So I've been hearing stuff from people I know who still support Obama, despite his disastrous first term. I listen closely, and my only possible reaction is
"You have to be kidding me!"
Here's a sampling:
1. "Free contraceptives! Isn't it wonderful?"
Me: "How do you feel about the mandate that tells Catholics who believe contraception is a sin that they must pay for it?"
Democrat: Blank look.
2. "We can keep our kids on our health insurance until they're 26!"
Me: "Are you also happy about having your adult kids still living with you, eating your food, driving your car, leaving their messes for your to clean up? Wouldn't you rather they get a job and take care of themselves?"
Democrat: Blank look.
3. "Now nobody can be turned down for health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions!"
Me: "That does sound like a good thing. But I wonder, who's going to pay for all that care for sick people?"
Democrat: "Well, we already pay for it with higher premiums and taxes"
My reaction is yes, you've got a point, but have any of your premiums or taxes gone down? Do you think they will go down anytime soon?
4. "Gay people who love each other should be able to get married just like the rest of us".
Me: "You mean they can't already? Will somebody arrest a gay couple of they gather their friends together somewhere and make public promises of marriage-type commitments to each other? Explain to me, who's stopping them?"
Democrat: Blank look.
5. "I'm sick and tired of rich people always getting away with not paying their fair share!"
Me: You mean those top 10 percent rich people who pay 70 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the Federal Government? What rate should they pay? What rate do you pay? What rate should you pay? What rate should I pay?
Democrat: Blank look.
6. "I don't want to have any more of our kids sent overseas to fight and die in an unnecessary war in some desert"
Me: "Yeah, Obama's made it pretty clear he won't take on Iran under any circumstances. Are you comfortable with our country standing by and doing nothing when Iran launches their first nuclear missile into Israel?"
Democrat: "Well, hopefully that won't happen"
Yes, they mystify me. But it appears that I mystify them as well.
This is what happens when the ignorant are manipulated by the "elites" to vote them permanent power. The "elites" will live like kings (or like Barack and Michelle), while the sheep that voted to keep them in charge suffer. That's always been the story of socialism, everywhere it's been imposed.
It appears I belong to the shrinking class of productive people who make the country run. The elites want to milk me dry of the fruits of my labor, keep most of it for themselves, then use the rest to toss a few crumbs out to the unproductive so they can pretend they're "taking care" of them.
Sorry kids about my generation handing you this mess. Too bad you haven't grown up enough to realize how bad its getting, and it looks like by the time you do it will be too late.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Distrusting the Media Manipulators
What to believe?
The so-called Mainstream Media are telling us it's over - Obama's already won. They've got polls showing him winning virtually all the "battleground" states, many by double digits.
Then the conservative talkers and sites speak up and say, "Not so Fast". Those polls showing Obama so far ahead are grossly oversampling Democrats and practically ignoring Independents. Besides, they haven't noticed anything that's happened except the Convention that could possibly account for such a dramatic change in the polls for Obama.
Didn't he just fail to protect his own Libyan Ambassador from being murdered by terrorists while he had virtually no security detail protecting him? Hasn't he been caught lying about what happened in Libya and Egypt and a dozen other middle east and north african embassies, trying to pawn off a silly message that they're just angry over some stupid YouTube video? Wouldn't that story make people sick about the weak and prevaricating President and drive them to Romney, much like many folks got fed up with Jimmy Carter's weakness in the Iran Hostage crisis and turned to Reagan over 30 years ago?
Then there's Rasmussen, who keeps showing the same polling results that have been virtually stuck on the same numbers all summer. How could the networks and liberal pollsters show a 10 percent advantage for Obama while Rasmussen keeps showing the race tied? Somebody's wrong. Just maybe everybody's wrong.
I only have my small circle of family, friends, and acquaintences. The only people I know who have been Obama supporters admit to me that they're rethinking it. They're demoralized by his obvious incompetence, but they think Romney's some sort of Viking raider who will starve poor people and elevate his own wealthy class to new heights of excess. So they don't know what to do.
If only I could influence some sense into those Democrats. But their misguided beliefs are so deeply entrenched they don't seem like they would ever be willing to become turncoats to their party by pulling the lever for a *gasp* Republican, even a wishy-washy Republican like Romney.
I suppose if you're told your entire life by people you trust that conservatives are evil people, the cognitive dissonance associated with knowing actual conservatives who aren't must be hard to accept.
So I wish I knew what was going to happen in November. But I don't. Earlier this summer I was beginning to feel somewhat hopeful that there was a chance Romney could win in a landslide. Now I'm not so sure of that, but expect that despite the seemingly biased Democrat polls, the race may be as close as Bush/Gore 2000. (Please Florida and Ohio, save us from ourselves!)
The so-called Mainstream Media are telling us it's over - Obama's already won. They've got polls showing him winning virtually all the "battleground" states, many by double digits.
Then the conservative talkers and sites speak up and say, "Not so Fast". Those polls showing Obama so far ahead are grossly oversampling Democrats and practically ignoring Independents. Besides, they haven't noticed anything that's happened except the Convention that could possibly account for such a dramatic change in the polls for Obama.
Didn't he just fail to protect his own Libyan Ambassador from being murdered by terrorists while he had virtually no security detail protecting him? Hasn't he been caught lying about what happened in Libya and Egypt and a dozen other middle east and north african embassies, trying to pawn off a silly message that they're just angry over some stupid YouTube video? Wouldn't that story make people sick about the weak and prevaricating President and drive them to Romney, much like many folks got fed up with Jimmy Carter's weakness in the Iran Hostage crisis and turned to Reagan over 30 years ago?
Then there's Rasmussen, who keeps showing the same polling results that have been virtually stuck on the same numbers all summer. How could the networks and liberal pollsters show a 10 percent advantage for Obama while Rasmussen keeps showing the race tied? Somebody's wrong. Just maybe everybody's wrong.
I only have my small circle of family, friends, and acquaintences. The only people I know who have been Obama supporters admit to me that they're rethinking it. They're demoralized by his obvious incompetence, but they think Romney's some sort of Viking raider who will starve poor people and elevate his own wealthy class to new heights of excess. So they don't know what to do.
If only I could influence some sense into those Democrats. But their misguided beliefs are so deeply entrenched they don't seem like they would ever be willing to become turncoats to their party by pulling the lever for a *gasp* Republican, even a wishy-washy Republican like Romney.
I suppose if you're told your entire life by people you trust that conservatives are evil people, the cognitive dissonance associated with knowing actual conservatives who aren't must be hard to accept.
So I wish I knew what was going to happen in November. But I don't. Earlier this summer I was beginning to feel somewhat hopeful that there was a chance Romney could win in a landslide. Now I'm not so sure of that, but expect that despite the seemingly biased Democrat polls, the race may be as close as Bush/Gore 2000. (Please Florida and Ohio, save us from ourselves!)
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Growing Up
As a high school teen, I believed I was probably a Democrat, but couldn't really tell you why besides that my father was a Democrat. My teachers seemed to all be Democrats, so out of respect and because we never heard any other points of view they had a significant influence on most of their students.
I was in high school when Nixon and Ford were presidents. Naturally I saw the movie about Woodward & Bernstein and was convinced Nixon was corrupt. Funny how Clinton and Obama have done much worse illegal, immoral, and unethical things since then while the media and Hollywood yawned.
Vietnam left me feeling conflicted. I heard the arguments for and against the war, and understood that we were fulfilling a promise to protect friendly countries from violent Communist overthrow. But the politicians seemed to be on tip-toe, trying harder to manage public perceptions than win a war. I definitely was appalled at the way liberal Democrats were treating returning veterans.
But not all Democrats were that radical back then. Many were people of faith and mostly conservative on issues, but were Democrats because they believed that Democrats cared more about the ordinary citizen than Republicans.
Being a Democrat back then mostly just meant you didn't believe that Corporate America deserved all the support and goodies they could possibly get in the name of a strong economy. I of course couldn't relate to the Corporate Executive and Country Club crowd that I believed ran the GOP.
The issues of the day I barely understood. Of course, back then nobody was even talking about today's hot social issues - we'd never heard of Political Correctness, nobody ever believed Gay Marriage would become a serious argument, nor would mandates for free contraception. Religious expression in public was taken for granted. People used to argue about tax rates and how much spending the government should be permitted.
In the college years I found myself surrounded by fairly radical leftists, especially amongst the professors. My reaction was more skepticism than agreement, and I was more likely to poke fun at some of the more outrageous characters. Such as my Sociology professor, who was a lesbian woman that embodied a cartoonish caricature of the angry, manly and man-hating liberal lesbian. She was so ridiculously over the top that I sometimes covered my mouth during class to stifle the urge to laugh out loud at one of her tirades against the "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male" who was responsible for every injustice on the planet.
It was after Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter that I became a Republican. That was when I first became aware of policy and observed first-hand how Reagan's free market, limited government, strength and courage in the face of enemies, and personal responsibility policies completely reversed the pain and suffering imposed by Carter's socialism at home and appeasement abroad. Under Carter I struggled to survive as a young adult, but saw my fortunes improve dramatically when Reagan took over.
Just as important, Ronald Reagan made sense to me. I connected with his gentle affability and agreed with most every argument he made in support of his vision for the country. I began to understand the code language used by Democrats that they still use in an attempt to divide people and sow envy and distrust without clearly stating what specific policies they would impose themselves.
Since I came of age, I've come to understand that conservatives believe in Freedom, while Democrats believe in Fairness. Freedom's easy to define. Fairness tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
I'm a Freedom guy.
I was in high school when Nixon and Ford were presidents. Naturally I saw the movie about Woodward & Bernstein and was convinced Nixon was corrupt. Funny how Clinton and Obama have done much worse illegal, immoral, and unethical things since then while the media and Hollywood yawned.
Vietnam left me feeling conflicted. I heard the arguments for and against the war, and understood that we were fulfilling a promise to protect friendly countries from violent Communist overthrow. But the politicians seemed to be on tip-toe, trying harder to manage public perceptions than win a war. I definitely was appalled at the way liberal Democrats were treating returning veterans.
But not all Democrats were that radical back then. Many were people of faith and mostly conservative on issues, but were Democrats because they believed that Democrats cared more about the ordinary citizen than Republicans.
Being a Democrat back then mostly just meant you didn't believe that Corporate America deserved all the support and goodies they could possibly get in the name of a strong economy. I of course couldn't relate to the Corporate Executive and Country Club crowd that I believed ran the GOP.
The issues of the day I barely understood. Of course, back then nobody was even talking about today's hot social issues - we'd never heard of Political Correctness, nobody ever believed Gay Marriage would become a serious argument, nor would mandates for free contraception. Religious expression in public was taken for granted. People used to argue about tax rates and how much spending the government should be permitted.
In the college years I found myself surrounded by fairly radical leftists, especially amongst the professors. My reaction was more skepticism than agreement, and I was more likely to poke fun at some of the more outrageous characters. Such as my Sociology professor, who was a lesbian woman that embodied a cartoonish caricature of the angry, manly and man-hating liberal lesbian. She was so ridiculously over the top that I sometimes covered my mouth during class to stifle the urge to laugh out loud at one of her tirades against the "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male" who was responsible for every injustice on the planet.
It was after Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter that I became a Republican. That was when I first became aware of policy and observed first-hand how Reagan's free market, limited government, strength and courage in the face of enemies, and personal responsibility policies completely reversed the pain and suffering imposed by Carter's socialism at home and appeasement abroad. Under Carter I struggled to survive as a young adult, but saw my fortunes improve dramatically when Reagan took over.
Just as important, Ronald Reagan made sense to me. I connected with his gentle affability and agreed with most every argument he made in support of his vision for the country. I began to understand the code language used by Democrats that they still use in an attempt to divide people and sow envy and distrust without clearly stating what specific policies they would impose themselves.
Since I came of age, I've come to understand that conservatives believe in Freedom, while Democrats believe in Fairness. Freedom's easy to define. Fairness tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
I'm a Freedom guy.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
It Must Be ... Peer Pressure?
This week I have been thinking about the irrational behavior of the Hollywood celebrities who continue to support Barack Obama in spite of the fact his policies are in direct conflict with most of their personal interests.
I keep puzzling over why singers and actors and other artists would continue idolizing the President who has promised to confiscate half their income, work against their ability to obtain healthcare for their various diseases (social and other), and tamp down their most treasured of rights - Freedom of Speech?
Then there's his demonstrated promise to impoverish most Americans and take the profits of companies that presumably would include film and music companies, which further depress the market for these people's artistic expression.
OK, so he promises to pay for their abortions, and provide government freebies for their same-sex bedfellows, but is it really rational for them to support a president who's going to harm their standard of living?
So then it hit me. The answer is Peer Pressure! Hollywood types behave just like teenagers, and what's the most important thing in the world to a teenager?
Acceptance. Being adored by their peers. Being Cool.
Have you seen those creepy ads put out by Hollywood actors with writing on their hands pledging allegiance to Obama as if he's some sort of god? It's beyond reason or rationality.
The bane of every parent of a teen is the comman phrase, "Everybody else is doing it!" to justify the latest stupid, crazy thing the kid wants to do. Certainly in Hollywood, everybody else is panting over the celebrity-in-chief and making absolute fools of themselves as they worship him and make a game of finding the most outrageous libel they can dream against Romney.
It feels sort of like a revelation. I think I can reasonably extend the theory beyond Hollywood to explain the leftists leanings of people from places like Manhattan and South Beach and Seattle. It doesn't have to be rational; it just has to feel good and achieve that positive feedback from one's peers.
Perhaps that's why Adolph Hitler managed to be elected Chancellor of Germany so many years ago. (OK, I'm not saying Obama's Hitler. Maybe a bit more like Vlad Lenin, or perhaps Hugo Chavez, but not exactly Hitler)
I keep puzzling over why singers and actors and other artists would continue idolizing the President who has promised to confiscate half their income, work against their ability to obtain healthcare for their various diseases (social and other), and tamp down their most treasured of rights - Freedom of Speech?
Then there's his demonstrated promise to impoverish most Americans and take the profits of companies that presumably would include film and music companies, which further depress the market for these people's artistic expression.
OK, so he promises to pay for their abortions, and provide government freebies for their same-sex bedfellows, but is it really rational for them to support a president who's going to harm their standard of living?
So then it hit me. The answer is Peer Pressure! Hollywood types behave just like teenagers, and what's the most important thing in the world to a teenager?
Acceptance. Being adored by their peers. Being Cool.
Have you seen those creepy ads put out by Hollywood actors with writing on their hands pledging allegiance to Obama as if he's some sort of god? It's beyond reason or rationality.
The bane of every parent of a teen is the comman phrase, "Everybody else is doing it!" to justify the latest stupid, crazy thing the kid wants to do. Certainly in Hollywood, everybody else is panting over the celebrity-in-chief and making absolute fools of themselves as they worship him and make a game of finding the most outrageous libel they can dream against Romney.
It feels sort of like a revelation. I think I can reasonably extend the theory beyond Hollywood to explain the leftists leanings of people from places like Manhattan and South Beach and Seattle. It doesn't have to be rational; it just has to feel good and achieve that positive feedback from one's peers.
Perhaps that's why Adolph Hitler managed to be elected Chancellor of Germany so many years ago. (OK, I'm not saying Obama's Hitler. Maybe a bit more like Vlad Lenin, or perhaps Hugo Chavez, but not exactly Hitler)
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
NFL Officials Contract Dispute
I haven't paid enough attention to the contract dispute to know what the sticking points are between the NFL owners and their referees. All I know is that the referees want more and the owners know they have the upper hand in negotiations, because people don't buy tickets or tune into NFL games to watch the officials.
Driving to work this morning I heard a brief mention on the radio that the two sides were about 3.5 million dollars apart. That surprised me, because in the economics of the NFL, that number's pocket change.
So now I'm thinking its about power, not about the money. The surprisingly small number, along with the lockout, suggests to me that the owners want to make a statement and cow their officials into taking what they're given and never fighting for more again.
I don't know what the refs made in the old contract, but suspect it's a pretty handsome paycheck for a part-time, seasonal job. Generally, if the refs were being asked to take a cut in the new contract, I'd be pretty sympathetic with their cause. But if they're asking for full-time status and lots of new benefits like a Cadillac health plan and generous pension, I'd probably lean more toward the owners' side.
But I don't know, and despite last night's debacle in the closing play of the Seahawks/Packers game, don't care too much. I don't know any NFL referees personally, which is the only way I'd have any interest. But as a fan, I hope they make a deal soon and get the pros back on the field so we can have a bit more confidence in the quality of officiating.
Driving to work this morning I heard a brief mention on the radio that the two sides were about 3.5 million dollars apart. That surprised me, because in the economics of the NFL, that number's pocket change.
So now I'm thinking its about power, not about the money. The surprisingly small number, along with the lockout, suggests to me that the owners want to make a statement and cow their officials into taking what they're given and never fighting for more again.
I don't know what the refs made in the old contract, but suspect it's a pretty handsome paycheck for a part-time, seasonal job. Generally, if the refs were being asked to take a cut in the new contract, I'd be pretty sympathetic with their cause. But if they're asking for full-time status and lots of new benefits like a Cadillac health plan and generous pension, I'd probably lean more toward the owners' side.
But I don't know, and despite last night's debacle in the closing play of the Seahawks/Packers game, don't care too much. I don't know any NFL referees personally, which is the only way I'd have any interest. But as a fan, I hope they make a deal soon and get the pros back on the field so we can have a bit more confidence in the quality of officiating.
Monday, September 24, 2012
In Search of a New Frontier
The media is not outright declaring that the race is over, but they seem to believe it. They're reporting on polling that shows Obama surging in the "swing" states since the Dem Convention. Some of those polls stretch believability, as they come back with double-digit leads in some cases in states where Obama won in 2008 by much less a margin.
What I think I know is that most folks are entrenched behind either Obama or Romney. And it appears that a very small group of folks, somewhere around 6 or 7 percent, will make the final decision for the rest of us. They can decide by pulling the lever on election day for one or the other, or by staying home.
I think most of Romney supporters aren't terribly excited about Mitt the man, but are highly motivated to replace the current occupant of the White House. I'm one of those that sees Romney as an almost apolitical moderate, who is unlikely to implement anything bold if he wins the office. He'll will implement policies that will begin to trim the deficit, but he won't solve the debt problem. I believe he'll work to repeal or defund or refuse to enforce ObamaCare, but I don't think he'll take the lead on some other, better healthcare plan to replace it.
I know of lots of folks who are thinking of sitting out this election because they're not inspired by either candidate. Many people share a sort of hopeless feeling, that Washington has become so corrupt and partisan that they're incapable of actually solving any problems.
I tell them I'm definitely going to vote for Romney for some critically important reasons. I'm appalled at Obama's disrespect for Christians - especially Catholics and Evangelicals, and his willingness to abridge the First Amendment in favor of secularist policies to prevent babies from surviving to birth. I'm appalled at his appeasement attitude toward Muslim terrorism alongside a disdain for America's traditional allies, especially Israel.
I fail to understand how it's possible for a president to win re-election given the disastrous circumstances we're experiencing when his campaign's only messages are, "At least I'm not as bad as the other guy", and "The rich need to pay more taxes". It's as if the entire country has gone insane, with a significant percentage seeming to worship the president as if he's some sort of demi-god.
We deserve the suffering we got when we elected him, and deserve the suffering to come should we do it again. If that happens, how can those like me who yearn for freedom go to start over as free people?
What I think I know is that most folks are entrenched behind either Obama or Romney. And it appears that a very small group of folks, somewhere around 6 or 7 percent, will make the final decision for the rest of us. They can decide by pulling the lever on election day for one or the other, or by staying home.
I think most of Romney supporters aren't terribly excited about Mitt the man, but are highly motivated to replace the current occupant of the White House. I'm one of those that sees Romney as an almost apolitical moderate, who is unlikely to implement anything bold if he wins the office. He'll will implement policies that will begin to trim the deficit, but he won't solve the debt problem. I believe he'll work to repeal or defund or refuse to enforce ObamaCare, but I don't think he'll take the lead on some other, better healthcare plan to replace it.
I know of lots of folks who are thinking of sitting out this election because they're not inspired by either candidate. Many people share a sort of hopeless feeling, that Washington has become so corrupt and partisan that they're incapable of actually solving any problems.
I tell them I'm definitely going to vote for Romney for some critically important reasons. I'm appalled at Obama's disrespect for Christians - especially Catholics and Evangelicals, and his willingness to abridge the First Amendment in favor of secularist policies to prevent babies from surviving to birth. I'm appalled at his appeasement attitude toward Muslim terrorism alongside a disdain for America's traditional allies, especially Israel.
I fail to understand how it's possible for a president to win re-election given the disastrous circumstances we're experiencing when his campaign's only messages are, "At least I'm not as bad as the other guy", and "The rich need to pay more taxes". It's as if the entire country has gone insane, with a significant percentage seeming to worship the president as if he's some sort of demi-god.
We deserve the suffering we got when we elected him, and deserve the suffering to come should we do it again. If that happens, how can those like me who yearn for freedom go to start over as free people?
Friday, September 21, 2012
Congratulations
To Columbus East's own Stevie Brown for his interception last night.
After the New York Giants had scored another touchdown in the fourth quarter to extend their lead over the Carolina Panthers to 33-7, Cam Newton passed his Panthers down the field into the red zone. Safety Anrel Rolle successfully defended against a Newton pass attempt in the end zone and was injured after colliding with a sideline cameraman (or woman).
So Stevie Brown took his place for Carolina's 3rd and goal play. As Newton dropped back to pass, Brown watched him from the goal line. Seeing that the Carolina quarterback's eyes were locked in on his receiver running a slant or post on the right side toward Brown, the reserve safety cut in front of the receiver and grabbed Newton's pass. Stevie returned the interception down the sideline for a 44-yard return, then jumped up and celebrated, grinning ear-to-ear.
Congratulations, Stevie, on your first career interception! It's been a challenging career, being cut by the Raiders and Colts before landing on the Giants' roster this season.
After the New York Giants had scored another touchdown in the fourth quarter to extend their lead over the Carolina Panthers to 33-7, Cam Newton passed his Panthers down the field into the red zone. Safety Anrel Rolle successfully defended against a Newton pass attempt in the end zone and was injured after colliding with a sideline cameraman (or woman).
So Stevie Brown took his place for Carolina's 3rd and goal play. As Newton dropped back to pass, Brown watched him from the goal line. Seeing that the Carolina quarterback's eyes were locked in on his receiver running a slant or post on the right side toward Brown, the reserve safety cut in front of the receiver and grabbed Newton's pass. Stevie returned the interception down the sideline for a 44-yard return, then jumped up and celebrated, grinning ear-to-ear.
Congratulations, Stevie, on your first career interception! It's been a challenging career, being cut by the Raiders and Colts before landing on the Giants' roster this season.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Tale of Two Videos
What's interesting about this week's campaign distraction is that the Romney video released by Mother Jones was intended to embarrass the candidate, so it was answered by a release of an Obama video where the incumbent made an unequivocal statement about his belief in wealth redistribution.
The videos are both revelations about each candidate's feelings and beliefs. And both are truthful, which I find most refreshing about the stories. Finally, the most committed supporters of each will exhort their candidate to stand up and own his statement.
Conservatives widely believe that the country is circling the drain because half the citizens are riding in the wagon while the other half are being forced to pull the wagon. It's getting harder for the pullers, and it hurts. Soon the wagon will cease to roll, because there won't be enough folks left to pull. That's when the country fails.
Romney's point was simply that that famous 47 percent aren't likely to vote for him, out of a belief that he represents a possible obstacle to their monthly check from the federal government. The media and Obama narrative that he "doesn't care" about 47 percent of the population is a lie. So all he was saying is that he has to focus on the 6 or 7 percent of the population that might be persuadable.
Romney supporters strongly approve of his comment, declaring it no gaffe at all but just a statement of fact. I think there are probably several net beneficiaries that are going to vote for Romney, such as disabled veterans and seniors who live on social security and medicare. So obviously it's a bit simplistic to group all government dependents into the Obama camp.
Obama supporters strongly approve of his declaration in favor of redistribution, because they also believe in socialism. These MSNBC types will exhort their president to stand behind his comments, because they think the only way America will ever be "fair" is when the government meets the needs of all of its citizens.
So the only point to the overexposure of these two videos is an attempt to influence anybody that might still be on the fence.
"Mr. Fence Sitter, which do you prefer?", ask the campaigners. "The Republican who dismisses all those who are dependent on the government for their lives, or the Democrat who promises more government handouts?".
Mr. Fence Sitter's decision is pretty easy to make, depending on his attitude toward wagon pullers and therefore whether he aspires to be a puller or rider.
The videos are both revelations about each candidate's feelings and beliefs. And both are truthful, which I find most refreshing about the stories. Finally, the most committed supporters of each will exhort their candidate to stand up and own his statement.
Conservatives widely believe that the country is circling the drain because half the citizens are riding in the wagon while the other half are being forced to pull the wagon. It's getting harder for the pullers, and it hurts. Soon the wagon will cease to roll, because there won't be enough folks left to pull. That's when the country fails.
Romney's point was simply that that famous 47 percent aren't likely to vote for him, out of a belief that he represents a possible obstacle to their monthly check from the federal government. The media and Obama narrative that he "doesn't care" about 47 percent of the population is a lie. So all he was saying is that he has to focus on the 6 or 7 percent of the population that might be persuadable.
Romney supporters strongly approve of his comment, declaring it no gaffe at all but just a statement of fact. I think there are probably several net beneficiaries that are going to vote for Romney, such as disabled veterans and seniors who live on social security and medicare. So obviously it's a bit simplistic to group all government dependents into the Obama camp.
Obama supporters strongly approve of his declaration in favor of redistribution, because they also believe in socialism. These MSNBC types will exhort their president to stand behind his comments, because they think the only way America will ever be "fair" is when the government meets the needs of all of its citizens.
So the only point to the overexposure of these two videos is an attempt to influence anybody that might still be on the fence.
"Mr. Fence Sitter, which do you prefer?", ask the campaigners. "The Republican who dismisses all those who are dependent on the government for their lives, or the Democrat who promises more government handouts?".
Mr. Fence Sitter's decision is pretty easy to make, depending on his attitude toward wagon pullers and therefore whether he aspires to be a puller or rider.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Marriage and Poverty
Mike Pence gave a speech promoting marriage. Not gay marriage, but traditional, mother and father and two kids nuclear family marriage. He promised to focus Indiana's policies on promotion and rewarding of those who finish their education, get a job, then get married and have children, then stay together. Statistically, those who follow that basic life formula are almost guaranteed to avoid poverty.
The snipers on the Left naturally sniffed their disapproval, saying it's not that simple. And he's some sort of bigot because he doesn't include homosexuals in that marriage promotion message.
The actual truth goes one step further. The foundation of this model of the committed marital relationship and nuclear family is faith. Those most likely to fit Mike's model of success are Christians who hold it as their moral obligation to honor their marital vows and take responsibility for their children. Without faith there isn't much of a hope of restoring the family.
I think Mike most likely agrees with this truth, but he has to be careful about expressing it clearly. These days that's the surest way to get himself marginalized as a "religious extremist", which despite its unfairness will cost him the Governor's office.
Still, if as governor he encourages churches to join him in promoting family values with consistent positive messages that show everybody why faith and family equals happiness, he could become the most successful governor in history.
The snipers on the Left naturally sniffed their disapproval, saying it's not that simple. And he's some sort of bigot because he doesn't include homosexuals in that marriage promotion message.
The actual truth goes one step further. The foundation of this model of the committed marital relationship and nuclear family is faith. Those most likely to fit Mike's model of success are Christians who hold it as their moral obligation to honor their marital vows and take responsibility for their children. Without faith there isn't much of a hope of restoring the family.
I think Mike most likely agrees with this truth, but he has to be careful about expressing it clearly. These days that's the surest way to get himself marginalized as a "religious extremist", which despite its unfairness will cost him the Governor's office.
Still, if as governor he encourages churches to join him in promoting family values with consistent positive messages that show everybody why faith and family equals happiness, he could become the most successful governor in history.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Is Obama Pulling Away?
The polling would seem to suggest that Obama's pulling away from Romney in the campaign. Putting aside for now the argument that many of those polls grossly oversample Democrats, there is a simple explanation: Romney's a weak candidate.
Per my previous post, Democrats believe most of the narrative being promoted by the Obama campaign and amplified by the compliant media. Romney will make the rich richer at the expense of the middle class. Romney will deny healthcare to the uninsured, and especially women. Romney will kill all regulation and let his corporate brothers run roughshod over people and the environment. Romney will start a war with Iran. Everybody knows this narrative, because it's unavoidable for anyone who watches television - we don't even have to watch news programs to be bombarded by these messages.
What's the Romney campaign narrative? Anybody heard one? OK, Obama's a failure. But what's Romney's plan? Nobody knows unless they take initiative to go to his website to read his 59-point plan.
My sense is the Romney campaign is a poor one, poorly executed. How is it that these "expert" advisors to the campaign don't know that there has to be a simple, easy-to-understand theme. Last time around Obama's theme was "Hope and Change". Nobody really knew what that meant, but Democrat-leaning folks were included to fill in the blanks with their own hopes and desired changes.
But I'm realizing that nobody who barely pays attention actually knows what Romney's plan is. Debt and deficit is a huge problem, but how's he going to fix it? Iran is almost ready to launch nukes at Israel, how's Romney going to stop them? Economists are predicting another recession, and unemployment's going to spike back above 9 percent in 2013. What's his plan to reverse that trend?
Nobody outside of party activists and Romney's campaign staff knows the answers to those critical questions.
His campaign says, "Don't worry, he'll get his momentum back in the debates". Not if he debates like McCain. In that last campaign, Obama won the debates by making it seem like he agreed with McCain on most everything. So voters came away with the perception that both candidates were essentially the same on the issues, so they voted for the "cool" candidate. I think he'll do something very similar to Romney, since it worked so well for him last time.
I see Obama ads all the time, but seldom see a Romney ad. The last Romney ad I saw was just about what a great guy he is, it didn't even mention policy. It was ineffective. Why doesn't the Romney campaign run ads that tell the truth about Obama's policies and goals that are already harming Americans? It may be "going negative", but the truth is the truth regardless of whether it's positive or negative, and people need to know.
It's strange to see Romney so passive at this critical stage of the campaign, after he was so aggressive and even mean when campaigning against Newt and Santorum in the primaries.
Per my previous post, Democrats believe most of the narrative being promoted by the Obama campaign and amplified by the compliant media. Romney will make the rich richer at the expense of the middle class. Romney will deny healthcare to the uninsured, and especially women. Romney will kill all regulation and let his corporate brothers run roughshod over people and the environment. Romney will start a war with Iran. Everybody knows this narrative, because it's unavoidable for anyone who watches television - we don't even have to watch news programs to be bombarded by these messages.
What's the Romney campaign narrative? Anybody heard one? OK, Obama's a failure. But what's Romney's plan? Nobody knows unless they take initiative to go to his website to read his 59-point plan.
My sense is the Romney campaign is a poor one, poorly executed. How is it that these "expert" advisors to the campaign don't know that there has to be a simple, easy-to-understand theme. Last time around Obama's theme was "Hope and Change". Nobody really knew what that meant, but Democrat-leaning folks were included to fill in the blanks with their own hopes and desired changes.
But I'm realizing that nobody who barely pays attention actually knows what Romney's plan is. Debt and deficit is a huge problem, but how's he going to fix it? Iran is almost ready to launch nukes at Israel, how's Romney going to stop them? Economists are predicting another recession, and unemployment's going to spike back above 9 percent in 2013. What's his plan to reverse that trend?
Nobody outside of party activists and Romney's campaign staff knows the answers to those critical questions.
His campaign says, "Don't worry, he'll get his momentum back in the debates". Not if he debates like McCain. In that last campaign, Obama won the debates by making it seem like he agreed with McCain on most everything. So voters came away with the perception that both candidates were essentially the same on the issues, so they voted for the "cool" candidate. I think he'll do something very similar to Romney, since it worked so well for him last time.
I see Obama ads all the time, but seldom see a Romney ad. The last Romney ad I saw was just about what a great guy he is, it didn't even mention policy. It was ineffective. Why doesn't the Romney campaign run ads that tell the truth about Obama's policies and goals that are already harming Americans? It may be "going negative", but the truth is the truth regardless of whether it's positive or negative, and people need to know.
It's strange to see Romney so passive at this critical stage of the campaign, after he was so aggressive and even mean when campaigning against Newt and Santorum in the primaries.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Why Isn't Romney Ahead by 50 Points?
The common question these days asked by incredulous conservatives is, with the dismal Obama record, why isn't Romney way ahead in the polls?
I've been wondering that myself, and have been trying to find out. Hardly a pollster, I can only draw conclusions by listening to Democrats. So here are some of the reasons I'm picking up:
War Weariness: Some folks are still hung over from the Iraq war, and can't wait for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan. They see no point in sending our children overseas to be killed in some God-forsaken desert. Many of them think the Iraq war was initiated only for the benefit of Bush's friends in the Oil industry. And Romney will immediately go to war with Iran if elected.
Monthly Checks: Many seniors have succumbed to the endless drumbeat of the Obama campaign and now (falsely) believe they will lose their Medicare and Social Security if Republicans regain power. Welfare and Unemployment recipients believe their checks will stop after Republicans regain power.
Union Busting: Union members see Republicans as union busters. They have their evidence from what happened in Wisconsin and Indiana. Wisconsin cut back on bargaining priviledges for public unions, while Indiana became a Right to Work state.
Healthcare: Something I find rather shocking is that many Democrats still support Obamacare. They've convinced themselves that the law was critical to providing healthcare to those who can't afford it. They believe that without Obamacare, all those millions of uninsured people will die because doctors and hospitals will turn them away when they're sick or injured.
I suppose if I believed all those things I'd be a Democrat too. I don't know everything, but think at least partially the reason I don't share those beliefs is because I try every day to understand each issue completely and draw my own conclusions.
Rather than voting for the guy who seems to guarantee no war under any circumstances, I think the primary role of the Federal government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. So if Iran builds nukes and points them at Israel, I think we have to protect Israel from annihilation, even if it costs us another middle east war.
Retirees shouldn't and won't lose their benefits under Romney, and the Obama campaign is pushing a false message. Rather than taking away the monthly checks from the other poor and unemployed, Republicans want to stimulate the private economy so it hires those folks and returns them to self-sufficiency. To the degree that some of those folks have become dependent on those monthly checks and don't want to rejoin the productive class, we can only restore the Welfare-to-Work policies that nudge them back into the workforce.
Union Busting is definitely a Republican priority, so I don't have much that would refute the union members' belief that Republicans would happily bust unions. Except in Wisconsin, they only busted public employee unions, which I believe deserve to be busted because of the corruption that's resulted in their rise to power. I believe workers have the right to band together to form a union for the purpose of negotiating better pay and benefits for themselves, but the mob influences and abuse of union members so rampant in today's big unions is a travesty. I'm fine with Right-to-Work, because I think forcing people to belong to a union as a prerequisite to making a living for their families is un-American.
Healthcare needs reform, but not the Obamacare Federal kind of reform that will certainly make it harder for all of us to get healthcare and dictate what care we're permitted. The law is a horrible loss of freedom, and is interfering with our constitutional freedoms of religion and association. By picking the insurance companies that can participate, then dictating to them what they must cover and at what premiums, there is no longer a free market in healthcare. I believe the opposite of Democrats, that if Obamacare is allowed to stand, millions will find the treatments they need delayed or denied by the Federal government.
I'm also hearing folks who say they won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon. What puzzles me is how they'd answer the question, "But you'll vote for Obama, whose religion can't be determined?" I've become convinced that Obama's an atheist - he may be sympathetic to Muslims, but his policies are those of an unbeliever.
I only wish those Democrats would do a bit of homework and at least learn the facts behind what Obama has done and is doing in office. The truth is the best healer for toxic beliefs.
I've been wondering that myself, and have been trying to find out. Hardly a pollster, I can only draw conclusions by listening to Democrats. So here are some of the reasons I'm picking up:
War Weariness: Some folks are still hung over from the Iraq war, and can't wait for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan. They see no point in sending our children overseas to be killed in some God-forsaken desert. Many of them think the Iraq war was initiated only for the benefit of Bush's friends in the Oil industry. And Romney will immediately go to war with Iran if elected.
Monthly Checks: Many seniors have succumbed to the endless drumbeat of the Obama campaign and now (falsely) believe they will lose their Medicare and Social Security if Republicans regain power. Welfare and Unemployment recipients believe their checks will stop after Republicans regain power.
Union Busting: Union members see Republicans as union busters. They have their evidence from what happened in Wisconsin and Indiana. Wisconsin cut back on bargaining priviledges for public unions, while Indiana became a Right to Work state.
Healthcare: Something I find rather shocking is that many Democrats still support Obamacare. They've convinced themselves that the law was critical to providing healthcare to those who can't afford it. They believe that without Obamacare, all those millions of uninsured people will die because doctors and hospitals will turn them away when they're sick or injured.
I suppose if I believed all those things I'd be a Democrat too. I don't know everything, but think at least partially the reason I don't share those beliefs is because I try every day to understand each issue completely and draw my own conclusions.
Rather than voting for the guy who seems to guarantee no war under any circumstances, I think the primary role of the Federal government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. So if Iran builds nukes and points them at Israel, I think we have to protect Israel from annihilation, even if it costs us another middle east war.
Retirees shouldn't and won't lose their benefits under Romney, and the Obama campaign is pushing a false message. Rather than taking away the monthly checks from the other poor and unemployed, Republicans want to stimulate the private economy so it hires those folks and returns them to self-sufficiency. To the degree that some of those folks have become dependent on those monthly checks and don't want to rejoin the productive class, we can only restore the Welfare-to-Work policies that nudge them back into the workforce.
Union Busting is definitely a Republican priority, so I don't have much that would refute the union members' belief that Republicans would happily bust unions. Except in Wisconsin, they only busted public employee unions, which I believe deserve to be busted because of the corruption that's resulted in their rise to power. I believe workers have the right to band together to form a union for the purpose of negotiating better pay and benefits for themselves, but the mob influences and abuse of union members so rampant in today's big unions is a travesty. I'm fine with Right-to-Work, because I think forcing people to belong to a union as a prerequisite to making a living for their families is un-American.
Healthcare needs reform, but not the Obamacare Federal kind of reform that will certainly make it harder for all of us to get healthcare and dictate what care we're permitted. The law is a horrible loss of freedom, and is interfering with our constitutional freedoms of religion and association. By picking the insurance companies that can participate, then dictating to them what they must cover and at what premiums, there is no longer a free market in healthcare. I believe the opposite of Democrats, that if Obamacare is allowed to stand, millions will find the treatments they need delayed or denied by the Federal government.
I'm also hearing folks who say they won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon. What puzzles me is how they'd answer the question, "But you'll vote for Obama, whose religion can't be determined?" I've become convinced that Obama's an atheist - he may be sympathetic to Muslims, but his policies are those of an unbeliever.
I only wish those Democrats would do a bit of homework and at least learn the facts behind what Obama has done and is doing in office. The truth is the best healer for toxic beliefs.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Nauseating Incompetence
As the facts begin to trickle out about the debacles of Islamic invasions into our embassies in the middle east, I'm nauseated over the incompetence. If we can't explain the stunning incompetence of the State Department in failing to protect their embassies, we'd have to consider that our own leaders were complicit in the disasters.
We can't confirm the latest reports, that the Egyptian ambassador refused to allow those Marine guards to carry live ammunition, and that the State Department received 48 hours advance warning of the attacks in US embassies in the region and failed to do anything at all to protect their own people. Since the Obama Administration has proven remarkably adept at covering up and suppressing any information that they think could reflect negatively on the President, it will certainly be difficult to confirm these stories.
Even if those stories aren't precisely true, who in the world wouln't have been able to predict that Islamists would mount some sort of attack on the US on 9/11? It's simply unforgivable that Hillary seems to have treated the security of her department in the region so cavalierly. It's unforgivable that both Hillary and Barack came out initially with messages that sympathized with the terrorists and bemoaned that inconvenient principle of their own country commonly known as "Freedom of Speech". It's unforgivable that Obama spoke for a couple of minutes about the incidents as if it irritated him to have to deal with this distraction from his re-election campaign, then ran away from the press to fly out west to Vegas and Colorado for more campaigning.
No word on any actual response to these attacks. Embassies are considered US soil, and attacks on Embassies are acts of war. So Obama isn't sure whether Egypt is an enemy or an ally. Maybe somebody could give the so-called leader of the free world a clue?
Wait, Obama did do something. He had Eric Holder hunt down the filmmaker and expose him to the jihadists with the help of their Pravda-like sycophantic media. Maybe he hopes the jihadists will find and execute the filmmaker, whose film had previously reached maybe a couple hundred audience members before somebody at al Quaeda found it and brandished it to the faithful to inspire them to riot. Then he insulted Mitt Romney with some comment about firing then aiming.
Meanwhile the al Quaeda gang celebrates a great victory against the craven idiot Obama and plots their next attack.
Again, what more evidence does anybody need that this guy needs to become a private citizen before he can finish his reign of destruction?
We can't confirm the latest reports, that the Egyptian ambassador refused to allow those Marine guards to carry live ammunition, and that the State Department received 48 hours advance warning of the attacks in US embassies in the region and failed to do anything at all to protect their own people. Since the Obama Administration has proven remarkably adept at covering up and suppressing any information that they think could reflect negatively on the President, it will certainly be difficult to confirm these stories.
Even if those stories aren't precisely true, who in the world wouln't have been able to predict that Islamists would mount some sort of attack on the US on 9/11? It's simply unforgivable that Hillary seems to have treated the security of her department in the region so cavalierly. It's unforgivable that both Hillary and Barack came out initially with messages that sympathized with the terrorists and bemoaned that inconvenient principle of their own country commonly known as "Freedom of Speech". It's unforgivable that Obama spoke for a couple of minutes about the incidents as if it irritated him to have to deal with this distraction from his re-election campaign, then ran away from the press to fly out west to Vegas and Colorado for more campaigning.
No word on any actual response to these attacks. Embassies are considered US soil, and attacks on Embassies are acts of war. So Obama isn't sure whether Egypt is an enemy or an ally. Maybe somebody could give the so-called leader of the free world a clue?
Wait, Obama did do something. He had Eric Holder hunt down the filmmaker and expose him to the jihadists with the help of their Pravda-like sycophantic media. Maybe he hopes the jihadists will find and execute the filmmaker, whose film had previously reached maybe a couple hundred audience members before somebody at al Quaeda found it and brandished it to the faithful to inspire them to riot. Then he insulted Mitt Romney with some comment about firing then aiming.
Meanwhile the al Quaeda gang celebrates a great victory against the craven idiot Obama and plots their next attack.
Again, what more evidence does anybody need that this guy needs to become a private citizen before he can finish his reign of destruction?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Sociological Experiment
The purpose of this post has no particular point or statement to make, but instead is just to share some observations about race and diversity in the workplace.
In my capacity as a software consultant, I have the opportunity to visit lots of companies. While no substitute for a scientific study, my observations over the years do tend to indicate some general conclusions.
If I walk through a lunchroom in a plant, I can observe plenty of interesting social trends. In some places men tend to sit with men, women with women. But that's not consistently true - I've seen lunchrooms where there's no discernable division in the associations of men and women.
But there's certainly an observable racial trend. Here's what I've observed:
Where hispanics are mostly first-generation immigrants who may not have fully developed English language skills, they tend to self-segregate. But those folks of hispanic origin who may be native to the US are much more likely to be sitting with the white workers.
I notice that Asians are also not completely predictable in their associations, unless you separate them by country of origin. I observe that, say, Vietnamese are more likely to self-segregate in the lunchroom than those from Japan or Korea.
Black people often self-segregate, but not consistently. It's very common to see some black people mixing comfortably with the white and hispanic groups, while others continue to self-segregate. My working theory that's somewhat backed up by observation when I know a bit about the backgrounds of individuals is that the best identifiable factor in this trend is education level. It seems that college-educated black persons are more likely to feel comfortable interacting with the white and hispanic employees than those with less education.
I haven't observed any self-segregation by Indian immigrants; they generally seem to be making an effort to integrate with their co-workers. Although the Sikh immigrants may be an exception; but I haven't observed enough of that group to draw any specific conclusions.
White groups I don't find exclusive to their own race. In fact, they seem quite open and welcoming to anyone who would like to join them, regardless of race or national origin. Certainly there are exceptions with specific white cliques, but they seem to be exclusive more from a resistance to shuffling long-established relationships than from a racial bias.
Of course, I have never observed any open conflict or hostility between groups. People tend to hang out with other people with whom they feel comfortable. It's hard to be comfortable when there's a language barrier and cultural differences, which seems a good explanation for the self-segregation I see with Southeast Asians and first-generation hispanic immigrants.
Certainly the main trend I have noticed over the years is the significant increase in the population of immigrants in nearly all workplaces. It's fascinating to see the number of employees born in America, regardless of race, shrinking significantly while the population of immigrant employees has exploded. That trend is commonly celebrated as a virtue by most companies - but I struggle to identify exactly what's virtuous about importing folks from outside the country to fill your open positions while millions of American citizens can't find work.
In my capacity as a software consultant, I have the opportunity to visit lots of companies. While no substitute for a scientific study, my observations over the years do tend to indicate some general conclusions.
If I walk through a lunchroom in a plant, I can observe plenty of interesting social trends. In some places men tend to sit with men, women with women. But that's not consistently true - I've seen lunchrooms where there's no discernable division in the associations of men and women.
But there's certainly an observable racial trend. Here's what I've observed:
Where hispanics are mostly first-generation immigrants who may not have fully developed English language skills, they tend to self-segregate. But those folks of hispanic origin who may be native to the US are much more likely to be sitting with the white workers.
I notice that Asians are also not completely predictable in their associations, unless you separate them by country of origin. I observe that, say, Vietnamese are more likely to self-segregate in the lunchroom than those from Japan or Korea.
Black people often self-segregate, but not consistently. It's very common to see some black people mixing comfortably with the white and hispanic groups, while others continue to self-segregate. My working theory that's somewhat backed up by observation when I know a bit about the backgrounds of individuals is that the best identifiable factor in this trend is education level. It seems that college-educated black persons are more likely to feel comfortable interacting with the white and hispanic employees than those with less education.
I haven't observed any self-segregation by Indian immigrants; they generally seem to be making an effort to integrate with their co-workers. Although the Sikh immigrants may be an exception; but I haven't observed enough of that group to draw any specific conclusions.
White groups I don't find exclusive to their own race. In fact, they seem quite open and welcoming to anyone who would like to join them, regardless of race or national origin. Certainly there are exceptions with specific white cliques, but they seem to be exclusive more from a resistance to shuffling long-established relationships than from a racial bias.
Of course, I have never observed any open conflict or hostility between groups. People tend to hang out with other people with whom they feel comfortable. It's hard to be comfortable when there's a language barrier and cultural differences, which seems a good explanation for the self-segregation I see with Southeast Asians and first-generation hispanic immigrants.
Certainly the main trend I have noticed over the years is the significant increase in the population of immigrants in nearly all workplaces. It's fascinating to see the number of employees born in America, regardless of race, shrinking significantly while the population of immigrant employees has exploded. That trend is commonly celebrated as a virtue by most companies - but I struggle to identify exactly what's virtuous about importing folks from outside the country to fill your open positions while millions of American citizens can't find work.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
What More Evidence Do People Need?
Every single year on the 9/11 anniversary the Islamists have tried to hit us with terrorist strikes. This year they succeeded. President Obama and his State Department were asleep, and Americans were killed or nearly killed by Islamists in Egypt and Libya.
There must have been credible intelligence warning the president in advance that these attacks might be in the works. But according to news reports, the president's not really interested in attending intelligence briefings. We should have had beefed-up security, especially in the Middle East.
Worse yet, after the attacks finally ended, the president seemingly had no idea how to respond. So others responded. Now the White House is scrambling to repair all the mixed messages sent out by the State Department and the Administration. Either America is sorry for our misguided citizens making films critical of the Prophet, or America condemns the attacks and wants those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and his staff brought to justice.
Or maybe a little of both. Obama seems to have in the same statement offered regrets that American free speech rights gave offense, but at the same time condemns the violence. Hillary Clinton's remarks sounded as if she is treating the terrorist incident like a political disagreement, praising the Libyan government for trying to help diffuse the situation while other reporting suggests that same government gave the ambassador's location to the terrorists and encouraged them to go get him.
This is what they call the Arab Spring?
What more evidence do voters need to figure out that the child prince Obama must be demoted to "Former President"?
There must have been credible intelligence warning the president in advance that these attacks might be in the works. But according to news reports, the president's not really interested in attending intelligence briefings. We should have had beefed-up security, especially in the Middle East.
Worse yet, after the attacks finally ended, the president seemingly had no idea how to respond. So others responded. Now the White House is scrambling to repair all the mixed messages sent out by the State Department and the Administration. Either America is sorry for our misguided citizens making films critical of the Prophet, or America condemns the attacks and wants those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and his staff brought to justice.
Or maybe a little of both. Obama seems to have in the same statement offered regrets that American free speech rights gave offense, but at the same time condemns the violence. Hillary Clinton's remarks sounded as if she is treating the terrorist incident like a political disagreement, praising the Libyan government for trying to help diffuse the situation while other reporting suggests that same government gave the ambassador's location to the terrorists and encouraged them to go get him.
This is what they call the Arab Spring?
What more evidence do voters need to figure out that the child prince Obama must be demoted to "Former President"?
Chuck Norris Told Me to
Go see the movie, 'Last Ounce of Courage'. Who am I to ignore Chuck Norris?
So I saw it last night. Sure, it was obviously made on a shoestring, and production values were on par with a made-for-TV movie. It was sort of like a Hallmark Channel movie in many aspects. It was over-the-top with melodrama and sub-par acting.
Even so, it succeeded in extracting some liquid excretions from my ocular region. In its heavy-handed over-dramatized fashion, it delivers an important message about Freedom, Family, and Faith. The effect of years of ACLU-driven attacks on public displays of religion is depicted in a small town where students might get suspended if caught with a Bible on campus, the Ten Commandments have been torn down from the courthouse, and a Christmas Tree can no longer be erected in the town square.
The movie is about a grieving father of a soldier who lost his life in an overseas war, presumably Iraq or Afghanistan, who is challenged by his teenage grandson to step up against the erosion of freedoms for which he and his son both fought. Grandfather and grandson both step up with the help of others, and are of course persecuted by the Left-Wing PC crowd to the extent that Grandpa actually gets jailed briefly after replacing a cross that had been torn down from a rescue mission in town.
The movie message is valid, even if its presentation is a bit overbearing. The clear message is that Americans need to step up and be counted to save our most treasured freedoms from destruction by leftist forces.
Do I endorse this film? Sure. Everybody should see it. Christians and Conservatives will love it, while Atheists and Liberals will hate it. But if nothing else, I hope those who don't like the message at least will form some understanding about how the rest of us feel when they constantly try to drive our faith underground by telling us we're being "offensive" when we publicly celebrate Christmas.
So I saw it last night. Sure, it was obviously made on a shoestring, and production values were on par with a made-for-TV movie. It was sort of like a Hallmark Channel movie in many aspects. It was over-the-top with melodrama and sub-par acting.
Even so, it succeeded in extracting some liquid excretions from my ocular region. In its heavy-handed over-dramatized fashion, it delivers an important message about Freedom, Family, and Faith. The effect of years of ACLU-driven attacks on public displays of religion is depicted in a small town where students might get suspended if caught with a Bible on campus, the Ten Commandments have been torn down from the courthouse, and a Christmas Tree can no longer be erected in the town square.
The movie is about a grieving father of a soldier who lost his life in an overseas war, presumably Iraq or Afghanistan, who is challenged by his teenage grandson to step up against the erosion of freedoms for which he and his son both fought. Grandfather and grandson both step up with the help of others, and are of course persecuted by the Left-Wing PC crowd to the extent that Grandpa actually gets jailed briefly after replacing a cross that had been torn down from a rescue mission in town.
The movie message is valid, even if its presentation is a bit overbearing. The clear message is that Americans need to step up and be counted to save our most treasured freedoms from destruction by leftist forces.
Do I endorse this film? Sure. Everybody should see it. Christians and Conservatives will love it, while Atheists and Liberals will hate it. But if nothing else, I hope those who don't like the message at least will form some understanding about how the rest of us feel when they constantly try to drive our faith underground by telling us we're being "offensive" when we publicly celebrate Christmas.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Conspiracy Theories
I've been hearing lots of conspiracy theories from people I know who are completely turned off by the political scene. It's hard to blame them, and occasionally their theories even seem plausible. Here are a few recent theories I've been hearing.
The presidential election is meaningless. The battle between Obama and Romney's all for show. The fix is in. Some folks think the election's already been fixed for Obama; that no matter what the voters do, the Obama administration will cheat on the vote counts and claim victory. With what knowledge I have of the voting process, that theory's hard for me to swallow, since I've not seen any feds around the process that's mostly controlled at the precinct level and the president is elected by the electoral college.
Another theory is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney. All the arguments about Obama's socialist policies versus Romney's free market policies are window dressing - if Obama gets elected, we'll get more of the same of what we have had the last 4 years. If Romney gets elected, he won't change anything. Because the invisible big shots that pull the strings have rigged things to make sure no matter which guy gets elected, he'll be sure to do their bidding. I'm not sure who exactly the big shots are that are pulling the strings, but there's a sort of chilling plausibility to this theory.
Some think the string-pullers behind the scenes are from places like Goldman Sachs. They note that despite all the angry accusations against Wall Street for destroying the economy with those real estate derivitaves, not a single person responsible for that destruction has been named or prosecuted. The only name I've heard who misappropriated investor funds is John Corzine, who is apparently just as bad as Bernie Madoff but doesn't go to jail because he is being protected by the Democrats. He actually is a financier for Obama, so that theory is pretty true, but I can't say with any certainty that he has a great deal of influence on US policy.
I hear lots from Ron Pauliacs about the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke and the Fed Reserve board are the string-pullers. The Fed definitely needs a lot more transparency, but I worry about giving control over their policies over to politicians. But sometimes I wonder if we've already done so by allowing Obama to seat Bernanke and Geithner, who seem beholden to him.
A theory that worries me the most is the one where Obama has a plan to transform America into a Communist Dictatorship under the same tactics used by Chavez in Venezuela. All he has to do is get his own supreme court judges seated, then issue more unilateral laws like he has with immigration, energy regulation, and the HHS mandate. Once he has no court to stop him, who could stop him if in his second term he outlaws conservative talk radio and Fox News, jails prominent conservatives, and either appoints his own sycophants to the House and Senate or simply dissolves congress?
Most people would call that last theory crazy, that can't happen in America! Why not? If it can happen in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, El Salvador, Korea, etc., why couldn't it happen here?
Personally I think the pollsters are purposely over-sampling Democrats to give the Obama campaign the results they are demanding (based on a story about Gallup, it seems to lend credence to that last theory). But I actually think there's a decent chance that Romney will win in a landslide, as long as the Obama campaign can be stopped from cheating.
So to put the conspiracists to rest, these things need to happen:
1. Romney has to win in a clear landslide
2. Obama leaves office quietly and graciously
3. Romney actually implements positive policy changes as promised
I hold out hope for number 1 and 2, but can't be sure whether we'll see #3.
The presidential election is meaningless. The battle between Obama and Romney's all for show. The fix is in. Some folks think the election's already been fixed for Obama; that no matter what the voters do, the Obama administration will cheat on the vote counts and claim victory. With what knowledge I have of the voting process, that theory's hard for me to swallow, since I've not seen any feds around the process that's mostly controlled at the precinct level and the president is elected by the electoral college.
Another theory is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney. All the arguments about Obama's socialist policies versus Romney's free market policies are window dressing - if Obama gets elected, we'll get more of the same of what we have had the last 4 years. If Romney gets elected, he won't change anything. Because the invisible big shots that pull the strings have rigged things to make sure no matter which guy gets elected, he'll be sure to do their bidding. I'm not sure who exactly the big shots are that are pulling the strings, but there's a sort of chilling plausibility to this theory.
Some think the string-pullers behind the scenes are from places like Goldman Sachs. They note that despite all the angry accusations against Wall Street for destroying the economy with those real estate derivitaves, not a single person responsible for that destruction has been named or prosecuted. The only name I've heard who misappropriated investor funds is John Corzine, who is apparently just as bad as Bernie Madoff but doesn't go to jail because he is being protected by the Democrats. He actually is a financier for Obama, so that theory is pretty true, but I can't say with any certainty that he has a great deal of influence on US policy.
I hear lots from Ron Pauliacs about the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke and the Fed Reserve board are the string-pullers. The Fed definitely needs a lot more transparency, but I worry about giving control over their policies over to politicians. But sometimes I wonder if we've already done so by allowing Obama to seat Bernanke and Geithner, who seem beholden to him.
A theory that worries me the most is the one where Obama has a plan to transform America into a Communist Dictatorship under the same tactics used by Chavez in Venezuela. All he has to do is get his own supreme court judges seated, then issue more unilateral laws like he has with immigration, energy regulation, and the HHS mandate. Once he has no court to stop him, who could stop him if in his second term he outlaws conservative talk radio and Fox News, jails prominent conservatives, and either appoints his own sycophants to the House and Senate or simply dissolves congress?
Most people would call that last theory crazy, that can't happen in America! Why not? If it can happen in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, El Salvador, Korea, etc., why couldn't it happen here?
Personally I think the pollsters are purposely over-sampling Democrats to give the Obama campaign the results they are demanding (based on a story about Gallup, it seems to lend credence to that last theory). But I actually think there's a decent chance that Romney will win in a landslide, as long as the Obama campaign can be stopped from cheating.
So to put the conspiracists to rest, these things need to happen:
1. Romney has to win in a clear landslide
2. Obama leaves office quietly and graciously
3. Romney actually implements positive policy changes as promised
I hold out hope for number 1 and 2, but can't be sure whether we'll see #3.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Our Choice is For or Against God
The disgusting DNC spectacle that took place when they decided to push through the re-insertion of God and Jerusalem into their platform hit me with the realization that this year our country decides whether we're for or against God.
Republicans represent the "pro" side.
Democrats represent the "anti" side.
There's really no need to get into platforms, because both party platforms are mere details that affirm their attitudes toward God.
Pro-God means fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, freedom of religion, less oppressive government, honoring and encouraging the family, and honoring work.
Anti-God means abortion and gay marriage, mandates that churches to abandon the core principles of thier faith, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don't, rewarding irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, and encouragement to those who openly and even proudly violate all of God's commandments.
The choice has never been more stark. Certainly in my lifetime. Most likely in the history of this republic.
And the media is crowing today that the polls show Obama's going to win. If so, is there anyplace left on earth to which we pro-God folks can escape to live in peace and safety from persecution?
Republicans represent the "pro" side.
Democrats represent the "anti" side.
There's really no need to get into platforms, because both party platforms are mere details that affirm their attitudes toward God.
Pro-God means fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, freedom of religion, less oppressive government, honoring and encouraging the family, and honoring work.
Anti-God means abortion and gay marriage, mandates that churches to abandon the core principles of thier faith, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don't, rewarding irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, and encouragement to those who openly and even proudly violate all of God's commandments.
The choice has never been more stark. Certainly in my lifetime. Most likely in the history of this republic.
And the media is crowing today that the polls show Obama's going to win. If so, is there anyplace left on earth to which we pro-God folks can escape to live in peace and safety from persecution?
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Brilliant
This brilliant comment about Sandra Fluke at the Democrat Convention comes from Mark Steyn:
"But what's strange is that so many people don't find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."
The emperor has no clothes.
"But what's strange is that so many people don't find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."
The emperor has no clothes.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Here's to Ignoring the DNC
I haven't heard a single speech. I haven't watched any network or cable convention coverage. So how did I still manage to pick up on these little tidbits?
The Dems eliminated all mention of God from their platform. They also removed a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Apparently they took a lot of heat on those decisions, so they put them back in - by having their chairman lie about the voice vote results when they asked the delegates to vote on putting those items back into the platform. This could be the most telling story of the convention about who Democrats really are.
Sandra Fluke is back as a primetime speaker at the convention. The law student who hates Catholics yet attends the Catholic University at Georgetown thinks all employers must be forced by government decree to pay for contraception and abortion for their female employees and their 26-year-old dependents. But she can't come out and say that, so she has to invent a fantasy world where evil Republicans who hate women won't let them see a doctor or get a mammogram. Republicans somehow want to force women to have dozens of children against their will. If American women are buying that fiction, we really are in serious decline.
The single largest block of DNC delegates appears to be Teachers. I wonder who's teaching their classes back home? Maybe instead of the DNC we should refer to it as the NEA National Convention. I wonder if there is a single private small business owner there as a delegate? Wouldn't that person make for an interesting interview: "So you support the major expansion in your healthcare expenses brought on by Obamacare? How is your business going to adapt to that and the rest of the federal regulatory costs?"
Democrats everywhere are swooning over Michelle Obama's "wonderful" speech. Apparently it was so moving they cried. This might be the confirmation of my consistent theory about Democrats - they're driven by emotion. All heart and no brains.
Wow, how did I pick up all this stuff while ignoring the convention?
The Dems eliminated all mention of God from their platform. They also removed a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Apparently they took a lot of heat on those decisions, so they put them back in - by having their chairman lie about the voice vote results when they asked the delegates to vote on putting those items back into the platform. This could be the most telling story of the convention about who Democrats really are.
Sandra Fluke is back as a primetime speaker at the convention. The law student who hates Catholics yet attends the Catholic University at Georgetown thinks all employers must be forced by government decree to pay for contraception and abortion for their female employees and their 26-year-old dependents. But she can't come out and say that, so she has to invent a fantasy world where evil Republicans who hate women won't let them see a doctor or get a mammogram. Republicans somehow want to force women to have dozens of children against their will. If American women are buying that fiction, we really are in serious decline.
The single largest block of DNC delegates appears to be Teachers. I wonder who's teaching their classes back home? Maybe instead of the DNC we should refer to it as the NEA National Convention. I wonder if there is a single private small business owner there as a delegate? Wouldn't that person make for an interesting interview: "So you support the major expansion in your healthcare expenses brought on by Obamacare? How is your business going to adapt to that and the rest of the federal regulatory costs?"
Democrats everywhere are swooning over Michelle Obama's "wonderful" speech. Apparently it was so moving they cried. This might be the confirmation of my consistent theory about Democrats - they're driven by emotion. All heart and no brains.
Wow, how did I pick up all this stuff while ignoring the convention?
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Hiding from the News this Week
For the sake of my blood pressure, I'm going to avoid the news this week. The DNC agenda appears to be packed with speakers who will extol modern Democrat party values, which nearly all inspire only nausea for this Christian Conservative.
It's more than I can bear to hear or watch Democrats extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, gay marriage and gay adoption, "free" contraception and abortion on demand, green energy and envy of the wealthy.
I've become weary of seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Ms. Cutter and Mr. Axelrod appearing every day on the networks spinning nasty lies about their political opponents. I'm even more weary of those network pundits suggesting that the lies are equally distributed between the campaigns, which is itself a lie. I can't bear any more of a President who operates under the philosophy that the ends justify the means.
Instead of "Vote for Me", we have a sitting President running a campaign based on the message, "Hey, at least I'm not George W. Bush". Or "Don't vote for the other guy, you'll lose your government check!".
For the last 3 and a half years I've been watching as my country circles the drain, barely hanging onto the rim of the toilet with my fingernails. Down below, I see the rest of the people riding the whirlpool as if it's an amusement park ride. I keep trying to get their attention to warn them of impending doom, but they just ignore me. Soon there will be no safe place left to go.
It's more than I can bear to hear or watch Democrats extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, gay marriage and gay adoption, "free" contraception and abortion on demand, green energy and envy of the wealthy.
I've become weary of seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Ms. Cutter and Mr. Axelrod appearing every day on the networks spinning nasty lies about their political opponents. I'm even more weary of those network pundits suggesting that the lies are equally distributed between the campaigns, which is itself a lie. I can't bear any more of a President who operates under the philosophy that the ends justify the means.
Instead of "Vote for Me", we have a sitting President running a campaign based on the message, "Hey, at least I'm not George W. Bush". Or "Don't vote for the other guy, you'll lose your government check!".
For the last 3 and a half years I've been watching as my country circles the drain, barely hanging onto the rim of the toilet with my fingernails. Down below, I see the rest of the people riding the whirlpool as if it's an amusement park ride. I keep trying to get their attention to warn them of impending doom, but they just ignore me. Soon there will be no safe place left to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)