Is Fast & Furious.
Checking out this post at Powerline, I can only draw the conclusion that the documents Holder's hiding from Congress are explosive. It's not difficult to conceive that Holder's scrambling to keep documents away from public scrutiny that very likely tie Fast & Furious directly to himself and quite possible the President as well.
Looking at the basic facts of Fast & Furious, the only explanation that makes any sense at all is the one proposed by some on the Right. That Fast & Furious was an Obama Administration invention, carried out by Holder, which sought to create an impression of unscrupulous gun dealers selling assault weapons to the Mexican drug lords. The administration's lapdogs in the press will run special "investigative" stories on 60 Minutes that focus on those arms sales and the violence that resulted while conveniently overlooking the government's role.
There is a simple binary choice in this case. You must either believe that F&F was a gun-running sting operation designed to bring down Mexican drug cartels that was horribly bungled, or that F&F was purposely designed to provide a cover for imposing new and oppressive gun control laws.
There's nobody stupid enough to set up a gun sting that fails to even attempt to track the guns, but even if the Obama gang were the Keystone Kops, that incompetence is reason enough to drive Holder out and prove that Obama's an abject failure as President.
So the only reasonable conclusion is the political calculation theory. That's easy, because it fits the established pattern of this government. Create a false issue out of thin air to get your base riled up, then use it as cover for another government overreach. The HHS contraception mandates, for example.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Wars and Rumors of War
If there's an overused word in politics, I submit that word is "War".
To overuse such a profound word and diminish it's definition from armies using weapons to annihilate people and destroy things into a cheap characterization of a fight over ideas is unfortunate.
How many "wars" are raging right now?
The War on ...
Women (a false and misleading idea promoted by the Obama campaign)
Terror (an unconventional war being raged by radical Islamists against Israel and the West)
Middle Class (another Obama Campaign theme, also known as the "99 Percent")
Drugs (The Obama gang has surrendered)
Immigrants (another manufactured Obama campaign theme)
Poverty (I think poverty won)
There are probably many others I just haven't thought of. The only actual shooting war on this list is Terror, which somebody in Obama's State Department reportedly announced was over.
Talking about wars with someone recently, I voiced my thoughts on when it's appropriate to go to war as a country. Only when the enemy presents a clear danger to the security of our citizens, and only if we citizens are prepared to expend as much life and treasure as it takes to win.
Enemies can't be pacified by negotiation. Peace can't be bought by bribing an enemy for very long (see North Korea). Peace is only achieved these ways:
1. You demonstrate that you've got an overwhelming force that will destroy your enemies, and are not afraid to use it.
2. You employ your armies ruthlessly to destroy your enemy.
The current government has made it clear they have no stomach for either of these options, which means our enemies become increasingly bold and threatening.
War's a terrible thing, and everyone should hope no war is ever necessary. But there are always those who would happily destroy us because they don't like what we believe or they want what we have. When our only options are submit or fight, we must either join the Amish and put our lives in God's hands or take up arms.
The folks in charge don't appear to have the sense to understand these and many other fundamental truths.
To overuse such a profound word and diminish it's definition from armies using weapons to annihilate people and destroy things into a cheap characterization of a fight over ideas is unfortunate.
How many "wars" are raging right now?
The War on ...
Women (a false and misleading idea promoted by the Obama campaign)
Terror (an unconventional war being raged by radical Islamists against Israel and the West)
Middle Class (another Obama Campaign theme, also known as the "99 Percent")
Drugs (The Obama gang has surrendered)
Immigrants (another manufactured Obama campaign theme)
Poverty (I think poverty won)
There are probably many others I just haven't thought of. The only actual shooting war on this list is Terror, which somebody in Obama's State Department reportedly announced was over.
Talking about wars with someone recently, I voiced my thoughts on when it's appropriate to go to war as a country. Only when the enemy presents a clear danger to the security of our citizens, and only if we citizens are prepared to expend as much life and treasure as it takes to win.
Enemies can't be pacified by negotiation. Peace can't be bought by bribing an enemy for very long (see North Korea). Peace is only achieved these ways:
1. You demonstrate that you've got an overwhelming force that will destroy your enemies, and are not afraid to use it.
2. You employ your armies ruthlessly to destroy your enemy.
The current government has made it clear they have no stomach for either of these options, which means our enemies become increasingly bold and threatening.
War's a terrible thing, and everyone should hope no war is ever necessary. But there are always those who would happily destroy us because they don't like what we believe or they want what we have. When our only options are submit or fight, we must either join the Amish and put our lives in God's hands or take up arms.
The folks in charge don't appear to have the sense to understand these and many other fundamental truths.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Attacking Stay-at-Home Moms
This morning's Republic newspaper published an article by a liberal columnist named Dick Polman that dredges up the by-now tired old leftist argument that Ann Romney has no right to comment on women's issues because she's a rich stay-at-home mother.
Dick's one of the many leftists who think the original Hilary Rosen attack on Mrs. Romney was misunderstood, and all she was guilty of was bad phrasing. He, like most of his fellow travelers on the left, supports Rosen's rhetoric 100 percent.
For Hilary, Dick, and by extention most of the rest of the left-wing feminists, Ann Romney is worthy of contempt not just because she was a stay-at-home mom, but because she is a RICH stay-at-home mom. Therefore she is automatically disqualified to speak for most women, who of course are not rich.
The Left disagrees with the Romneys' main point, which is that Obama's bad economy is doing the majority of harm to women who can't find good jobs. Instead Dick's article goes on to decry Romney policies that would shut down that all-important provider of "women's health services", Planned Parenthood. (He pretends that Planned Parenthood "services" help prevent the flu or indigestion). That Romney policies would restore the old welfare-to-work reforms of the 90's that will force single mothers to go to work rather than stay home with their children. Or vaguely that Romney's policies will deny healthcare access for those poor single mothers' children.
Dick doesn't consider the explosion in American single motherhood a problem, but would probably demonize me for suggesting it is.
I'm living proof that it doesn't take Romney-sized wealth to "allow" a mother to stay home to raise her children. Mine is a family of modest means, and the mother in our household left the workforce when our first child arrived and raised all three children by choice.
It was never a question of wealth. We understood from the beginning that for our children to thrive and absorb our values, the best chance they had was to be raised at home - not by some minimum-wage worker at a commercial childcare warehouse.
So many parents today choose the warehouse so they can have the new car, the exotic vacations, the NFL season tickets, dinners at expensive restaurants, and other luxuries. They rationalize their choice to warehouse their children by telling their friends that they can't afford for Mom to stay at home, or the most popular rationalization from Mom is that she'd go crazy if she had to stay at home every day with her kids.
That single motherhood has become a modern norm is a tragedy, especially for the children forced to endure such circumstances. It becomes a generational norm that gathers momentum over time, as daughters of single moms become single moms themselves. And sons of single moms become either deadbeat dads or homosexual.
Our founders knew that the only way our republic would survive was if the population remained educated and moral. Dick and his friends see education as a chance for indoctrination, and morality as passe.
The Republic's got a new editor who is obviously left-wing. That's easily identified by simply reading the editorial page, where he publishes left-wing columnists like Polman daily without any conservative counterpoint. It's unfortunate to see that he fails to even create an appearance of balance in the newspaper of a predominately conservative community.
Dick's one of the many leftists who think the original Hilary Rosen attack on Mrs. Romney was misunderstood, and all she was guilty of was bad phrasing. He, like most of his fellow travelers on the left, supports Rosen's rhetoric 100 percent.
For Hilary, Dick, and by extention most of the rest of the left-wing feminists, Ann Romney is worthy of contempt not just because she was a stay-at-home mom, but because she is a RICH stay-at-home mom. Therefore she is automatically disqualified to speak for most women, who of course are not rich.
The Left disagrees with the Romneys' main point, which is that Obama's bad economy is doing the majority of harm to women who can't find good jobs. Instead Dick's article goes on to decry Romney policies that would shut down that all-important provider of "women's health services", Planned Parenthood. (He pretends that Planned Parenthood "services" help prevent the flu or indigestion). That Romney policies would restore the old welfare-to-work reforms of the 90's that will force single mothers to go to work rather than stay home with their children. Or vaguely that Romney's policies will deny healthcare access for those poor single mothers' children.
Dick doesn't consider the explosion in American single motherhood a problem, but would probably demonize me for suggesting it is.
I'm living proof that it doesn't take Romney-sized wealth to "allow" a mother to stay home to raise her children. Mine is a family of modest means, and the mother in our household left the workforce when our first child arrived and raised all three children by choice.
It was never a question of wealth. We understood from the beginning that for our children to thrive and absorb our values, the best chance they had was to be raised at home - not by some minimum-wage worker at a commercial childcare warehouse.
So many parents today choose the warehouse so they can have the new car, the exotic vacations, the NFL season tickets, dinners at expensive restaurants, and other luxuries. They rationalize their choice to warehouse their children by telling their friends that they can't afford for Mom to stay at home, or the most popular rationalization from Mom is that she'd go crazy if she had to stay at home every day with her kids.
That single motherhood has become a modern norm is a tragedy, especially for the children forced to endure such circumstances. It becomes a generational norm that gathers momentum over time, as daughters of single moms become single moms themselves. And sons of single moms become either deadbeat dads or homosexual.
Our founders knew that the only way our republic would survive was if the population remained educated and moral. Dick and his friends see education as a chance for indoctrination, and morality as passe.
The Republic's got a new editor who is obviously left-wing. That's easily identified by simply reading the editorial page, where he publishes left-wing columnists like Polman daily without any conservative counterpoint. It's unfortunate to see that he fails to even create an appearance of balance in the newspaper of a predominately conservative community.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Counting Noses
As the campaign shapes up, it's obvious that Obama's strategy is to divide and conquer. He's picking as many aggrieved sub-groups as he can to pander to their fears and hostilities in return for votes. If he can find enough people who think they're being oppressed by rich white guys, he believes he can win.
So let's see how many sub-groups he's pandered to so far:
Blacks. It's stunning to me when I hear that blacks support Obama 95 or 96 percent. There's no more telling statistic possible to prove that black folks wouldn't care if he was Hitler or Stalin from a policy perspective, they'll still support him because he's black.
Hispanics. He pushes hard on the amnesty issue, holding out hope that he can add 20 million voters to keep him in office by swearing them in as citizens in time for the election. Don't think the Republicans are in a mood to play along with that strategy.
Single women, both working and on welfare. He wants to scare them by suggesting that Republicans will take away their benefits or somehow outlaw contraceptives. The feminist core he can take for granted, as their number one issue is abortion rights. Their fear that Republicans might restrict access to abortion is much more realistic than the silly made-up contraception theme.
Union members. There's an interesting split here that Obama's finding a bit difficult to reconcile. Obama's tax and regulatory policies are driving union jobs offshore, and union members don't like that. His push to open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants also concerns the union rank-and-file, because they logically conclude that those immigrants are going to compete for their high paying unionized jobs.
Bureaucrats. The exploding population of government bureaucrats at all levels has become a significant voting block all by itself. They know that Obama and the Big-Government Democrats are their best hope for maintaining their cushy government jobs with their overly generous health and pension benefits. They're going to be the most active advocates for Obama, because Republicans represent the biggest threat to their gravy train.
Trial Lawyers. Obama represents a promise of business as usual in Tort Law. So the class of lawyers who rely on the existing system to make millions by suing companies and physicians know that keeping Obama in office is their best chance to keep the cash flowing.
Government Contractors and Favored Businesses. Companies that provide goods and services to the Federal Government have a vested interest in keeping the big spenders in office. Especially those corporate guys who have invested big bucks in campaign contributions to Obama, (Solyndra, for one) who have been rewarded many times over in government largesse for those investments.
Homosexuals. Although there's a somewhat significant population of gay Republicans, most of those seeking special recognition such as Gay Marriage are aligned with Obama against the Religious Right.
Groups Obama is demonizing have been given the message in no uncertain terms that he's not interested in protecting their interests.
Middle-to-Upper Class White Men, Churchgoing Christians, Stay-at-Home Mothers, Oil and Coal Companies and their employees, Business Owners both large and small, Seniors not dependent on Social Security and Medicare, Military and Patriotic Americans, and anyone alarmed at government overreach hold no interest for Obama.
Romney's task is to motivate the latter group to show up at the polls in bigger numbers than Obama's aggrieved groups. The result is going to shape what kind of country America will be for the next two generations; a Socialist, perhaps Marxist paternalistic faux-democratic dictatorship, or more of a free society that allows people to achieve success based on their individual talent, ability, and motivation.
So let's see how many sub-groups he's pandered to so far:
Blacks. It's stunning to me when I hear that blacks support Obama 95 or 96 percent. There's no more telling statistic possible to prove that black folks wouldn't care if he was Hitler or Stalin from a policy perspective, they'll still support him because he's black.
Hispanics. He pushes hard on the amnesty issue, holding out hope that he can add 20 million voters to keep him in office by swearing them in as citizens in time for the election. Don't think the Republicans are in a mood to play along with that strategy.
Single women, both working and on welfare. He wants to scare them by suggesting that Republicans will take away their benefits or somehow outlaw contraceptives. The feminist core he can take for granted, as their number one issue is abortion rights. Their fear that Republicans might restrict access to abortion is much more realistic than the silly made-up contraception theme.
Union members. There's an interesting split here that Obama's finding a bit difficult to reconcile. Obama's tax and regulatory policies are driving union jobs offshore, and union members don't like that. His push to open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants also concerns the union rank-and-file, because they logically conclude that those immigrants are going to compete for their high paying unionized jobs.
Bureaucrats. The exploding population of government bureaucrats at all levels has become a significant voting block all by itself. They know that Obama and the Big-Government Democrats are their best hope for maintaining their cushy government jobs with their overly generous health and pension benefits. They're going to be the most active advocates for Obama, because Republicans represent the biggest threat to their gravy train.
Trial Lawyers. Obama represents a promise of business as usual in Tort Law. So the class of lawyers who rely on the existing system to make millions by suing companies and physicians know that keeping Obama in office is their best chance to keep the cash flowing.
Government Contractors and Favored Businesses. Companies that provide goods and services to the Federal Government have a vested interest in keeping the big spenders in office. Especially those corporate guys who have invested big bucks in campaign contributions to Obama, (Solyndra, for one) who have been rewarded many times over in government largesse for those investments.
Homosexuals. Although there's a somewhat significant population of gay Republicans, most of those seeking special recognition such as Gay Marriage are aligned with Obama against the Religious Right.
Groups Obama is demonizing have been given the message in no uncertain terms that he's not interested in protecting their interests.
Middle-to-Upper Class White Men, Churchgoing Christians, Stay-at-Home Mothers, Oil and Coal Companies and their employees, Business Owners both large and small, Seniors not dependent on Social Security and Medicare, Military and Patriotic Americans, and anyone alarmed at government overreach hold no interest for Obama.
Romney's task is to motivate the latter group to show up at the polls in bigger numbers than Obama's aggrieved groups. The result is going to shape what kind of country America will be for the next two generations; a Socialist, perhaps Marxist paternalistic faux-democratic dictatorship, or more of a free society that allows people to achieve success based on their individual talent, ability, and motivation.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Philosophy Summary
Cutting through the political arguments, how about something that compares the overall philosophy of a left-liberal to my own? I decided not to claim to speak for conservatives, but just share my personal philosophies.
Issue - Social Security
The Liberal believes …
Everybody should be given a comfortable pension from the government starting at age 65 regardless of how much they contributed during their working life.
I believe …
Fundamentally we all should be responsible for our own pensions. Social Security should be gradually changed to a personal pension savings account.
Issue - Healthcare
Fundamentally we all should be responsible for our own pensions. Social Security should be gradually changed to a personal pension savings account.
Issue - Healthcare
The Liberal believes
The government should provide a universal single-payer system funded by taxes
that covers everybody, even illegals.
The government should provide a universal single-payer system funded by taxes
that covers everybody, even illegals.
I believe
We should return to a pay-for-service model for most health services, and generally use insurance only for catastrophic illnesses and injuries. Any programs created to help the poor pay for their healthcare should be an application for reimbursement instead of direct payments to providers.
Issue - Energy
Issue - Energy
The Liberal believes
Carbon fuels should be eliminated entirely as an incentive for the invention of clean fuels. Eliminating oil will give us a peace benefit because we won't be tempted to get involved in Middle East wars if we don't use their oil. We are killing our planet with fossil fuels.
I believe
I believe
We have to stop dreaming and go get all the abundant oil, gas, and coal waiting all across the country to be drilled and mined. If that results in a peace benefit, fine, but the main purpose is to develop the energy resources we need to fuel a strong economy. Environmental damage from fossil fuels is highly exaggerated.
Issue - Taxes
Issue - Taxes
The Liberal believes
Rich people are politically connected so they are given preferential treatment that allows them to avoid paying their fare share. The deficits will be reduced if the rich just pay their fair share.
I believe
Taxes should only be collected to the exent that they fund only the fundamental activities of government. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes, and the left's position to the contrary is mere political posturing born of envy. It's past time to decide what the appropriate role of government should be, then reform the tax code to collect only the amount needed to fund those activities, with everyone contributing. Stop giving the majority of the population a free pass, even if that means lower income folks only pay a few dollars.
Issue - Regulation
Taxes should only be collected to the exent that they fund only the fundamental activities of government. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes, and the left's position to the contrary is mere political posturing born of envy. It's past time to decide what the appropriate role of government should be, then reform the tax code to collect only the amount needed to fund those activities, with everyone contributing. Stop giving the majority of the population a free pass, even if that means lower income folks only pay a few dollars.
Issue - Regulation
The Liberal believes
Regulation is vital to the protection of the environment and to make sure corporations are not abusing people. Some regulation is required, but government has vastly exceeded any measure of reasonableness in issuing onerous regulations that go beyond their charter.
I believe
Regulation should be strictly focused on simple definitions of environmental responsibility and employee safety.
Issue - Immigration
Issue - Immigration
The Liberal believes
Illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty and citizenship, and the US should recognize that frequent crossing of people from the southern border is a legacy from almost the entire history of the country.
I believe
The border should be secured. Employers should face serious legal sanctions if found to be employing undocumented workers. Any illegal immigrant found in a routine traffic stop or other contact with law enforcement should be processed for deportation immediately.
Issue - Foreign Policy
The border should be secured. Employers should face serious legal sanctions if found to be employing undocumented workers. Any illegal immigrant found in a routine traffic stop or other contact with law enforcement should be processed for deportation immediately.
Issue - Foreign Policy
The Liberal believes
We should be friendly to all, and appease our enemies by disarming and agreeing to their demands to make up for our past bad behavior.
I believe
I believe
We should always speak softly and carry a big stick. The clear message to the rest of the world is that we want to be your friend, and if you choose to be our friend you'll find us the best friend you could hope to have in the world. If you choose to be our enemy you will find us to be your worst nightmare, as we will not tolerate any violence against our interests or citizens.
On the other hand, we should never go to war unless there is a credible threat to our country and we are willing to see it through to total victory.
Issue - Deficits and Debt
On the other hand, we should never go to war unless there is a credible threat to our country and we are willing to see it through to total victory.
Issue - Deficits and Debt
The Liberal believes
Deficits and debt are necessary to pull us out of the bad economy. We can reduce the deficit by increasing tax rates on the wealthy.
I believe
Deficit reduction must be priority 1 for economic recovery. Government overspending is sucking the air out of the private economy, and we can't recover without seriously addressing the deficits. Start with the easy cuts - waste, fraud, abuse, and unnecessary or unproductive programs. Cut everyone's budget by 2 percent over the next 10
years, then find the reforms to Medicare & Medicaid that will help get the budget under control without destroying the safety net for those who need it most.
Issue - Social Issues
years, then find the reforms to Medicare & Medicaid that will help get the budget under control without destroying the safety net for those who need it most.
Issue - Social Issues
The Liberal believes
Gays should be given marital rights, welfare should be expanded to all who need it and benefits increased to a living wage. Abortion should be funded by taxes and available to all at any stage of pregnancy without question or delay.
I believe
Abortion is infanticide. Homosexuality is a behavior disorder that isn't illegal but shouldn't be tax supported - If a gay couple wants to live like a married couple, there's nobody stopping them. But we don't have to subsidize them as a "Married" couple. Welfare kills incentive, and if it exists at all should be designed to help its beneficiaries re-enter the workforce and become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.
Issue - Church and State
Abortion is infanticide. Homosexuality is a behavior disorder that isn't illegal but shouldn't be tax supported - If a gay couple wants to live like a married couple, there's nobody stopping them. But we don't have to subsidize them as a "Married" couple. Welfare kills incentive, and if it exists at all should be designed to help its beneficiaries re-enter the workforce and become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.
Issue - Church and State
The Liberal believes
Religion should have no place in the public sphere. There should be no religious expression in schools, courthouse lawns, or public ceremonies. A moral equivalency exists between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Wicca, and everyone is free to practice their religion as long as they do so in private.
I believe
There is no reference anywhere in the constitution to the famous phrase, "Wall of separation between church and state". Only the first amendment addresses religion, and its language is very easy to understand and interpret. We are a Christian nation. People should be allowed to practice religious expression freely and without any interference from government. Banning God from the schools was a horrible mistake. Obama's HHS Regulation clearly abridges the first amendment, and must be revoked quickly, whether voluntarily by the government or forcibly by the courts.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Mourdock-Lugar Recap
Somewhat surprisingly, watching the Indiana Senate Debate last night didn't settle my choice for me as I expected it would.
My preconception about Lugar was that he'd be showing his age and have some difficulty communicating effectively. Although I found myself thinking, "What did he mean by that?" on occasion, he generally spoke well.
Having no real preconceived idea about Mourdock, I think he did a decent job expressing himself in the debate. But nobody will ever be able to accuse him of a charismatic personality.
It was a bit disappointing to me that the debate never touched on issues of interest to me. I want to know how Lugar defends himself on being the Senior Senator from Indiana who hasn't lived in the state for 35 years and seldom makes an appearance. I also wanted to hear Lugar defend his anti-second-amendment voting record, his affair with cap-and-trade, his support for Obama's radical Supreme Court appointments, and his sponsorship of the Dream Act.
For the issues that were raised, the only Lugar position I have a problem with is his steadfast support for ethanol subsidies. Personally, I believe that industry needs to be weaned from those artificial government supports and allowed to succeed or fail on its own. Otherwise, Lugar and Mourdock spend most of the evening agreeing with each other.
My jury is still out. I still think Lugar's out of touch with the people of this state and should retire. I also don't think Mourdock has sold me on his ability to beat Donnelly in the general election, even though I found very little disagreement with the principles he voiced last night.
I may just have to decide when I'm in the booth.
My preconception about Lugar was that he'd be showing his age and have some difficulty communicating effectively. Although I found myself thinking, "What did he mean by that?" on occasion, he generally spoke well.
Having no real preconceived idea about Mourdock, I think he did a decent job expressing himself in the debate. But nobody will ever be able to accuse him of a charismatic personality.
It was a bit disappointing to me that the debate never touched on issues of interest to me. I want to know how Lugar defends himself on being the Senior Senator from Indiana who hasn't lived in the state for 35 years and seldom makes an appearance. I also wanted to hear Lugar defend his anti-second-amendment voting record, his affair with cap-and-trade, his support for Obama's radical Supreme Court appointments, and his sponsorship of the Dream Act.
For the issues that were raised, the only Lugar position I have a problem with is his steadfast support for ethanol subsidies. Personally, I believe that industry needs to be weaned from those artificial government supports and allowed to succeed or fail on its own. Otherwise, Lugar and Mourdock spend most of the evening agreeing with each other.
My jury is still out. I still think Lugar's out of touch with the people of this state and should retire. I also don't think Mourdock has sold me on his ability to beat Donnelly in the general election, even though I found very little disagreement with the principles he voiced last night.
I may just have to decide when I'm in the booth.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Indiana Senate Decision
Tonight is the only debate scheduled for the Indiana Senate primary. Six years ago, Dick Lugar was unchallenged, both in the primary and the general. I thought he should have been challenged, and still do. He hasn't had a home in Indiana since the 70's and has become an aged creature of the Washington beltway who can no longer recognize a Hoosier.
The yard signs around town say "Retire Lugar", a sentiment I continue to share. Even so, I remain undecided on how I'll vote in this primary.
Richard Mourdock seems to be closer to me in terms of conservative philosophy. During Obama's tenure, Lugar has been identified consistently as a member of the club of RINOs in the Senate, falling only slightly behind the two ladies from Maine in his proclivity to buck his party and vote with Democrats.
So the choice should be easy for me, right? Not necessarily.
Mourdock hasn't closed the sale for me yet. Lugar's been trying to walk back his liberal record somewhat during the campaign, because he obviously wants to keep his cushy and powerful position for at least 6 more years. So I'm hoping to catch the debate tonight to see what it can teach me about Mourdock and get a feel for just how far Lugar's willing to swing rightward to earn conservative support.
My hope is that the debate will be substantive enough to help me make my decision. Mourdock's got to sell me before I'm willing to push his button in the booth. Lugar's got to convince me he's seen the light before I'll get behind him this time around. A Lugar promise to make his home in Indiana from now on would help his cause.
The yard signs around town say "Retire Lugar", a sentiment I continue to share. Even so, I remain undecided on how I'll vote in this primary.
Richard Mourdock seems to be closer to me in terms of conservative philosophy. During Obama's tenure, Lugar has been identified consistently as a member of the club of RINOs in the Senate, falling only slightly behind the two ladies from Maine in his proclivity to buck his party and vote with Democrats.
So the choice should be easy for me, right? Not necessarily.
Mourdock hasn't closed the sale for me yet. Lugar's been trying to walk back his liberal record somewhat during the campaign, because he obviously wants to keep his cushy and powerful position for at least 6 more years. So I'm hoping to catch the debate tonight to see what it can teach me about Mourdock and get a feel for just how far Lugar's willing to swing rightward to earn conservative support.
My hope is that the debate will be substantive enough to help me make my decision. Mourdock's got to sell me before I'm willing to push his button in the booth. Lugar's got to convince me he's seen the light before I'll get behind him this time around. A Lugar promise to make his home in Indiana from now on would help his cause.
Microcosm of Political Misdirection
The Trayvon Martin case has become the quintessential allegory for the modern political strategy favored by the Democrat party.
Obama's campaign strategy is divide and conquer, relying on the short attention spans and gullibility of the general population. The Trayvon Martin story has become one of the major tactics being pushed for the racial division branch of that strategy.
The initial storyline was about an innocent teenaged kid who was an honor student going out to buy some candy for his little brother. The poor kid was targeted and shot to death by George Zimmerman, a racist neighborhood watch leader who hunted him down and shot him for no legitimate reason. The story went on to tell us that the police chose not to arrest Zimmerman and simply turned him loose at the scene.
So the flames of racial animus were stoked by NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times, among other media outlets which chose to promote the theme they set in the initial story. We now hear about threats from Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers who are demanding a public lynching of Zimmerman or suggest violent retribution from the black community will be the response. Even Barack Obama has chimed in to help stoke the flames with the comment that if he had a son, he'd probably look like Trayvon.
In the meantime, the original story seems to be slowly unraveling. New facts are surfacing bit-by-bit that would seem to refute the story line. Photos of Trayvon that portray an innocent and fresh-faced young man turn out to be about 4 years old, and current photos look nothing like them. Photos of George Zimmerman are also dated and seemed to have been selected by the media to cast him in as negative a light as possible.
The same news outlets reported that a recording seemed to capture Zimmerman calling Trayvon a "f***ing c**n", which was picked up and reported as fact by other news outlets.
Trayvon was hardly a model student, but turns out to be troubled and difficult at school.
The eyewitness reported that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him severely before he was shot.
Zimmerman was arrested and questioned at the police station for 6 hours before being released.
NBC edited the 911 call from Zimmerman in a way designed to try to illustrate the theme that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon because of his race. When called on the fraudulent edit, NBC spent over a week "investigating" themselves, then lied that it was edited only for time.
There was also the video that news outlets claimed "proved" that a Zimmerman video showed no injuries, but after the video was enhanced and analyzed, it showed the opposite to be true. So the media's response was to simply stop talking about the video.
Now that the facts of the tragic event largely refute the original storyline, you would think those media outlets would be trumpeting the new information to clear the record. You would think wrong. The original theme continues to be pushed on the networks, where they prefer to push the racism theme over the truth.
The allegory is eagerly used by the media to push a theme that suggests Zimmerman is representative of Republicans. Some commentators have shamelessly attempted to create ties between Zimmerman and Romney, suggesting that Romney's goal is oppression and even murder of innocent black men.
The same tactics are being employed in the "war on women" that has been manufactured by the Obama campaign. This tactic didn't even bother to find a factual basis, but rather was an invented lie tied to nothing any candidate ever suggested. Now there seem to be armies of single women up in arms because they now believe a manufactured Obama campaign lie that charges the Republicans will outlaw birth control if Romney is elected President.
Obama is counting on winning re-election with a false message about Republicans: They hate black people. They hate hispanic people. They will empower the super-rich to steal from the poor. They will take medical care away from the poor and seniors. They will destroy Social Security.
Every one of those messages is an absolute lie. But Obama lies every time he gives a speech, and half the country believes the lies while the other half lacks the courage to call him on them.
I believe that Obama's plan is to follow Hugo Chavez' example to consolidate power and "transform America" into a communist dictatorship during his second term, then declare himself President for Life. The November election is our last chance for freedom.
Obama's campaign strategy is divide and conquer, relying on the short attention spans and gullibility of the general population. The Trayvon Martin story has become one of the major tactics being pushed for the racial division branch of that strategy.
The initial storyline was about an innocent teenaged kid who was an honor student going out to buy some candy for his little brother. The poor kid was targeted and shot to death by George Zimmerman, a racist neighborhood watch leader who hunted him down and shot him for no legitimate reason. The story went on to tell us that the police chose not to arrest Zimmerman and simply turned him loose at the scene.
So the flames of racial animus were stoked by NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times, among other media outlets which chose to promote the theme they set in the initial story. We now hear about threats from Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers who are demanding a public lynching of Zimmerman or suggest violent retribution from the black community will be the response. Even Barack Obama has chimed in to help stoke the flames with the comment that if he had a son, he'd probably look like Trayvon.
In the meantime, the original story seems to be slowly unraveling. New facts are surfacing bit-by-bit that would seem to refute the story line. Photos of Trayvon that portray an innocent and fresh-faced young man turn out to be about 4 years old, and current photos look nothing like them. Photos of George Zimmerman are also dated and seemed to have been selected by the media to cast him in as negative a light as possible.
The same news outlets reported that a recording seemed to capture Zimmerman calling Trayvon a "f***ing c**n", which was picked up and reported as fact by other news outlets.
Trayvon was hardly a model student, but turns out to be troubled and difficult at school.
The eyewitness reported that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him severely before he was shot.
Zimmerman was arrested and questioned at the police station for 6 hours before being released.
NBC edited the 911 call from Zimmerman in a way designed to try to illustrate the theme that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon because of his race. When called on the fraudulent edit, NBC spent over a week "investigating" themselves, then lied that it was edited only for time.
There was also the video that news outlets claimed "proved" that a Zimmerman video showed no injuries, but after the video was enhanced and analyzed, it showed the opposite to be true. So the media's response was to simply stop talking about the video.
Now that the facts of the tragic event largely refute the original storyline, you would think those media outlets would be trumpeting the new information to clear the record. You would think wrong. The original theme continues to be pushed on the networks, where they prefer to push the racism theme over the truth.
The allegory is eagerly used by the media to push a theme that suggests Zimmerman is representative of Republicans. Some commentators have shamelessly attempted to create ties between Zimmerman and Romney, suggesting that Romney's goal is oppression and even murder of innocent black men.
The same tactics are being employed in the "war on women" that has been manufactured by the Obama campaign. This tactic didn't even bother to find a factual basis, but rather was an invented lie tied to nothing any candidate ever suggested. Now there seem to be armies of single women up in arms because they now believe a manufactured Obama campaign lie that charges the Republicans will outlaw birth control if Romney is elected President.
Obama is counting on winning re-election with a false message about Republicans: They hate black people. They hate hispanic people. They will empower the super-rich to steal from the poor. They will take medical care away from the poor and seniors. They will destroy Social Security.
Every one of those messages is an absolute lie. But Obama lies every time he gives a speech, and half the country believes the lies while the other half lacks the courage to call him on them.
I believe that Obama's plan is to follow Hugo Chavez' example to consolidate power and "transform America" into a communist dictatorship during his second term, then declare himself President for Life. The November election is our last chance for freedom.
Monday, April 02, 2012
No Imagination
I have been noticing that supporters of the Obamacare law repeat a consistent theme promoting a message that Federalizing healthcare is the only viable means of making it available to everyone.
To the degree those promoting that point of view are not the power-hungry bureacrats who lust after the power and weath the law promises them individually, it seems the only way to explain support for such a totalitarian approach to healthcare is a thorough lack of imagination.
States already have programs in place that allow those who can't buy health insurance in the private market to sign up for the State subsidized high risk plan. Not to mention the fact nearly all of us understand, which is that hospitals must provide emergency treatment for all who show up regardless of ability to pay.
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the Federal and State governments made the announcement, "Our Medicare and Medicaid programs are bankrupt. Everyone from now on must find non-governmental solutions to pay for their own healthcare."
What would we do? Would millions of people die because no Doctor will treat their illnesses or perform lifesaving surgery?
Of course not. Americans would pitch in and find solutions on our own. Employers unencumbered by government regulation would design great new healthcare plans for their workers. Families would find a way to help their loved ones get the treatments or surgeries they need. Doctors and surgeons would offer payment plans and reduced rates to patients to help them cover their treatment costs. Drug companies would implement programs to help make their prescriptions more affordable for the poor.
The Left's been arguing that the Supreme Court can't overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional, because if they do, similar arguments could be used to overturn Medicare and Medicaid, which also mandate redistribution or wealth to cover seniors and the poor for their health care.
My suggestion is that we begin using our imagination and unleash our natural American predisposition toward helping those who truly need help. As individuals, churches, charitable organizations, companies ...
Imagine there was no such thing as government healthcare, but we all truly worked together as Americans to solve the problem by ourselves. Imagine doctors didn't get sued for millions every time an outcome was less than ideal, but instead were subjected to a medical practice review if suspicion of malpractice is provable and lost their license instead of having their insurer pay the complainant enough money to go away.
Imagine office visits that cost $30-$50 instead of $150. Imagine prescription costs for seniors at less than $50 per month instead of $500 per month. Imagine blood and urine testing costing $25 instead of $100. Imagine surgery costing $5,000 instead of $50,000.
I believe all this is possible if we all just imagine healthcare without the interference of Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.
To the degree those promoting that point of view are not the power-hungry bureacrats who lust after the power and weath the law promises them individually, it seems the only way to explain support for such a totalitarian approach to healthcare is a thorough lack of imagination.
States already have programs in place that allow those who can't buy health insurance in the private market to sign up for the State subsidized high risk plan. Not to mention the fact nearly all of us understand, which is that hospitals must provide emergency treatment for all who show up regardless of ability to pay.
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the Federal and State governments made the announcement, "Our Medicare and Medicaid programs are bankrupt. Everyone from now on must find non-governmental solutions to pay for their own healthcare."
What would we do? Would millions of people die because no Doctor will treat their illnesses or perform lifesaving surgery?
Of course not. Americans would pitch in and find solutions on our own. Employers unencumbered by government regulation would design great new healthcare plans for their workers. Families would find a way to help their loved ones get the treatments or surgeries they need. Doctors and surgeons would offer payment plans and reduced rates to patients to help them cover their treatment costs. Drug companies would implement programs to help make their prescriptions more affordable for the poor.
The Left's been arguing that the Supreme Court can't overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional, because if they do, similar arguments could be used to overturn Medicare and Medicaid, which also mandate redistribution or wealth to cover seniors and the poor for their health care.
My suggestion is that we begin using our imagination and unleash our natural American predisposition toward helping those who truly need help. As individuals, churches, charitable organizations, companies ...
Imagine there was no such thing as government healthcare, but we all truly worked together as Americans to solve the problem by ourselves. Imagine doctors didn't get sued for millions every time an outcome was less than ideal, but instead were subjected to a medical practice review if suspicion of malpractice is provable and lost their license instead of having their insurer pay the complainant enough money to go away.
Imagine office visits that cost $30-$50 instead of $150. Imagine prescription costs for seniors at less than $50 per month instead of $500 per month. Imagine blood and urine testing costing $25 instead of $100. Imagine surgery costing $5,000 instead of $50,000.
I believe all this is possible if we all just imagine healthcare without the interference of Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)