinced that government should be big and the bigger the better. Of course, he may have meant that there is a certain “pettiness” in contemporary politics, which is certainly true but since most of his Liberal constituency is directly responsible for all of the sniping and mud slinging, he prudently left this a little vague. Courage requires honesty, nevertheless Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
Continuing in his forthright and controversial vein, he took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary! But he didn’t stop there, no-siree bob – he underscored his courageous stand by continuing with "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement." Naturally this was a stunning statement that truly impressed the media who are hungry for any controversial morsel, but those of us who are harder to impress were also stunned by Obama’s courageous stand in favor of hope. What stunned the less gullible was what is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president and many do. Dennis Kucinich is perpetually running for president as is Ralph Nader. Even John Kerry ran for president and Al Gore aka the Goreacle actually got elected Vice President, proving that anyone can be elected. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters, who were mostly the reporters. However, to be fair one or two of these reporters actually attended Mitt Romney’s announcement, but they were more interested in seeing a live Mormon and interviewing his wives, who unfortunately turned out be just one wife. But Mormonism lacks the cachet that the controversial Barrack Hussein Obama brings with his Muslim roots, his blackness, and his penchant for saying penetrating and moving statements as he endorses the American People and takes a firm stand in favor of decency. He electrifies the crowd of adoring reporters and other Democratic loyalists by telling us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president and if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, to prove that he is really a serious candidate and in an effort to turn his inexperience into an asset, he went on to say: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The reporters all swooned at this so they missed the great tagline delivered by Jesse Jackson “What did he say?”
From the time of his announcement that he was a candidate for President the media has showered him with fulsome praise to the point that one would think he was the second coming of Jesus, but then the radical left doesn’t believe in God much less Jesus, so Obama must be viewed as simply the hero of the hour. Of course hero here is a relative term because the Presidential wannabe has no military experience and is calling for a complete surrender to Al Qaeda, so his heroism seems to be restricted to waving the white flag. So what precisely makes Obama so popular with the left – other than his color and Muslim roots?
Well the media fawn over Obama because of his eloquence, but eloquence really only describes the quality of the delivery not the content, and Obama is certainly slick in his delivery. In his announcement speech Obama stated without hesitation that he firmly believes in “the basic decency of the American People”. Very heady and controversial stuff which certainly sets him apart from most of the Liberals who are rushing to prove how tolerant they are by supporting a black (semi) Muslim.. Unfortunately, while this controversial stand regarding the decency of the American people may distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates, it sort of places him right in the middle of the Republicans, who generally – and I’m not making this up—believe America and Americans are good and decent people.
But Senator Obama went on to condemn the “smallness” in our politics, but precisely what he meant by that isn’t clear. Perhaps this was his eloquent way of saying those people who believe in “small government” shouldn’t vote for me because I am firmly convinced that government should be big and the bigger the better. Of course, he may have meant that there is a certain “pettiness” in contemporary politics, which is certainly true but since most of his Liberal constituency is directly responsible for all of the sniping and mud slinging, he prudently left this a little vague. Courage requires honesty, nevertheless Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
Continuing in his forthright and controversial vein, he took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary! But he didn’t stop there, no-siree bob – he underscored his courageous stand by continuing with "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement." Naturally this was a stunning statement that truly impressed the media who are hungry for any controversial morsel, but those of us who are harder to impress were also stunned by Obama’s courageous stand in favor of hope. What stunned the less gullible was what is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president and many do. Dennis Kucinich is perpetually running for president as is Ralph Nader. Even John Kerry ran for president and Al Gore aka the Goreacle actually got elected Vice President, proving that anyone can be elected. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters, who were mostly the reporters. However, to be fair one or two of these reporters actually attended Mitt Romney’s announcement, but they were more interested in seeing a live Mormon and interviewing his wives, who unfortunately turned out be just one wife. But Mormonism lacks the cachet that the controversial Barrack Hussein Obama brings with his Muslim roots, his blackness, and his penchant for saying penetrating and moving statements as he endorses the American People and takes a firm stand in favor of decency. He electrifies the crowd of adoring reporters and other Democratic loyalists by telling us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president and if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, to prove that he is really a serious candidate and in an effort to turn his inexperience into an asset, he went on to say: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The reporters all swooned at this so they missed the great tagline delivered by Jesse Jackson “What did he say?”
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Liberalism in Review
It seems self evident that Liberalism – as distinguished from what remains of the Democratic Party – is actually a belief system rather than any coherent political philosophy. Essentially Liberals believe that Capitalism is evil, that Marxism is good, appeasement of belligerents is the best foreign policy, and America is wrong. This Liberal belief system has been wrong throughout the 20th Century and its fallacious reasoning continues even today, if you doubt these statements let us review some statements and positions taken by well known Liberals.
Robert Heilbroner, the author of “The Worldly Philosophers” made this statement following the collapse of the Soviet Union; “the collapse if the Soviet system, hailed as a victory for human freedom, was also a defeat for human aspirations”. You wonder if the thousands of Ukrainians starved to death by the Communists or the thousands who died in Soviet Labor Camps lament this failure of Marxism to fulfill its Utopian promises. But liberals live in an Orwellian world where facts are ignored or re-interpreted to show that the Liberal position was correct. The New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, following the liberation of Czechoslovakia from the Communist yoke wrote; Freedom is not a panacea; and that communism failed does not make the Western alternative perfect, or even satisfying for millions who live under it”. Presumably it is satisfying enough for Mr. Wicker so that he continues suffering under the yoke of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and capitalism.
But these are just recent views expressed by the denizens of shallow end of the intellectual pool. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens pronounced – after a visit to the Soviet Union, “I have seen the future and it works”. This statement was made during the period of famine and mass murder conducted by the Communists, but then data gathering, analysis, and critical reasoning has never been a hallmark of Liberals, they rely on their fundamental belief in the sanctity of government, the evils of individuality, and the need for people like themselves to rule over everyone else.
However, even as rumors regarding the failures of Communism began to creep out, George Bernard Shaw, spent 10 days in Russia and stated on his return “Russia flaunts her roaring and multiplying factories, her efficient rulers, her atmosphere of such hope and security has never been seen by a civilized country on Earth”. This was a typical statement made by the Western Intellectuals who could never be brought to believe that Communism was a failure and the Soviets were murderers. That disbelief continues even today as Western academics and pseudo-intellectuals like Michael Moore continue to extol the glories of Marxism and the evils of capitalism.
Perhaps the best example of how the Liberal establishment ignores facts and relies on their faith in left wing causes and icons, is the Alger Hiss case in 1947. Hiss was another of the East Coast Patricians who had been educated at Johns Hopkins and Harvard University. He joined the State Department in 1936 and attended the Yalta Conference. He was a leading diplomat but he was also a Soviet Spy, accused by Whitaker Chambers. Chambers was a nobody, a flunky, a common civil servant who accused a darling of the left, Hiss, of being a traitor and part of the spy ring of which Chambers was part. Naturally the left wing media launched into a full scale attack on Chambers, accusing him of being a liar, a spy, and a homosexual. The possibility that Chambers was telling the truth was never even considered.
After a sensational trial that included papers hidden in a pumpkin, Hiss was convicted. However, even after his conviction the liberal press viewed him as a political martyr and not as a convicted spy. It was Chambers who was castigated by the press and it was not until 1995, after the fall of the Soviet Union that papers from the Russian Secret Police revealed that indeed Hiss was a spy. This failure of the liberal press to accept incontrovertible proof that one of their own is an enemy is a vivid example of how the liberal establishment is faith driven and functions independently of facts.
Harry Truman – a Democrat – and perhaps one of the greatest American Presidents had the temerity to view the military expansion of the Soviet Union following WW II as a threat and in response created NATO. As enduring and as important of a deterrent this has been, the “intellectual” elite in 1949 condemned the President as a war monger. These intellectuals included Aaron Copeland, Clifford Odets, Norman Mailer, Arthur Miller, et. al., who accused Truman of “warmongering against the Soviet Union” and that the Truman Administration was comprised of the “enemies of man” and that the Truman policies would lead inevitably into a third world war.
So several things can be drawn from these Liberal attacks on things and people whom they believe do not hold the politically correct views. First, Liberals are not necessarily Democrats and the true Liberal is essentially anti-America, anti-capitalist, and anti-nationalist. Secondly, Liberals cannot be persuaded what ever they believe in is false even when presented with proof. Thirdly, that any action taken to preserve the safety of America is intrinsically wrong because it could cause people to dislike us. And fourthly, socialism and Marxism are superior to any form of government based on capitalism and the Soviet Union’s failure is not significant.
Robert Heilbroner, the author of “The Worldly Philosophers” made this statement following the collapse of the Soviet Union; “the collapse if the Soviet system, hailed as a victory for human freedom, was also a defeat for human aspirations”. You wonder if the thousands of Ukrainians starved to death by the Communists or the thousands who died in Soviet Labor Camps lament this failure of Marxism to fulfill its Utopian promises. But liberals live in an Orwellian world where facts are ignored or re-interpreted to show that the Liberal position was correct. The New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, following the liberation of Czechoslovakia from the Communist yoke wrote; Freedom is not a panacea; and that communism failed does not make the Western alternative perfect, or even satisfying for millions who live under it”. Presumably it is satisfying enough for Mr. Wicker so that he continues suffering under the yoke of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and capitalism.
But these are just recent views expressed by the denizens of shallow end of the intellectual pool. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens pronounced – after a visit to the Soviet Union, “I have seen the future and it works”. This statement was made during the period of famine and mass murder conducted by the Communists, but then data gathering, analysis, and critical reasoning has never been a hallmark of Liberals, they rely on their fundamental belief in the sanctity of government, the evils of individuality, and the need for people like themselves to rule over everyone else.
However, even as rumors regarding the failures of Communism began to creep out, George Bernard Shaw, spent 10 days in Russia and stated on his return “Russia flaunts her roaring and multiplying factories, her efficient rulers, her atmosphere of such hope and security has never been seen by a civilized country on Earth”. This was a typical statement made by the Western Intellectuals who could never be brought to believe that Communism was a failure and the Soviets were murderers. That disbelief continues even today as Western academics and pseudo-intellectuals like Michael Moore continue to extol the glories of Marxism and the evils of capitalism.
Perhaps the best example of how the Liberal establishment ignores facts and relies on their faith in left wing causes and icons, is the Alger Hiss case in 1947. Hiss was another of the East Coast Patricians who had been educated at Johns Hopkins and Harvard University. He joined the State Department in 1936 and attended the Yalta Conference. He was a leading diplomat but he was also a Soviet Spy, accused by Whitaker Chambers. Chambers was a nobody, a flunky, a common civil servant who accused a darling of the left, Hiss, of being a traitor and part of the spy ring of which Chambers was part. Naturally the left wing media launched into a full scale attack on Chambers, accusing him of being a liar, a spy, and a homosexual. The possibility that Chambers was telling the truth was never even considered.
After a sensational trial that included papers hidden in a pumpkin, Hiss was convicted. However, even after his conviction the liberal press viewed him as a political martyr and not as a convicted spy. It was Chambers who was castigated by the press and it was not until 1995, after the fall of the Soviet Union that papers from the Russian Secret Police revealed that indeed Hiss was a spy. This failure of the liberal press to accept incontrovertible proof that one of their own is an enemy is a vivid example of how the liberal establishment is faith driven and functions independently of facts.
Harry Truman – a Democrat – and perhaps one of the greatest American Presidents had the temerity to view the military expansion of the Soviet Union following WW II as a threat and in response created NATO. As enduring and as important of a deterrent this has been, the “intellectual” elite in 1949 condemned the President as a war monger. These intellectuals included Aaron Copeland, Clifford Odets, Norman Mailer, Arthur Miller, et. al., who accused Truman of “warmongering against the Soviet Union” and that the Truman Administration was comprised of the “enemies of man” and that the Truman policies would lead inevitably into a third world war.
So several things can be drawn from these Liberal attacks on things and people whom they believe do not hold the politically correct views. First, Liberals are not necessarily Democrats and the true Liberal is essentially anti-America, anti-capitalist, and anti-nationalist. Secondly, Liberals cannot be persuaded what ever they believe in is false even when presented with proof. Thirdly, that any action taken to preserve the safety of America is intrinsically wrong because it could cause people to dislike us. And fourthly, socialism and Marxism are superior to any form of government based on capitalism and the Soviet Union’s failure is not significant.
Monday, April 25, 2005
ODDER ENDS
Well as usual my PONTIFICATIONS did not fall on deaf ears -- quite the contrary they stirred some of my reading public (both of you) to hurl a few verbal grenades in my direction.
First -- There is the issue of Gay Marriage. I have been married for 42 years (even I can't believe that) and technically what I have is a civil union. I have a license to practice but this also offers my wife and me certain legal protections as well as a certain moral stature in the community. While it would have been nice to have been married and blessed by a religious authority it was not to be (different religions). I strongly believe that the government does not have the right to deny a license to anyone solely on the basis of sex. However, I believe every church or religious institution has the absolute right to offer or to deny the blessings of their particular religious institution. If the government wants to fiddle with the issue of marriage they should make divorce more difficult rather than focusing on the tangential issue of who has the legal right to "practice".
Well to once again to address the Tom Delay situation, I agree that "everyone else is doing it" never got me very far with my parents and certainly didn't work with my children. Also I don't subscribe to the "we're no worse than everyone else" defense. However, the timing of this issue regarding Delay is pure political witch hunting. If there is a real conflict of interest here then the Congressmen who are sniping should come forward, bare their breast, and say we are also guilty and now is the time to stop this practice altogether. He who is without sin should cast the first stone and I don't think that is happening. Personally I am sick and tired of the constant sniping back and forth without regard for the good of the country. I think there are a lot of important issues that need to be dealt with and ad hominem attacks are simply distractions from some very important issues.
And that brings me to judges -- from where I sit the entire issue is pure politics with the Democrats determined to obstruct President Bush at every opportunity. I never believed in filibusters from the time I learned what they were. I don't care who is doing it -- it is wrong. Having said that -- I believe in the Constitution and the rule of Law but what we are getting is a bunch of judges who are making laws without regard for the will of the people. Judges are appointed for life and while I understand the rationale for that I am finding increasingly that the judges are simply out of control and the separation of Church and State is a vivid example. The Constitution does not say that -- it simply forbids the government from making laws that restrict or abridge that right. My nephew is being taught about Islam, Hinduism, and other religions in school but not Christianity on the basis of the separation of Church and State. Obviously this does not apply to Temples, Mosques, WigWams, or Stonehenge. That is down right bizarre! To look at this from the other direction, using this rationale Congress could easily pass legislation eliminating the tax exempt status of these institutions because they are not "Churches". The issue of smoking is another one. While I am not a smoker suppose you substitute the word "Negro" or "Jew" for the word "smoker" and see how these laws read. This is an outright denial of the rights of a large number of people. The judiciary is out of control and needs to be curbed and the appointment of strict constructionist judges is a way (not necessarily a good way).
Bolton is simply another example of the Democratic obstructionist policies. The UN is a corrupt organization, dominated by tinpot dictatorships, radical Muslim States, and virulently anti-American. It has a track record of failure and ineffectualness and as far as I am concerned it should be dissolved or radically reorganized. Bolton -- good or bad -- is a bull dog who is quite capable of pushing the UN around. Certainly Colin Powell was incapable of pushing back on anyone and was a very weak SecState. I am not married to Bolton but I am a supporter of placing someone in the UN who won't take their guff and who will simply stop being their money machine. The accusations that he has bullied subordinates strikes close to home since I have been accused of that as well. When examined this usually means that the bully raised his voice and raked some incompetent subordinate over the coals for not meeting performance expectations. The subordinate usually has been tainted by feminist claptrap or an educational system that assured them that whatever they chose to do was A-OK because their "self-esteem" was at stake. This is pure unadulterated hogwash and I'm sure Bolton simply won't tolerate these hypersenstive idiots -- I certainly haven't and won't.
This brings me to Foreign Aid. The media and Congress are railing about the deficit but I don't hear one voice raised about cutting off foreign aid to Palestine, Israel, Africa, AIDs research, or Asia -- instead we are talking about cutting domestic spending and raising taxes. This is tantamount to not feeding your family so you can give to charity hoping they will give something back or at least be your friend. The same is true with the media calls for an exit strategy from Iraq but not a word raised demanding an exit strategy from Germany, Japan, or Korea and we have had troops there for 60 years. Personally I think we should immediately withdraw from these countries but staying there is a form of foreign aid because an abrupt departure would throw them (Germany especially) into an economic tailspin.
Visualize me shaking my fist at the sky!!!
First -- There is the issue of Gay Marriage. I have been married for 42 years (even I can't believe that) and technically what I have is a civil union. I have a license to practice but this also offers my wife and me certain legal protections as well as a certain moral stature in the community. While it would have been nice to have been married and blessed by a religious authority it was not to be (different religions). I strongly believe that the government does not have the right to deny a license to anyone solely on the basis of sex. However, I believe every church or religious institution has the absolute right to offer or to deny the blessings of their particular religious institution. If the government wants to fiddle with the issue of marriage they should make divorce more difficult rather than focusing on the tangential issue of who has the legal right to "practice".
Well to once again to address the Tom Delay situation, I agree that "everyone else is doing it" never got me very far with my parents and certainly didn't work with my children. Also I don't subscribe to the "we're no worse than everyone else" defense. However, the timing of this issue regarding Delay is pure political witch hunting. If there is a real conflict of interest here then the Congressmen who are sniping should come forward, bare their breast, and say we are also guilty and now is the time to stop this practice altogether. He who is without sin should cast the first stone and I don't think that is happening. Personally I am sick and tired of the constant sniping back and forth without regard for the good of the country. I think there are a lot of important issues that need to be dealt with and ad hominem attacks are simply distractions from some very important issues.
And that brings me to judges -- from where I sit the entire issue is pure politics with the Democrats determined to obstruct President Bush at every opportunity. I never believed in filibusters from the time I learned what they were. I don't care who is doing it -- it is wrong. Having said that -- I believe in the Constitution and the rule of Law but what we are getting is a bunch of judges who are making laws without regard for the will of the people. Judges are appointed for life and while I understand the rationale for that I am finding increasingly that the judges are simply out of control and the separation of Church and State is a vivid example. The Constitution does not say that -- it simply forbids the government from making laws that restrict or abridge that right. My nephew is being taught about Islam, Hinduism, and other religions in school but not Christianity on the basis of the separation of Church and State. Obviously this does not apply to Temples, Mosques, WigWams, or Stonehenge. That is down right bizarre! To look at this from the other direction, using this rationale Congress could easily pass legislation eliminating the tax exempt status of these institutions because they are not "Churches". The issue of smoking is another one. While I am not a smoker suppose you substitute the word "Negro" or "Jew" for the word "smoker" and see how these laws read. This is an outright denial of the rights of a large number of people. The judiciary is out of control and needs to be curbed and the appointment of strict constructionist judges is a way (not necessarily a good way).
Bolton is simply another example of the Democratic obstructionist policies. The UN is a corrupt organization, dominated by tinpot dictatorships, radical Muslim States, and virulently anti-American. It has a track record of failure and ineffectualness and as far as I am concerned it should be dissolved or radically reorganized. Bolton -- good or bad -- is a bull dog who is quite capable of pushing the UN around. Certainly Colin Powell was incapable of pushing back on anyone and was a very weak SecState. I am not married to Bolton but I am a supporter of placing someone in the UN who won't take their guff and who will simply stop being their money machine. The accusations that he has bullied subordinates strikes close to home since I have been accused of that as well. When examined this usually means that the bully raised his voice and raked some incompetent subordinate over the coals for not meeting performance expectations. The subordinate usually has been tainted by feminist claptrap or an educational system that assured them that whatever they chose to do was A-OK because their "self-esteem" was at stake. This is pure unadulterated hogwash and I'm sure Bolton simply won't tolerate these hypersenstive idiots -- I certainly haven't and won't.
This brings me to Foreign Aid. The media and Congress are railing about the deficit but I don't hear one voice raised about cutting off foreign aid to Palestine, Israel, Africa, AIDs research, or Asia -- instead we are talking about cutting domestic spending and raising taxes. This is tantamount to not feeding your family so you can give to charity hoping they will give something back or at least be your friend. The same is true with the media calls for an exit strategy from Iraq but not a word raised demanding an exit strategy from Germany, Japan, or Korea and we have had troops there for 60 years. Personally I think we should immediately withdraw from these countries but staying there is a form of foreign aid because an abrupt departure would throw them (Germany especially) into an economic tailspin.
Visualize me shaking my fist at the sky!!!
Friday, March 11, 2005
Rather-Less
So the media is falling all over itself bidding Dan Rather a fond farewell and remembering all of his contributions to journalism. Pardon me if I don't join in this effusive praise-fest. I am old enough to remember how the media acted during the Viet Nam War. Maybe I am over sensitive to the one-sided reporting and the distortions that passed for news. This doesn't excuse the disgraceful conduct of the administration, but it is worth remembering that it was Jack Kennedy that got us into that mess, that it was Harry Truman who formulated the concept of a “limited war”, and that it was Lyndon Johnson who mismanaged the conflict. During this entire period Cronkite, Rather, Jennings, and the rest of the media spun the news as negatively as possible and eventually laying the blame at the doorstep of Nixon -- who was evil personified. After all they couldn't pin responsibility on a democrat or do anything to tarnish the image of the deified Jack Kennedy. The entire concept of a “limited war” is ludicrous just as establishing “world peace” is a goal that is equivalent to solving “world hunger”. The media – especially the liberal media (is that a redundancy?) devote a great deal of energy demonstrating how evil capitalism is, how wrong big business is, and that Americans simply don't understand our rightful place is to stand hat in hand while the international community picks our pockets. All of this spin started with Viet Nam when the media decided they got better ratings attacking the military and the country rather than defending it.
Once they got away with that, they came to realize that there was no one there to oppose them and that they could report the news in such a way they could influence events and public opinion. From that point the news became less and less reliable and the various pundits gradually turned the networks into propaganda machines. I stopped watching CBS following Dan Rather’s attack on George H W Bush who was Vice President of the United States. He was appallingly disrespectful and Bush made mincemeat out of him because Bush new what Rather had in mind and insisted on the interview being live. That prevented Rather from spinning the interview and Bush came off looking like a gentleman and Rather came off looking like a democratic attack dog – which as it turns out – he was! I never watched CBS again and eventually stopped watching all of the networks because of their very obvious liberal bias. So goodbye Dan Rather – and hopefully you will have the grace to shut up unlike your colleague Walter Cronkite.
And this brings me to the United Nations. Talk about a totally worthless organization – this is an organization that has not successfully accomplished anything. It is dominated by Thugocracies and staffed by incredibly corrupt politicians but since most of these “diplomats” are relatives of the Thugs why does it surprise anyone that they are corrupt? That is the way they operate in their countries so their place in the UN simply gives them access to more opportunities to steal and as it turns out – rape as well. Of course all of this is done using American money while spending most of their time attacking the United States. Kofi Annan is only the tip of the iceberg and the appointment of Bolton as the new Ambassador to the UN should send a message to the UN that they had better get their act together because Bush won’t tolerate business as usual and Bolton has already stated that the UN is useless.
Has anyone noticed that perhaps President Bush is right and that his speeches and actions are having an impact worldwide? Even the Europeans are reluctantly beginning to tone down their criticisms. They haven’t reached the point of actually acknowledging that his foreign policy is working but it is hard to ignore the facts. There are demonstrations in Kuwait demanding more freedom and suffrage for women, demonstrations for free elections in Lebanon, free elections scheduled in Egypt with actual opponents, elections – albeit small ones – in Saudi Arabia. He has forced North Korean into the background and off of the front pages and delivered a message that they are a problem in the far east and that the Asian countries must deal with them not the US. He has successfully conducted free elections in Iraq and it is clear that situation is slowly coming under control. So with what appears to be vindication on the international stage, the media is turning to domestic policy and attempting to roast Bush on that.
Well he is certainly more vulnerable on the domestic side, but then there are a lot of things that never seem to get reported. For example – why is social security in trouble? Millions of Americans have been paying into it for a lot of years. So what happened to the money that was placed in that trust fund? Well if you or I had handled a trust fund placed in our care like the Congress handled the trust fund put in their care, we would be in jail. The Congress simply spent the money. In effect they took the money and left IOU’s so now all of the money is gone and all that is left is – well zip – nothing is left but IOU’s and a lot of hand wringing. The time has come to pay the piper and the Congress is split – with the Democrats – who merrily spent most of the money saying there isn’t a problem. They are especially opposed to “privatization”, which has never actually been described so no one really knows what that means. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the result will be less money for Congress to spend. Worse, if the people are allowed to keep part of their money in private investments, no only does Congress not get the money upfront, they can't get their hands on it after death because those funds become part of the person’s estate. Currently, many people die before being able to file for benefits and ALL of their money stays in the trust fund and thus is money that Congress can spend elsewhere.
So where does Congress spend all of this money? There is constant whining and complaining about not enough money for education, for roads, for health, etc. Hmmm – it seems to me Congress just sent a billion to Asia for Tsunami aid. Let me see, exactly how much money did those countries send to the US when Florida got leveled by Hurricanes? What about the millions in aid that has gone to Palestine? Aren’t they the ones who are murdering innocent people in Israel? How about the millions that are going into aid to Africa to fight AIDS? In fact how about the millions going to fight AIDs in general. Isn’t AID’s the result of poor decision making? My point is that Congress has pillaged Social Security and the Treasury to send money overseas to support causes and governments that do nothing for the US, while denying money and support to situations in the US that desperately need attention. President Bush is being attacked for his spending policies but no one seems to care -- the media in particular -- that the President can't spend ten cents -- Congress controls the purse strings and all the President can do is recommend what he thinks needs to be funded, but it is Congress that has the final say so if the President's deficit spending plans are bad -- all Congress has to do is not fund them.
Where is the media on these issues? Has anyone ever heard any person in the media call for an end of support for foreign aid or support for the UN? There is a constant hue and cry about the budget but the congressional response is more taxes not less spending -- and they control both -- so why don't they just cut back and tell the President to stuff it? Has anyone heard any of the politicians call for an end to the rape of the “trust fund” called Social Security? I didn't think so. The new mantra is we need a “usage tax”, which is another name for a national sales tax. Of course it is being touted as a replacement for the federal income tax, but the income tax would be phased out while the sales tax would be immediate. Of course the track record of Congress is that once a tax is in place it never goes away so we can look forward to the income tax AND a sales tax. We need tax reform but we need Congressional reform more.
Once they got away with that, they came to realize that there was no one there to oppose them and that they could report the news in such a way they could influence events and public opinion. From that point the news became less and less reliable and the various pundits gradually turned the networks into propaganda machines. I stopped watching CBS following Dan Rather’s attack on George H W Bush who was Vice President of the United States. He was appallingly disrespectful and Bush made mincemeat out of him because Bush new what Rather had in mind and insisted on the interview being live. That prevented Rather from spinning the interview and Bush came off looking like a gentleman and Rather came off looking like a democratic attack dog – which as it turns out – he was! I never watched CBS again and eventually stopped watching all of the networks because of their very obvious liberal bias. So goodbye Dan Rather – and hopefully you will have the grace to shut up unlike your colleague Walter Cronkite.
And this brings me to the United Nations. Talk about a totally worthless organization – this is an organization that has not successfully accomplished anything. It is dominated by Thugocracies and staffed by incredibly corrupt politicians but since most of these “diplomats” are relatives of the Thugs why does it surprise anyone that they are corrupt? That is the way they operate in their countries so their place in the UN simply gives them access to more opportunities to steal and as it turns out – rape as well. Of course all of this is done using American money while spending most of their time attacking the United States. Kofi Annan is only the tip of the iceberg and the appointment of Bolton as the new Ambassador to the UN should send a message to the UN that they had better get their act together because Bush won’t tolerate business as usual and Bolton has already stated that the UN is useless.
Has anyone noticed that perhaps President Bush is right and that his speeches and actions are having an impact worldwide? Even the Europeans are reluctantly beginning to tone down their criticisms. They haven’t reached the point of actually acknowledging that his foreign policy is working but it is hard to ignore the facts. There are demonstrations in Kuwait demanding more freedom and suffrage for women, demonstrations for free elections in Lebanon, free elections scheduled in Egypt with actual opponents, elections – albeit small ones – in Saudi Arabia. He has forced North Korean into the background and off of the front pages and delivered a message that they are a problem in the far east and that the Asian countries must deal with them not the US. He has successfully conducted free elections in Iraq and it is clear that situation is slowly coming under control. So with what appears to be vindication on the international stage, the media is turning to domestic policy and attempting to roast Bush on that.
Well he is certainly more vulnerable on the domestic side, but then there are a lot of things that never seem to get reported. For example – why is social security in trouble? Millions of Americans have been paying into it for a lot of years. So what happened to the money that was placed in that trust fund? Well if you or I had handled a trust fund placed in our care like the Congress handled the trust fund put in their care, we would be in jail. The Congress simply spent the money. In effect they took the money and left IOU’s so now all of the money is gone and all that is left is – well zip – nothing is left but IOU’s and a lot of hand wringing. The time has come to pay the piper and the Congress is split – with the Democrats – who merrily spent most of the money saying there isn’t a problem. They are especially opposed to “privatization”, which has never actually been described so no one really knows what that means. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the result will be less money for Congress to spend. Worse, if the people are allowed to keep part of their money in private investments, no only does Congress not get the money upfront, they can't get their hands on it after death because those funds become part of the person’s estate. Currently, many people die before being able to file for benefits and ALL of their money stays in the trust fund and thus is money that Congress can spend elsewhere.
So where does Congress spend all of this money? There is constant whining and complaining about not enough money for education, for roads, for health, etc. Hmmm – it seems to me Congress just sent a billion to Asia for Tsunami aid. Let me see, exactly how much money did those countries send to the US when Florida got leveled by Hurricanes? What about the millions in aid that has gone to Palestine? Aren’t they the ones who are murdering innocent people in Israel? How about the millions that are going into aid to Africa to fight AIDS? In fact how about the millions going to fight AIDs in general. Isn’t AID’s the result of poor decision making? My point is that Congress has pillaged Social Security and the Treasury to send money overseas to support causes and governments that do nothing for the US, while denying money and support to situations in the US that desperately need attention. President Bush is being attacked for his spending policies but no one seems to care -- the media in particular -- that the President can't spend ten cents -- Congress controls the purse strings and all the President can do is recommend what he thinks needs to be funded, but it is Congress that has the final say so if the President's deficit spending plans are bad -- all Congress has to do is not fund them.
Where is the media on these issues? Has anyone ever heard any person in the media call for an end of support for foreign aid or support for the UN? There is a constant hue and cry about the budget but the congressional response is more taxes not less spending -- and they control both -- so why don't they just cut back and tell the President to stuff it? Has anyone heard any of the politicians call for an end to the rape of the “trust fund” called Social Security? I didn't think so. The new mantra is we need a “usage tax”, which is another name for a national sales tax. Of course it is being touted as a replacement for the federal income tax, but the income tax would be phased out while the sales tax would be immediate. Of course the track record of Congress is that once a tax is in place it never goes away so we can look forward to the income tax AND a sales tax. We need tax reform but we need Congressional reform more.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Response to the Denizens of California
I thought that with the election over, the liberal contingent of the Democratic Party would stop their bashing of the President and come to grips with the reality that they are in the minority. That their negativism did not resonate with the majority of Americans but apparently I was wrong because this is a missive I received in my mail responding to comments that I made regarding the lies spread by Soros, Moore, Kerry, and the Hollywood crowd.
Also notice in the above response, that it is filled with beliefs, assumptions, and suppositions stated as revealed truths. Bush is being manipulated by Robertson, Falwell, and Jones – and how does anyone know this? The fact that Bush is a real Christian instead of a “convenient Christian” like many of his predecessors makes him a pawn of the religious right? I don’t think so. The fact is that the liberals are totally out of touch with the rest of the country. They are so smug in their belief that they are the intellectual superiors of the yahoos inhabiting the flyover country that they can’t let go but continue their whinny strident unfounded accusations. They continue to see President Bush as some dumb ignoramus from Texas. They really should look in the mirror and realize that dumb ignoramus from Texas made fools out of them so perhaps he is actually smarter than they are.
you are just like the boat people they lie and then get mad when somebodyPlease note that nothing has changed since the election, the rhetoric continues to be based on things unsaid, unsupported, but stated as facts. The fact is that Dan Rather, George Soros, Michael Moore, and the rest of the extreme left lied, they made up things and attributed them to the President or the Republican Party. The fact that these were later demonstrated to be lies is totally ignored – just as it is in this response. The fact is that President Bush made all of his military records available – Kerry did not. The President stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but was accused of lying about this. The 911 Report (which I have read) makes it very clear that the previous administration plus virtually everyone else in the world believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But President Bush is accused of lying, not making a mistake, not in repeating poor information, but flat lying meaning that he knew the truth but elected to state something different. Since that has been demonstrated to not be case, he didn’t lie but then his accusers are lying since they too know the truth but elect to ignore it in favor of a more convenient belief.
proves them wrong and wrong with their own words. You slam California but
at least they don't let people like Robertson and Bob Jones tell them what to
do. They elected Arnold and now they are finding out he is just like the
rest they lie and take your money and pass the bills off to the next generation
just like Bush. I don't have a problem with being a Christian nation I
probably go to church more than you do, but think for yourself and do not let
other people lead you, and Bush is leading us down a path I think this country
doesn't need to go down. The religious right is trying to force their religion
on everybody especially abortion when the majority of the people in this country
is for the women’s right to choose ( I personally don't like abortion but do
support the right to choose) Pat Robertson and Falwell and Jones and the like
are pushing Bush to appoint judges that will repeal roe v wade, and I’m sorry I
don't think that is right, you are right I think this country is going overboard
with religion out of government but the gang of religious leaders want
everything over turned and I don't support that either.
Also notice in the above response, that it is filled with beliefs, assumptions, and suppositions stated as revealed truths. Bush is being manipulated by Robertson, Falwell, and Jones – and how does anyone know this? The fact that Bush is a real Christian instead of a “convenient Christian” like many of his predecessors makes him a pawn of the religious right? I don’t think so. The fact is that the liberals are totally out of touch with the rest of the country. They are so smug in their belief that they are the intellectual superiors of the yahoos inhabiting the flyover country that they can’t let go but continue their whinny strident unfounded accusations. They continue to see President Bush as some dumb ignoramus from Texas. They really should look in the mirror and realize that dumb ignoramus from Texas made fools out of them so perhaps he is actually smarter than they are.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Democrats Vs Liberals
I continue to watch in amazement as the Liberals – aided and abetted by the media -- eviscerate the Democratic Party. Senator Lieberman – always the gentleman—has stated that these extreme left wing liberals do not speak for the mainstream Democratic Party, but the media is focusing on them and the real Democratic message is getting lost in the process. President Clinton has been a little more direct and has pointed out that the liberal rhetoric should be toned down because they are insulting the very people they need to win over if they are to regain the Congress and the Presidency.
Personally I am conflicted on this issue because I truly believe that the country is better off with a strong two party system and the declining influence of the Democratic Party is not good for the country as a whole. However, I am elated that the liberals and their media running dogs continue their hysterical and insulting behavior. These people are not only suffering from a terminal superiority complex they are totally convinced the average American is not only too stupid to vote, they are too stupid to grasp the natural superiority of the liberal establishment and must be clubbed into understanding what’s best for them through insults.
The resentment of the average American toward these liberals is deepening with each insulting article or sneering reference to their stupid belief in morality and God, when every clear thinking person knows that there is no God. Every anti-American remark, every sneering reference to Christians, and every reference to the stupidity of middle America is another vote for the Republican Party, but these superior intellects seem unable to grasp that simple exercise in logic. Perhaps it’s because they never learned good manners or to respect anyone but themselves. The Democratic establishment, in the form of Senator Lieberman, President Clinton, and other responsible politicians recognize the threat that these extremists pose, but seem unable to get their message across. If this doesn’t change over the next months it is highly probable that the Republicans will gain an absolute majority in the next elections.
There is a wild card in this scenario and that is President Bush and his agenda for this term. It seems clear that he intends to run an action oriented administration with the expectation that Congress will back him up. This means that he will be even more aggressive toward terrorists and rogue regimes. Translated this means that he may call Iran and North Korea to task and if they fail to curtail their aggression he probably won’t take military action but he certainly will employ some level of coercion. The probability is that he will be much more aggressive toward Syria and essentially inform them that either they butt out of terrorism or the US will actively work to put a new and more friendly regime in place. The PLO will be high on the agenda and the various warring factions will either disarm and work toward accommodation with Israel or the US will cut off aid and sit on the sidelines while they kill each other. What ever course of action the President takes it is sure to inflame the Europeans – especially the French—who will continue to support the PLO simply because they hate the Jews and the US.
All of these things – plus the judicial appointments – are sure to drive the liberals into a frothing frenzy. The attacks on the President will continue unabated and probably become even uglier but the advantage of his lame-duck status is that he can (and surely will) simply thumb his nose at them – making them even wilder and more frenzied. Of course being blinded by their belief in their superior intelligence the liberals will never detect how these attacks are being perceived by the typical American, who sees these loud mouthed liberals as Un-American bomb throwing crazies who have no concept of reality, morality, or good manners. The reaction will be to move increasingly to the Republican agenda and once that happens the President will be in a position to move the judiciary back to the right. This is sorely needed but when it happens the liberals will be even more convinced of their superiority and the stupidity of the typical American.
However, this is a wild card because if the President is too aggressive or moves too far to the right he may not be able to carry the left-of-center votes that he needs to gain total control of the Congress.
The real question is can the Democrats regain control of their party? At this juncture it doesn't look very promising because the media itself is extremely liberal and prefers the inflammatory rhetoric of Michael Moore to the reasoned analyses of Democratic mainstream. It is quite possible that the Democratic Party could split along the lines of liberals (media, Hollywood, Academia, ACLU) and Democrats (unions, party apparatus, and real people). Sort of neo-Dixiecrats. Keep on truckin' Michael Moore -- you're the best vote getter the Republicans have.
Personally I am conflicted on this issue because I truly believe that the country is better off with a strong two party system and the declining influence of the Democratic Party is not good for the country as a whole. However, I am elated that the liberals and their media running dogs continue their hysterical and insulting behavior. These people are not only suffering from a terminal superiority complex they are totally convinced the average American is not only too stupid to vote, they are too stupid to grasp the natural superiority of the liberal establishment and must be clubbed into understanding what’s best for them through insults.
The resentment of the average American toward these liberals is deepening with each insulting article or sneering reference to their stupid belief in morality and God, when every clear thinking person knows that there is no God. Every anti-American remark, every sneering reference to Christians, and every reference to the stupidity of middle America is another vote for the Republican Party, but these superior intellects seem unable to grasp that simple exercise in logic. Perhaps it’s because they never learned good manners or to respect anyone but themselves. The Democratic establishment, in the form of Senator Lieberman, President Clinton, and other responsible politicians recognize the threat that these extremists pose, but seem unable to get their message across. If this doesn’t change over the next months it is highly probable that the Republicans will gain an absolute majority in the next elections.
There is a wild card in this scenario and that is President Bush and his agenda for this term. It seems clear that he intends to run an action oriented administration with the expectation that Congress will back him up. This means that he will be even more aggressive toward terrorists and rogue regimes. Translated this means that he may call Iran and North Korea to task and if they fail to curtail their aggression he probably won’t take military action but he certainly will employ some level of coercion. The probability is that he will be much more aggressive toward Syria and essentially inform them that either they butt out of terrorism or the US will actively work to put a new and more friendly regime in place. The PLO will be high on the agenda and the various warring factions will either disarm and work toward accommodation with Israel or the US will cut off aid and sit on the sidelines while they kill each other. What ever course of action the President takes it is sure to inflame the Europeans – especially the French—who will continue to support the PLO simply because they hate the Jews and the US.
All of these things – plus the judicial appointments – are sure to drive the liberals into a frothing frenzy. The attacks on the President will continue unabated and probably become even uglier but the advantage of his lame-duck status is that he can (and surely will) simply thumb his nose at them – making them even wilder and more frenzied. Of course being blinded by their belief in their superior intelligence the liberals will never detect how these attacks are being perceived by the typical American, who sees these loud mouthed liberals as Un-American bomb throwing crazies who have no concept of reality, morality, or good manners. The reaction will be to move increasingly to the Republican agenda and once that happens the President will be in a position to move the judiciary back to the right. This is sorely needed but when it happens the liberals will be even more convinced of their superiority and the stupidity of the typical American.
However, this is a wild card because if the President is too aggressive or moves too far to the right he may not be able to carry the left-of-center votes that he needs to gain total control of the Congress.
The real question is can the Democrats regain control of their party? At this juncture it doesn't look very promising because the media itself is extremely liberal and prefers the inflammatory rhetoric of Michael Moore to the reasoned analyses of Democratic mainstream. It is quite possible that the Democratic Party could split along the lines of liberals (media, Hollywood, Academia, ACLU) and Democrats (unions, party apparatus, and real people). Sort of neo-Dixiecrats. Keep on truckin' Michael Moore -- you're the best vote getter the Republicans have.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
The Erosion of American Education
More and more I despair over the continuing decline of what purports to be our educational system. In fact the term “education” is increasingly a misnomer as the professors use their podiums, not to educate, but to indoctrinate the students in their liberal points of view. This is an example of a “discussion” that was held in a college classroom.
the conversation in the class was revolving the relationship between black drug addicts, crime, and the supposedly deplorable state of taxpayer-funded rehab programs. The general sentiment was that the “only” reason crime occurs is because individuals are in some way involved in the drug trade. Either they are addicted to drugs and they have to steal in order to feed their addiction, or they produce or deal drugs. Apparently, adherents to this theory were also trying to convince my friend that this is why blacks are so disproportionately represented in the penal system. One person, a black woman, said that “the reason black people are ‘all’ on drugs is because the government does not provide good enough drug rehab programs!”
Please note the total lack of any idea or concept that the drug addicted individuals had any responsibility for becoming drug addicted. That this was a personal choice was never even considered. Also note that there was never even any discussion regarding the high dropout rate among blacks, their seeming inability to speak proper English, and how these are related to their high unemployment rate. There is no attempt to make any correlation to these statistics. Then we have the assumption that it is the GOVERNMENTS fault that so many blacks are drug addicted prisoners because they failed to provide enough drug rehabilitation programs. Note that there is no attempt to demonstrate the success rate of the existing programs nor is there any attempt to correlate education with crime and drugs. This is a vivid example of how the liberal community focuses on victim-hood while ignoring personal responsibility. Liberals always seem to focus on groups rather than individuals.
But this goes on and then we see the Professor moving onto personal attacks:
The instructor apparently knew that my friend was a Republican and he started jabbing at her about how the only reason she went there (to a Republican sponsored election party) was so that she could hob-knob with some rich folks. He said to her, in front of the class, that people “like her” are republicans simply because they want to be associated with elites that have cash. “Because Republicans are all the rich folks and people that associate with them just want to get close to them so they can benefit from their wealth in some way
The fact that this is hate speech or stereotypical speech is obviously overlooked because it is attacking conservatives who clearly need to be attacked. However, what no one seems to notice or to mention is that the war-chest assembled by Senator Kerry came from some very wealthy folks – like Michael Moore, George Soros, and a host of others. No mention is made that Senator Kerry is a zillionaire, Senator Kennedy is a zillionaire, and most of the prominent people who supported Kerry were very rich. Admittedly many Republicans are wealthy but not all and certainly this criticism is not only unwarranted it would never be tolerated had it been leveled against Democrats or the liberal establishment.
Now I’m sure that many of my academic friends will insist that this discussion was intended not as a partisan attack but as an attempt to have an open discussion. To this argument I can only respond with “HOGWASH”. I have been associated with the academic community and have had three children go through what is purported to be a university education and based on my personal experience I can assure you that this was not an attempt at an intellectual discussion but just what it appears to be – an indoctrination based on some (unspoken) assumed truths.
It was recently reported in the news paper that a student was protesting a failing grade because the professor assigned the class to write a paper on why President Bush was a bad president. The student wrote a paper essentially pointing out the positive side of the President’s actions. The student was failed, protested the grade, and the professor was upheld by the university because the student didn’t do the assignment, which was to point out how bad President Bush was. The fact that the assignment may have been intellectually shallow or biased was never even considered. THIS is how our university system is being run today, not as an educational forum but as a propaganda and indoctrination mill.
As a manager I refused to hire any Harvard, Princeton, Berkley, or University of Michigan graduate because I knew that they would have limited education and would be personally disruptive due to their generally anti-business attitudes. I think it is time for Universities to stop awarding PhD’s to students who have never worked at a profit driven company. I think that would go a long way to curtailing this groupthink.
the conversation in the class was revolving the relationship between black drug addicts, crime, and the supposedly deplorable state of taxpayer-funded rehab programs. The general sentiment was that the “only” reason crime occurs is because individuals are in some way involved in the drug trade. Either they are addicted to drugs and they have to steal in order to feed their addiction, or they produce or deal drugs. Apparently, adherents to this theory were also trying to convince my friend that this is why blacks are so disproportionately represented in the penal system. One person, a black woman, said that “the reason black people are ‘all’ on drugs is because the government does not provide good enough drug rehab programs!”
Please note the total lack of any idea or concept that the drug addicted individuals had any responsibility for becoming drug addicted. That this was a personal choice was never even considered. Also note that there was never even any discussion regarding the high dropout rate among blacks, their seeming inability to speak proper English, and how these are related to their high unemployment rate. There is no attempt to make any correlation to these statistics. Then we have the assumption that it is the GOVERNMENTS fault that so many blacks are drug addicted prisoners because they failed to provide enough drug rehabilitation programs. Note that there is no attempt to demonstrate the success rate of the existing programs nor is there any attempt to correlate education with crime and drugs. This is a vivid example of how the liberal community focuses on victim-hood while ignoring personal responsibility. Liberals always seem to focus on groups rather than individuals.
But this goes on and then we see the Professor moving onto personal attacks:
The instructor apparently knew that my friend was a Republican and he started jabbing at her about how the only reason she went there (to a Republican sponsored election party) was so that she could hob-knob with some rich folks. He said to her, in front of the class, that people “like her” are republicans simply because they want to be associated with elites that have cash. “Because Republicans are all the rich folks and people that associate with them just want to get close to them so they can benefit from their wealth in some way
The fact that this is hate speech or stereotypical speech is obviously overlooked because it is attacking conservatives who clearly need to be attacked. However, what no one seems to notice or to mention is that the war-chest assembled by Senator Kerry came from some very wealthy folks – like Michael Moore, George Soros, and a host of others. No mention is made that Senator Kerry is a zillionaire, Senator Kennedy is a zillionaire, and most of the prominent people who supported Kerry were very rich. Admittedly many Republicans are wealthy but not all and certainly this criticism is not only unwarranted it would never be tolerated had it been leveled against Democrats or the liberal establishment.
Now I’m sure that many of my academic friends will insist that this discussion was intended not as a partisan attack but as an attempt to have an open discussion. To this argument I can only respond with “HOGWASH”. I have been associated with the academic community and have had three children go through what is purported to be a university education and based on my personal experience I can assure you that this was not an attempt at an intellectual discussion but just what it appears to be – an indoctrination based on some (unspoken) assumed truths.
It was recently reported in the news paper that a student was protesting a failing grade because the professor assigned the class to write a paper on why President Bush was a bad president. The student wrote a paper essentially pointing out the positive side of the President’s actions. The student was failed, protested the grade, and the professor was upheld by the university because the student didn’t do the assignment, which was to point out how bad President Bush was. The fact that the assignment may have been intellectually shallow or biased was never even considered. THIS is how our university system is being run today, not as an educational forum but as a propaganda and indoctrination mill.
As a manager I refused to hire any Harvard, Princeton, Berkley, or University of Michigan graduate because I knew that they would have limited education and would be personally disruptive due to their generally anti-business attitudes. I think it is time for Universities to stop awarding PhD’s to students who have never worked at a profit driven company. I think that would go a long way to curtailing this groupthink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)