The idea rolling around in my head is one that has suggested itself as the answer to, "What can be done to save America from certain destruction?"
How about using the communication tools so expertly dominated by the Left?
Movies, Television, Internet and Social Media.
What if Catholics and Protestants could put aside their theological differences and unite behind a church-funded media organization? The media organization would have these divisions:
1. A theatrical motion picture company that produces high quality films with state of the art production values. The films will depict stories about heroes and families who exemplify all that is good about America's traditional Christian values. Stories that show people living their faith, respecting life, protecting the country, working hard, going to church, marrying and staying married, having and raising children. Really good stories that show values in practice without being preachy. Done right, this might be the biggest moneymaker of any film producer ever to come out of Hollywood.
2. A Television Network that offers an alternative to the cable news networks, bringing straight news without spin mixed with compelling programs offering true non-partisan investigative jounalism and honest analysis of events and policies. What I have always hoped to see would be a program dedicated to honest debate over the big issues of the day, using a moderated debate format to allow opposite sides to present their best arguments on the chosen topic.
3. A website and internet technology operation that is built as a news outlet and social media platform where people can interact with each other about any topic.
The Left has certainly mastered these outlets, which seem to be incredibly effective at shaping attitudes and opinions. This is the only way for the Christian community to level the playing field. Right now we're not even signed up for the league.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Fooling Half of the People All of the Time
They do it by changing the language. Illegal Aliens has become Undocumented Immigrant. Abortion has become Women's Preventative Health. The Benghazi terror attack was explained as a Spontaneous Protest.
The ugly truth about abortion is being made clear with the prosecution of Kermit Gosnell. People are only now learning the reality of abortion is not merely the excision of some tiny mass of tissue from a woman's cervix. Instead it is the willful murder of a baby who unfortunately finds herself the product of a casual extramarital sexual encounter.
Turns out that baby isn't some amorphous blob of tissue, but a fully-formed human being. Because she was created through an illegitimate sexual relationship, she is ripped from her mother limb-from-limb and thrown out as biological waste or flushed down a toilet. Gosnell merely decided that it's easier to kill the baby after she's born, by taking scissors to her spinal column. His methods are just as brutal as what he does to the infant in the womb, so his defense seems to be "so what?".
The President just promised Planned Parenthood that he will fight harder than ever to let them continue doing this to millions of children.
The Gang of 8 is dedicated to opening the borders and erasing the immigration laws. An "Undocumented Immigrant" is somebody who sneaked across the border into the United States. Mostly those folks cross from Mexico into Texas or Arizona. If they get caught, they get deported back into Mexico where they try again, maybe as soon as the next day. Those who don't get caught are excited that the President and the Democratic party wants to forgive their felony and hand them a voter identification card.
Whether someone is in the United States because they sneaked across the border or merely stayed beyond the expiration date of their Visa or Work Permit, they're here illegally. The law says they should go home. If they want to emigrate to the US, they must make proper application. Sure, the process probably does take too long, and favors educated and skilled people over unskilled and uneducated folks from the third world. Sorry, but that's a separate issue and does not justify illegally crossing the border in hope you'll someday be a legal resident.
The most egregious case of mis-characterization in terms was committed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama after the Benghazi massacre. A terrorist organization in Libya attacked and killed the Libyan ambassador and those Americans who were with him in a preplanned offensive on a poorly protected consulate. We already know that the ambassador was very concerned about security and sent multiple requests to the State Department for increased protection. But he was denied by Hillary herself, who simultaneously ordered a drawdown in security personnel. Then she lied about the entire event in front of congress. That's nothing new for Hillary, who has made a habit of lying to congress.
So the White House took the CIA report of the massacre and tossed it in the trash to create their own version of events, which sought to describe the incident as merely a spontaneous angry protest over some YouTube video that was insulting to Mohammed. That was completely false and manufactured, but was pushed through a compliant media for over a month after the massacre.
Today the reports are surfacing that survivors of the massacre are being threatened by the White House and the State Department not to talk to anyone about what happened that terrible day in Benghazi. Some have reportedly found the courage to hire a lawyer and offer testimony to congress about the truth of the events of that day.
Will those hearings signal the beginning of the end for the corrupt Democratic rule in the Senate and the White House? Or will the media desperately try to marginalize the testimony and hide the truth to continue propping up their celebrity president and his would-be heir?
Based on the experience of the past decade, we can count on a dishonest and uncurious media continuing to pull out all the stops to protect their messianic president. But we can still hope the truth finds its way.
The ugly truth about abortion is being made clear with the prosecution of Kermit Gosnell. People are only now learning the reality of abortion is not merely the excision of some tiny mass of tissue from a woman's cervix. Instead it is the willful murder of a baby who unfortunately finds herself the product of a casual extramarital sexual encounter.
Turns out that baby isn't some amorphous blob of tissue, but a fully-formed human being. Because she was created through an illegitimate sexual relationship, she is ripped from her mother limb-from-limb and thrown out as biological waste or flushed down a toilet. Gosnell merely decided that it's easier to kill the baby after she's born, by taking scissors to her spinal column. His methods are just as brutal as what he does to the infant in the womb, so his defense seems to be "so what?".
The President just promised Planned Parenthood that he will fight harder than ever to let them continue doing this to millions of children.
The Gang of 8 is dedicated to opening the borders and erasing the immigration laws. An "Undocumented Immigrant" is somebody who sneaked across the border into the United States. Mostly those folks cross from Mexico into Texas or Arizona. If they get caught, they get deported back into Mexico where they try again, maybe as soon as the next day. Those who don't get caught are excited that the President and the Democratic party wants to forgive their felony and hand them a voter identification card.
Whether someone is in the United States because they sneaked across the border or merely stayed beyond the expiration date of their Visa or Work Permit, they're here illegally. The law says they should go home. If they want to emigrate to the US, they must make proper application. Sure, the process probably does take too long, and favors educated and skilled people over unskilled and uneducated folks from the third world. Sorry, but that's a separate issue and does not justify illegally crossing the border in hope you'll someday be a legal resident.
The most egregious case of mis-characterization in terms was committed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama after the Benghazi massacre. A terrorist organization in Libya attacked and killed the Libyan ambassador and those Americans who were with him in a preplanned offensive on a poorly protected consulate. We already know that the ambassador was very concerned about security and sent multiple requests to the State Department for increased protection. But he was denied by Hillary herself, who simultaneously ordered a drawdown in security personnel. Then she lied about the entire event in front of congress. That's nothing new for Hillary, who has made a habit of lying to congress.
So the White House took the CIA report of the massacre and tossed it in the trash to create their own version of events, which sought to describe the incident as merely a spontaneous angry protest over some YouTube video that was insulting to Mohammed. That was completely false and manufactured, but was pushed through a compliant media for over a month after the massacre.
Today the reports are surfacing that survivors of the massacre are being threatened by the White House and the State Department not to talk to anyone about what happened that terrible day in Benghazi. Some have reportedly found the courage to hire a lawyer and offer testimony to congress about the truth of the events of that day.
Will those hearings signal the beginning of the end for the corrupt Democratic rule in the Senate and the White House? Or will the media desperately try to marginalize the testimony and hide the truth to continue propping up their celebrity president and his would-be heir?
Based on the experience of the past decade, we can count on a dishonest and uncurious media continuing to pull out all the stops to protect their messianic president. But we can still hope the truth finds its way.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Convince Me They're Not Evil
The time has come to call out evil where it exists. I'll give the rank and file Democrats the benefit of the doubt - many continue to support evil leaders because of willful blindness and unconditional loyalty.
But the modern Democratic Party is evil, because they promote evil policies.
A good place to start is the events of last week. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for the most heinous acts of murder in his charnel house of an abortion clinic. Gosnell has done Josef Mengele proud. Yet the president has had nothing to say about the case; instead he became the first president in history to give a speech at Planned Parenthood. Not just a speech, but he bestowed his blessings on the murderous organization (which by the way refuses to condemn Gosnell's practices).
The man in the White House promised to fundamentally transform America. Gone are the old-fashioned ideas like the Constitution, personal responsibility, limited government. In their place is a massive and still growing intrusive government that seeks to control every citizen's daily life. The Democratic party follows their leader as he destroys freedom and replaces it with Big Brother. Fairness is the catchword that replaces Freedom. The problem with Fairness is it can be perverted by the narcissists who make up the Democratic party. To them, fairness means taking stuff away from people who've earned it and giving it to people who haven't.
Exploding regulations are destroying American industry. The smart companies escape to other countries that offer more friendly conditions, while those that remain struggle to keep their doors open.
An ungodly coalition of Democrats and Republicans have willfully permitted millions of people to illegally cross the borders to work for peanuts. Dishonest businesspeople enjoy employing people "off the books" so they can lower their labor costs, while dishonest politicians simply look at these millions of illegals as future Democratic voters that will keep the party in power for at least a generation. Meanwhile a corrupt "Gang of 8" senators bands together to produce a dishonest "reform" bill that seems to do nothing but legalize virtually all of the invaders. The actual number will not be known until they all present themselves for the amnesty program. Estimates at the low end are about 11 million, while those who add in the family members of those millions suggest the number is probably well over 30 million.
The Democrats forced what's called the "HHS Mandate" on everyone in America under the "Affordable Care Act", which is one of the most ridiculous misnomers in the history of politics. It requires every health plan to provide "Free" contraceptives to all female employees. Even when the plan is provided by a Catholic employer who believes artificial contraception and abortifacient drugs are immoral. The government says that we don't have the right to our own conscience, but their goal of eliminating "unwanted" pregnancy is the overriding social good.
We just saw this same transformative president achieve re-election largely because of the success of his party in transforming half the citizens into wards of the state. The campaign strategy was merely to frighten those wards with the specter of Republican governance taking away their monthly checks.
Even today, as I was looking over the morning newspaper over breakfast, I saw an article about the president's frustration that one of his priorities has fallen victim to budget cuts. The priority? Pre-Kindergarten education for everyone. Great, let's have the government instill their values into our children during their most critical formative years. Sadly, I imagine there are too many young parents who support this program simply because it promises them free day care in the years before kindergarten.
The supporters of evil no longer recognize evil. So they're much more easily manipulated into enthusiastically supporting evil.
I find myself in a shrinking group of Americans who still believe. We're being marginalized and called nasty names for believing in God, working hard and earning our own way for our families, acting responsibly in all areas of our lives, and raising our children to embrace the same values.
It is no longer Republican versus Democrat. It is now Good versus Evil. (Not that Republicans are all good; only a subset of principled Republicans qualify to be called "Good")
But the modern Democratic Party is evil, because they promote evil policies.
A good place to start is the events of last week. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for the most heinous acts of murder in his charnel house of an abortion clinic. Gosnell has done Josef Mengele proud. Yet the president has had nothing to say about the case; instead he became the first president in history to give a speech at Planned Parenthood. Not just a speech, but he bestowed his blessings on the murderous organization (which by the way refuses to condemn Gosnell's practices).
The man in the White House promised to fundamentally transform America. Gone are the old-fashioned ideas like the Constitution, personal responsibility, limited government. In their place is a massive and still growing intrusive government that seeks to control every citizen's daily life. The Democratic party follows their leader as he destroys freedom and replaces it with Big Brother. Fairness is the catchword that replaces Freedom. The problem with Fairness is it can be perverted by the narcissists who make up the Democratic party. To them, fairness means taking stuff away from people who've earned it and giving it to people who haven't.
Exploding regulations are destroying American industry. The smart companies escape to other countries that offer more friendly conditions, while those that remain struggle to keep their doors open.
An ungodly coalition of Democrats and Republicans have willfully permitted millions of people to illegally cross the borders to work for peanuts. Dishonest businesspeople enjoy employing people "off the books" so they can lower their labor costs, while dishonest politicians simply look at these millions of illegals as future Democratic voters that will keep the party in power for at least a generation. Meanwhile a corrupt "Gang of 8" senators bands together to produce a dishonest "reform" bill that seems to do nothing but legalize virtually all of the invaders. The actual number will not be known until they all present themselves for the amnesty program. Estimates at the low end are about 11 million, while those who add in the family members of those millions suggest the number is probably well over 30 million.
The Democrats forced what's called the "HHS Mandate" on everyone in America under the "Affordable Care Act", which is one of the most ridiculous misnomers in the history of politics. It requires every health plan to provide "Free" contraceptives to all female employees. Even when the plan is provided by a Catholic employer who believes artificial contraception and abortifacient drugs are immoral. The government says that we don't have the right to our own conscience, but their goal of eliminating "unwanted" pregnancy is the overriding social good.
We just saw this same transformative president achieve re-election largely because of the success of his party in transforming half the citizens into wards of the state. The campaign strategy was merely to frighten those wards with the specter of Republican governance taking away their monthly checks.
Even today, as I was looking over the morning newspaper over breakfast, I saw an article about the president's frustration that one of his priorities has fallen victim to budget cuts. The priority? Pre-Kindergarten education for everyone. Great, let's have the government instill their values into our children during their most critical formative years. Sadly, I imagine there are too many young parents who support this program simply because it promises them free day care in the years before kindergarten.
The supporters of evil no longer recognize evil. So they're much more easily manipulated into enthusiastically supporting evil.
I find myself in a shrinking group of Americans who still believe. We're being marginalized and called nasty names for believing in God, working hard and earning our own way for our families, acting responsibly in all areas of our lives, and raising our children to embrace the same values.
It is no longer Republican versus Democrat. It is now Good versus Evil. (Not that Republicans are all good; only a subset of principled Republicans qualify to be called "Good")
Friday, April 26, 2013
Immigration
The demagoguery from the president and the "Gang of 8" gives me heartburn. Especially disappointing is Marco Rubio, who checked his principles at the door of the Gang of 8 meeting room.
Imagine a fantasy Washington, DC, where lawmakers actually did what was best for America instead of what was best for their power and position. In such a place, a truly commonsense solution would be passed and implemented.
Unfortunately, even the immigration laws already passed have been ignored by the president, who essentially has implemented his own immigration laws without any input from congress or anyone else outside his White House staff and maybe Big Sis.
My solution has been posted before, but maybe it's time to reiterate.
If we started today, the first step would be a nationwide announcement. Use television, newspapers, radio, and any other sources to get the word out. The announcement goes something like this:
Attention all those currently residing in the United States of America without permission. The United States is allowing you 6 months to return to your home country. The 6 month grace period ends October 31, 2013. During this 6 month period there will be no change in current enforcement methods in place regarding those discovered to be in the country illegally.
As of November 1, 2013, the immigration laws of the United States will be enforced to the letter. Whether a person is caught illegally crossing the border, illegally employed at a US-based entity, or otherwise living in this country without permission, that person will be given 30 days to produce evidence of permission to reside in the US if requested. Without proof of such documentation permitting residence in the country, such illegal residents will be promptly deported to the capital city of their country of origin. Each deportee will also be placed on a list of people to be permanently denied entry into the United States, and if caught back in the country after deportation will be subject to prosecution and imprisonment for breaking immigration laws.
Likewise, beginning November 1st, 2013, all United States employers must use the Social Security identification database to verify the eligibility of all current and potential employees for employment. Those employers caught employing ineligible people will be subject to a fine equal to the annual salary of each ineligible employee for the first offense. The fine doubles on the second offense, and the company officers will be subject to prosecution and likely jail time for the third offense.
Anyone here illegally must return to their home country during the grace period, but may apply for a work or residence permit that could allow re-entry within 90 days. Qualifications for re-entry include the following:
So much for those illegal immigrants currently in the country. From Novermber 1st forward, all illegal immigrants encountered through normal contact with law enforcement will be processed for deportation. No more arbitrary selective deportation as currently practiced by the Obama administration.
That's the catch, isn't it? Suppose everything I described in the above solution is passed by Congress. In the first place, he won't sign it. But in the impossible event he were to sign it into law, suppose he decides to ignore it and continue selectively enforcing immigration according to his own whims and perceived political advantage? The entire effort would then be rendered immediately futile. The president could be sued to force him to enforce the law, but by the time the case makes its way through the courts he'll be out of office. Likewise impeachment proceedings.
So there's not much point to trying any immigration legislation. At least until or unless a president takes office who actually respects the rule of law.
Too bad.
Imagine a fantasy Washington, DC, where lawmakers actually did what was best for America instead of what was best for their power and position. In such a place, a truly commonsense solution would be passed and implemented.
Unfortunately, even the immigration laws already passed have been ignored by the president, who essentially has implemented his own immigration laws without any input from congress or anyone else outside his White House staff and maybe Big Sis.
My solution has been posted before, but maybe it's time to reiterate.
If we started today, the first step would be a nationwide announcement. Use television, newspapers, radio, and any other sources to get the word out. The announcement goes something like this:
Attention all those currently residing in the United States of America without permission. The United States is allowing you 6 months to return to your home country. The 6 month grace period ends October 31, 2013. During this 6 month period there will be no change in current enforcement methods in place regarding those discovered to be in the country illegally.
As of November 1, 2013, the immigration laws of the United States will be enforced to the letter. Whether a person is caught illegally crossing the border, illegally employed at a US-based entity, or otherwise living in this country without permission, that person will be given 30 days to produce evidence of permission to reside in the US if requested. Without proof of such documentation permitting residence in the country, such illegal residents will be promptly deported to the capital city of their country of origin. Each deportee will also be placed on a list of people to be permanently denied entry into the United States, and if caught back in the country after deportation will be subject to prosecution and imprisonment for breaking immigration laws.
Likewise, beginning November 1st, 2013, all United States employers must use the Social Security identification database to verify the eligibility of all current and potential employees for employment. Those employers caught employing ineligible people will be subject to a fine equal to the annual salary of each ineligible employee for the first offense. The fine doubles on the second offense, and the company officers will be subject to prosecution and likely jail time for the third offense.
Anyone here illegally must return to their home country during the grace period, but may apply for a work or residence permit that could allow re-entry within 90 days. Qualifications for re-entry include the following:
- Evidence of assets sufficient to insure the immigrant has the means to fully support him/herself without government assistance
- The official ICE 'Employer Intent to Employ' form from an employer that certifies that a stable job is awaiting you when you re-enter the country
- An official certificate from an ICE-recognized educational institution that proves you have passed an accredited English Language Competence Examination
So much for those illegal immigrants currently in the country. From Novermber 1st forward, all illegal immigrants encountered through normal contact with law enforcement will be processed for deportation. No more arbitrary selective deportation as currently practiced by the Obama administration.
That's the catch, isn't it? Suppose everything I described in the above solution is passed by Congress. In the first place, he won't sign it. But in the impossible event he were to sign it into law, suppose he decides to ignore it and continue selectively enforcing immigration according to his own whims and perceived political advantage? The entire effort would then be rendered immediately futile. The president could be sued to force him to enforce the law, but by the time the case makes its way through the courts he'll be out of office. Likewise impeachment proceedings.
So there's not much point to trying any immigration legislation. At least until or unless a president takes office who actually respects the rule of law.
Too bad.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Common Core
The argument over something called "Common Core" has been boiling out there for some time. But I've been mostly oblivious. All I really knew was that it was a sort of National set of standards for education. I knew that there are lots of folks at the Indiana Statehouse who are in favor of the program, and that our previous leader at the Indiana Department of Education may have lost re-election because of his advocacy for Common Core.
What I didn't know was pretty much everything else. I didn't have any idea what Common Core was, or what specific arguments for and against were being made in the debate over its adoption.
That changed somewhat when I heard Greg Garrison's radio program this morning. He invited a proponent of the program to come on and explain why it's going to be a good thing for education. He then brought on opponents to explain why they oppose it and prefer to stay with the ISTEP. I thought Garrison was exceptionally fair with both sides, simply asking them questions and allowing them to say what they wanted to say without arguing or promoting either side over the other. In fact, he admitted that he has not yet taken a position on the issue and is still trying to gather more information himself. That's the best way to present an issue on any media forum, as far as I am concerned.
I learned a lot about the arguments, if not about the actual standards. My initial reaction leans toward the anti side, mainly because the proponent took too much of his time trashing the Right-Wing kooks from the Tea Party who were mischaracterizing Common Core. That turned me off, as I think it did Garrison, who rebuked him a bit for straying away from making his case to engage in mudslinging.
The bottom line seems to be that Common Core is an attempt to set national standards and testing for English and Math. Other subjects are being developed, but are not yet adopted. The reason it's needed, according to proponents, is so different states don't certify their students as having met core standards when each state uses different standards.
The argument against Common Core is fundamentally based on the mistrust many have against anything created and managed by the Federal Bureaucracy. The proponent used this mistrust against the other side, accusing them of harboring paranoid fantasies about terrible government misbehavior in forcing anti-American or anti-Christian lessons into the curricula. And they also fear the Big Brother type tyranny of capturing performance data and even biometric data for monitoring and control of our children.
When the anti-side came on, they calmly explained that although they know such federal overreach is not present in the current version of the program, they can produce a document from a Department of Education staffer that expresses those "paranoid fantasies" as future goals of the Common Core program.
The anti-side also noted that Common Core has lower standards than ISTEP. Why would Indiana adopt a new national standards program that lowers the bar for our children and hands the whole program over to Washington, DC to be administered at an exhorbitant cost?
So at this point I question the need for a national standard. Colleges can already evaluate students from the various states with testing from the SAT and ACT, and they'll learn how well each state actually educates the students they send out to those colleges. So what's the overwhelming need to nationalize this?
I have long been in favor of dissolving the Federal Education Department. Education is the responsibility of the community and the state, and the Feds have no business getting their fingers into it. The only role I could consider supporting in Washington would be a small organization that researches educational programs in the various states and helps share information about those programs that produce the best results. The only way such a national organization can be helpful is by helping find and distribute methods and practices that work well. Even so, states don't need a Federal agency to do that, they could more easily and cheaply collaborate among themselves.
Absent more information that convinces me there's a compelling argument in favor of national education standards, I'm going to line up on the "No" side.
What I didn't know was pretty much everything else. I didn't have any idea what Common Core was, or what specific arguments for and against were being made in the debate over its adoption.
That changed somewhat when I heard Greg Garrison's radio program this morning. He invited a proponent of the program to come on and explain why it's going to be a good thing for education. He then brought on opponents to explain why they oppose it and prefer to stay with the ISTEP. I thought Garrison was exceptionally fair with both sides, simply asking them questions and allowing them to say what they wanted to say without arguing or promoting either side over the other. In fact, he admitted that he has not yet taken a position on the issue and is still trying to gather more information himself. That's the best way to present an issue on any media forum, as far as I am concerned.
I learned a lot about the arguments, if not about the actual standards. My initial reaction leans toward the anti side, mainly because the proponent took too much of his time trashing the Right-Wing kooks from the Tea Party who were mischaracterizing Common Core. That turned me off, as I think it did Garrison, who rebuked him a bit for straying away from making his case to engage in mudslinging.
The bottom line seems to be that Common Core is an attempt to set national standards and testing for English and Math. Other subjects are being developed, but are not yet adopted. The reason it's needed, according to proponents, is so different states don't certify their students as having met core standards when each state uses different standards.
The argument against Common Core is fundamentally based on the mistrust many have against anything created and managed by the Federal Bureaucracy. The proponent used this mistrust against the other side, accusing them of harboring paranoid fantasies about terrible government misbehavior in forcing anti-American or anti-Christian lessons into the curricula. And they also fear the Big Brother type tyranny of capturing performance data and even biometric data for monitoring and control of our children.
When the anti-side came on, they calmly explained that although they know such federal overreach is not present in the current version of the program, they can produce a document from a Department of Education staffer that expresses those "paranoid fantasies" as future goals of the Common Core program.
The anti-side also noted that Common Core has lower standards than ISTEP. Why would Indiana adopt a new national standards program that lowers the bar for our children and hands the whole program over to Washington, DC to be administered at an exhorbitant cost?
So at this point I question the need for a national standard. Colleges can already evaluate students from the various states with testing from the SAT and ACT, and they'll learn how well each state actually educates the students they send out to those colleges. So what's the overwhelming need to nationalize this?
I have long been in favor of dissolving the Federal Education Department. Education is the responsibility of the community and the state, and the Feds have no business getting their fingers into it. The only role I could consider supporting in Washington would be a small organization that researches educational programs in the various states and helps share information about those programs that produce the best results. The only way such a national organization can be helpful is by helping find and distribute methods and practices that work well. Even so, states don't need a Federal agency to do that, they could more easily and cheaply collaborate among themselves.
Absent more information that convinces me there's a compelling argument in favor of national education standards, I'm going to line up on the "No" side.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Seeking Understanding
The debates have been going on this week about how to describe the Boston Bombers. Although they were clearly Islamic terrorists, the Left is working overtime to try to paint them instead as a couple of disaffected individual actors unafilliated with any movement. The argument almost sounds like it could be made by Christians - ie
Love your enemy
Do good to those who hate you
Turn the other cheek, if he takes your coat give him your coat also
But they don't use those words. Also, the same folks continue to make horrible and false accusations against Christians. So apparently their charitable feelings toward followers of Mohammed do not extend to followers of Christ.
I'm struggling to understand.
The truth is that the Tsarnayev brothers were indeed Islamic terrorists. They were not just a pair of "nice guys" from the neighborhood. Why can't the left-wing news outlets just admit that basic truth? They openly wished and prayed to their pagan gods that the bomber would be a white tea-party member.
We all wish the Tsarnaev brothers hadn't become so alienated and radicalized, but the unavoidable truth is that they were.
The leftist news folks also are trying desperately to create a strange argument that somehow says the brothers were not acting under the direction, support, or cooperation of terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda.
While we don't have any definitive information about that one way or the other, what is it exactly those news folks hope to achieve by hammering so hard on their hair-splitting message? If the brothers bombed all those people at the Marathon in the name of Islam, why is it so vitally important to separate them from the other larger and more formal terrorist organizations?
I suppose they're using the same approach as with Major Hassan, who they still say killed all those military folks at the base because of a case of "workplace violence", rather than an Islamic terror act. Why?
It's easy to find the heated arguments of the Left in this case. But it's not so easy to find the reason for those arguments. I can't figure out what they hope to achieve.
The closest explanation I can find is the infamous article by David Sirota, Let's hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.
But even that doesn't really explain it to my satisfaction. Sirota seems unhinged with the suggestion that if a terrorist act is actually carried out by Islamists, it might destroy the entire Left-Wing agenda. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Left-Wing agenda destroyed before it destroys all of us. But I fail to see why being honest about who the bombers actually were has anything to do with politics.
Love your enemy
Do good to those who hate you
Turn the other cheek, if he takes your coat give him your coat also
But they don't use those words. Also, the same folks continue to make horrible and false accusations against Christians. So apparently their charitable feelings toward followers of Mohammed do not extend to followers of Christ.
I'm struggling to understand.
The truth is that the Tsarnayev brothers were indeed Islamic terrorists. They were not just a pair of "nice guys" from the neighborhood. Why can't the left-wing news outlets just admit that basic truth? They openly wished and prayed to their pagan gods that the bomber would be a white tea-party member.
We all wish the Tsarnaev brothers hadn't become so alienated and radicalized, but the unavoidable truth is that they were.
The leftist news folks also are trying desperately to create a strange argument that somehow says the brothers were not acting under the direction, support, or cooperation of terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda.
While we don't have any definitive information about that one way or the other, what is it exactly those news folks hope to achieve by hammering so hard on their hair-splitting message? If the brothers bombed all those people at the Marathon in the name of Islam, why is it so vitally important to separate them from the other larger and more formal terrorist organizations?
I suppose they're using the same approach as with Major Hassan, who they still say killed all those military folks at the base because of a case of "workplace violence", rather than an Islamic terror act. Why?
It's easy to find the heated arguments of the Left in this case. But it's not so easy to find the reason for those arguments. I can't figure out what they hope to achieve.
The closest explanation I can find is the infamous article by David Sirota, Let's hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.
But even that doesn't really explain it to my satisfaction. Sirota seems unhinged with the suggestion that if a terrorist act is actually carried out by Islamists, it might destroy the entire Left-Wing agenda. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Left-Wing agenda destroyed before it destroys all of us. But I fail to see why being honest about who the bombers actually were has anything to do with politics.
Monday, April 22, 2013
The Coming Collapse of Obamacare
There's a very good article about the topic at The American Spectator.
The only difference between Middle-Class Obama supporters and me is that they don't know what's about to hit their families at the end of this year. How many ordinary folks will look at their new Health Insurance bill in January and adopt the attitude of the Democrats who wrote this terrible travesty?
"It's going to be hard to scrape up another 10 or 15 thousand dollars to pay for my health insurance, but you know, we're all in this together!"
I don't think so.
Even if they're covered on their employer's plan, watch out. I've heard from many companies that they're going to do one of the following come January:
Increase their employee Health Insurance deduction by 50 to 100 percent,
Change their plan to feature a much higher deductible and co-pay, or
Eliminate their health plans altogether and elect to pay the fine.
I think everybody's going to be hopping mad. The gigantic insurance bills are going to come with new mandates from the government - "You better buy this or we're going to take the money from you anyway". Shortly followed by the realization that they can't get in to see their doctor. All of a sudden he's backlogged 6 months. That's if he didn't decide to retire, leaving folks searching for a new family doctor only to discover that nobody's taking new patients.
The only hope we have left is that next year's elections result in a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate and complete control of the House. They'll try to repeal Obamacare, but the president will veto any and all such attempts. They'll try to defund it, but we'll find ourselves back in another fiscal crisis as the president refuses to sign any budget or spending bill that does not fully fund his monstrosity.
But I don't hold a lot of hope that Americans are smart enough to send new people to Washington determined to help fix this mess. More likely they'll re-elect the same old well-funded rulers who will make sure Obamacare remains the law of the land.
Whatever happens next year, I foresee all of us getting poorer and sicker. As much as I'd like to offer hope that we can replace Obama with a responsible president in 16, I have mostly lost faith that ordinary Americans can elect the people who will fix the problem. They'll probably vote for Hillary, whose "solution" to Obamacare will be National Health Insurance.
Good Luck everybody. We're going to need it.
The only difference between Middle-Class Obama supporters and me is that they don't know what's about to hit their families at the end of this year. How many ordinary folks will look at their new Health Insurance bill in January and adopt the attitude of the Democrats who wrote this terrible travesty?
"It's going to be hard to scrape up another 10 or 15 thousand dollars to pay for my health insurance, but you know, we're all in this together!"
I don't think so.
Even if they're covered on their employer's plan, watch out. I've heard from many companies that they're going to do one of the following come January:
Increase their employee Health Insurance deduction by 50 to 100 percent,
Change their plan to feature a much higher deductible and co-pay, or
Eliminate their health plans altogether and elect to pay the fine.
I think everybody's going to be hopping mad. The gigantic insurance bills are going to come with new mandates from the government - "You better buy this or we're going to take the money from you anyway". Shortly followed by the realization that they can't get in to see their doctor. All of a sudden he's backlogged 6 months. That's if he didn't decide to retire, leaving folks searching for a new family doctor only to discover that nobody's taking new patients.
The only hope we have left is that next year's elections result in a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate and complete control of the House. They'll try to repeal Obamacare, but the president will veto any and all such attempts. They'll try to defund it, but we'll find ourselves back in another fiscal crisis as the president refuses to sign any budget or spending bill that does not fully fund his monstrosity.
But I don't hold a lot of hope that Americans are smart enough to send new people to Washington determined to help fix this mess. More likely they'll re-elect the same old well-funded rulers who will make sure Obamacare remains the law of the land.
Whatever happens next year, I foresee all of us getting poorer and sicker. As much as I'd like to offer hope that we can replace Obama with a responsible president in 16, I have mostly lost faith that ordinary Americans can elect the people who will fix the problem. They'll probably vote for Hillary, whose "solution" to Obamacare will be National Health Insurance.
Good Luck everybody. We're going to need it.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Shall we pass it to find out what's in it?
As near as I can tell, that's the way the Senate wants to handle their new Immigration bill.
The so-called Gang of 8 gleefully rolled out their massive new immigration bill this week. But I couldn't tell you much of anything about what's in it. What little I've heard is more aptly called characterization than fact.
Oponents say it immeditely legalizes all 12 million or so illegals already in the country. That seems to confirm the charge that says they are better called "undocumented Democrats". Which would also seem to indicate that Republicans are signing their death warrants by supporting it. Although lately I can't be sure McCain and Company are actually smart enough to realize that fact.
Opponents also say it fails to take any serious steps to secure the border. It rather makes vague promises that the border will be secured in the future.
Since it's something like, what, 1,600 pages, I certainly haven't read it. Neither has most of the Senate, I would imagine. Unless it turns out to be a brilliant, fair, and commonsense solution to the illegal immigration problem, I'm guessing it will destroy Marco Rubio's presidential aspirations. And my odds on it being a great bill fall at less than 1 in 100. So goodbye, Rubio for President.
The saddest thing about this whole issue is this: We've got all the laws we need to solve the illegal immigration problem already on the books. All that's required is for the government to simply decide to start enforcing them.
May I pose a very simple question? If a President decides on his own to selectively enforce laws, change them unilaterally, or ignore them altogether, is that not dereliction of duty? Beyond that, could it be construed as high crimes or misdemeanors, thus grounds for impeachent?
The so-called Gang of 8 gleefully rolled out their massive new immigration bill this week. But I couldn't tell you much of anything about what's in it. What little I've heard is more aptly called characterization than fact.
Oponents say it immeditely legalizes all 12 million or so illegals already in the country. That seems to confirm the charge that says they are better called "undocumented Democrats". Which would also seem to indicate that Republicans are signing their death warrants by supporting it. Although lately I can't be sure McCain and Company are actually smart enough to realize that fact.
Opponents also say it fails to take any serious steps to secure the border. It rather makes vague promises that the border will be secured in the future.
Since it's something like, what, 1,600 pages, I certainly haven't read it. Neither has most of the Senate, I would imagine. Unless it turns out to be a brilliant, fair, and commonsense solution to the illegal immigration problem, I'm guessing it will destroy Marco Rubio's presidential aspirations. And my odds on it being a great bill fall at less than 1 in 100. So goodbye, Rubio for President.
The saddest thing about this whole issue is this: We've got all the laws we need to solve the illegal immigration problem already on the books. All that's required is for the government to simply decide to start enforcing them.
May I pose a very simple question? If a President decides on his own to selectively enforce laws, change them unilaterally, or ignore them altogether, is that not dereliction of duty? Beyond that, could it be construed as high crimes or misdemeanors, thus grounds for impeachent?
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Life in 2020
A typical day in the year 2020
I rise in the morning to get ready for work. I don't live in the country anymore, because all tillable land was confiscated by the Federal Government a few years ago in response to a food shortage. The government response was to confiscate all tillable farmland and place it under the control of the Department of Agriculture, which now manages all American farmland to produce the needed amounts of each commodity to feed the country. The news media told us all that this plan would not only solve our food crisis, but would also ensure farming would be much more environmentally responsible under the management of Agriculture.
I was compensated for my small farm with an amount of money that the government claimed was its fair market value (I didn't agree, but what could I do?). I was "strongly advised" by a government social worker to rent a small apartment near Indianapolis with my wife, which was only a block away from the nearest bus stop. By the way, I no longer have a car either. Only government officials and people with job responsibilities deemed critical to their communities are allowed to keep and use automobiles. Friends have said that the going rate for getting declared by someone at the DMV to be one of those providing critical services to the community is around $10,000. I have that in savings, but think it's too much money to risk just to get permission to own and use a car.
I get on the bus a block down at about 7:30 every morning and arrive at the office in Indy by 9. My trip includes 2 bus transfers, a train, then about a half-mile walk to the office. I used to be a self-employed software consultant, but new government regulations caused my business to dry up. Independent contracting agreements were not exactly outlawed, but the federal government put in new regulations requiring every contract to be scrutinized and approved by the Department of Commerce. That review and authorization was expensive and time-consuming, plus contracts became highly likely to be rejected for a laundry list of incomprehensible reasons. So such contracts just became a thing of the past.
Most private industries were nationalized by the government anyway. They never use the term "nationalize", preferring instead to use words like "rescued" or "stabilized" or "saved from bankruptcy". The way it worked started with a government agency finding some egregious violation of Federal regulations, most commonly associated with environmental rules. They would then be assessed a fine that usually exceeded their company's net worth. Then the Federal Agency that had primary responsibility for regulating that industry would come in and offer a way out; if the company would simply sell a controlling stake and turn over their operations to the government, there would be no jail time for the officials. The company officers would receive a nice severance package that might climb into several millions to simply retire and leave their business to the Feds.
That nationalization process is still ongoing today in 2020, and I think it will take at least another decade before the government finishes nationalizing every private business in America.
So my new job is with the government. I'm a Business Analyst for a formerly private company in the logistics business. Somebody from that company called me out of the blue just as my last private contract was rejected. He offered me a job, paying a decent salary that was about two-thirds of what I had been earning as an independent. Between that job and the relatively reasonable rent for the apartment I was strongly encouraged to move into from the farm, I can get by OK. The toughest part is having to pay over $25,000 toward my health insurance exchange. It doesn't actually pay any medical expenses unless I exceed the $30,000 annual deductible, so it's basically a waste of money. Which I have no ability to change, since it's mandated by the government - if I refuse to pay the premium, they simply reach into my bank account and take it. They set that system up back around 2010, when they began requiring everyone to provide their bank account information with our tax returns.
There are cameras on every street. Some of my friends say the government can pretty easily put together a little movie that shows them everywhere I went and everything I did for any given day. Some folks think the movie also includes audio, so lots of folks are a little paranoid about talking politics or criticizing the government in conversation. I have noticed that people at work are mysteriously disappearing more often than ever. The managers never tell us any more about why they're gone than, "Joe isn't with us anymore". Questions about why are not tolerated, as they explain that termination reasons are confidential. Disclosing that information is apparently a felony.
I had a pretty good friend at work until 6 months ago. David was a great guy and we met during breaks and at lunchtime nearly every day. We even met for drinks after work now and then, although I've never really been a drinker. One day David just didn't show up, and his boss just parroted the standard, "David isn't with us anymore" line. He like to talk politics, so I'm afraid that may have led to his downfall.
I am looking to retire in a few years when I hit the official retirement age of 70. But I'm not sure I'm that excited about the idea. Without a car, I'd be stuck in the apartment or just going places I can get to in the Indy area using public transportation. Like maybe hanging out in a park when the weather's decent. I can't go to Florida, because virtually nobody can relocate there after retirement without government permission. Last I heard that government permt costs about $50,000 (not officially, of course). Wow, that bureaucrat's sure getting rich! Anyway, Florida's a place where only the very wealthy can retire these days.
Vacations are possible, but we have to plan ahead. Say we want to take a week's vacation in Florida, the waiting list for travel permits is now more than 2 years. So I just submitted the application this week, but I know better than to look for the permit anytime before 2 years from now. It's very difficult for us in the sense that we can no longer go visit our children and grandchildren who live in other states. Nor can they visit us. We have to use SKYPE to see and talk with our family. We particulary miss them during the holidays.
The travel restrictions came about in response to terrorism. President Obama, who by the way was declared "President for Life" by the Democrat-dominated congress back in 2016 (Folks brought a lawsuit that took about a year to get to the Supreme Court, but they ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring suit, not technically ruling at all on the constitutional question), tells us he's eradicated terrorism through this travel regulation system he implemented. Strange, but I keep hearing about bombs going off on trains, airplanes, and buses. I saw a burning bus on the way home from work just last week, but there was nothing about it on the evening news last night.
Speaking of news, I remember several years ago we used to have Fox News on television and Talk Radio. Since I don't have a car any longer, I don't listen to the radio anymore, but it is generally known that Talk Radio is dead. Fox News was found guilty of promoting "Hate Speech" by the FCC in 2016, which penalized them by arresting their corporate officers and pulling the channel off the air permanently.
There are rumors that some of the famous conservative talkers, like Rush Limbaugh and others, died in prison sometime between 2016 and last year.
Well, at least my job's pretty easy. I get plenty of holidays and vacation days, and my assignments are so easy that most days at work I'm bored. I have plenty of time to read or surf the net while I wait for my next assignment. I mostly read, because the net is so heavily locked down it's difficult to find much of anything interesting online.
I did miss going to church, until I found an underground Roman Catholic parish nearby. We rotate between various homes and other places to try to stay a step ahead of the police, because it's illegal to gather in groups of more than 10 for any purpose other than a government-sanctioned meeting or event. Our group is growing very rapidly these days, we just recently had to split into more groups to keep our numbers down so we don't get noticed. There's a heady feeling that we're living like the early Christians, who were hunted and persecuted back in the first century.
Sadly, our parish priest was arrested about 2 weeks ago. The police just showed up at his apartment, cuffed him and took him away. We don't know where he is, but fortunately a new priest has just arrived from Africa to take his place. Most of the Roman Catholic seminaries are now Africa, the only place left on earth where the government does not interfere with religion. The churches were closed by Obama only recently, back in 2018, apparently because he believed that the churches were threatening his authority. He claimed at the time that churches were hotbeds for breeding terrorism, but to my knowledge nobody I ever heard of who blew things up was affiliated with the Christian church. Certainly I never heard a priest advocating violent overthrow of the government from the pulpit, although we prayed regularly for an end to forced abortions, a return to freedom of religion, and a less repressive government.
I finish my workday around 4 and often pick up something at a convenience store on the way to the bus stop that we can cook for dinner. We don't watch much television anymore, because most of the programming is produced by the government these days, and it gets a bit tiresome. Incessantly hearing messages about our caring, benevolent government making our country so peaceful, harmonious, caring, and tolerant can drive you batty after awhile. Even SitComs have turned into silly stories set to laugh tracks of people who love their benevolent government so much they teach their children lessons on being compliant and obendient to their government, which of course leads to success and happiness.
So I increasingly find myself reading the Bible (technically against the law, but they haven't caught me yet), praying, and planning where to hold the next Mass or practicing the music we'll use there.
I rise in the morning to get ready for work. I don't live in the country anymore, because all tillable land was confiscated by the Federal Government a few years ago in response to a food shortage. The government response was to confiscate all tillable farmland and place it under the control of the Department of Agriculture, which now manages all American farmland to produce the needed amounts of each commodity to feed the country. The news media told us all that this plan would not only solve our food crisis, but would also ensure farming would be much more environmentally responsible under the management of Agriculture.
I was compensated for my small farm with an amount of money that the government claimed was its fair market value (I didn't agree, but what could I do?). I was "strongly advised" by a government social worker to rent a small apartment near Indianapolis with my wife, which was only a block away from the nearest bus stop. By the way, I no longer have a car either. Only government officials and people with job responsibilities deemed critical to their communities are allowed to keep and use automobiles. Friends have said that the going rate for getting declared by someone at the DMV to be one of those providing critical services to the community is around $10,000. I have that in savings, but think it's too much money to risk just to get permission to own and use a car.
I get on the bus a block down at about 7:30 every morning and arrive at the office in Indy by 9. My trip includes 2 bus transfers, a train, then about a half-mile walk to the office. I used to be a self-employed software consultant, but new government regulations caused my business to dry up. Independent contracting agreements were not exactly outlawed, but the federal government put in new regulations requiring every contract to be scrutinized and approved by the Department of Commerce. That review and authorization was expensive and time-consuming, plus contracts became highly likely to be rejected for a laundry list of incomprehensible reasons. So such contracts just became a thing of the past.
Most private industries were nationalized by the government anyway. They never use the term "nationalize", preferring instead to use words like "rescued" or "stabilized" or "saved from bankruptcy". The way it worked started with a government agency finding some egregious violation of Federal regulations, most commonly associated with environmental rules. They would then be assessed a fine that usually exceeded their company's net worth. Then the Federal Agency that had primary responsibility for regulating that industry would come in and offer a way out; if the company would simply sell a controlling stake and turn over their operations to the government, there would be no jail time for the officials. The company officers would receive a nice severance package that might climb into several millions to simply retire and leave their business to the Feds.
That nationalization process is still ongoing today in 2020, and I think it will take at least another decade before the government finishes nationalizing every private business in America.
So my new job is with the government. I'm a Business Analyst for a formerly private company in the logistics business. Somebody from that company called me out of the blue just as my last private contract was rejected. He offered me a job, paying a decent salary that was about two-thirds of what I had been earning as an independent. Between that job and the relatively reasonable rent for the apartment I was strongly encouraged to move into from the farm, I can get by OK. The toughest part is having to pay over $25,000 toward my health insurance exchange. It doesn't actually pay any medical expenses unless I exceed the $30,000 annual deductible, so it's basically a waste of money. Which I have no ability to change, since it's mandated by the government - if I refuse to pay the premium, they simply reach into my bank account and take it. They set that system up back around 2010, when they began requiring everyone to provide their bank account information with our tax returns.
There are cameras on every street. Some of my friends say the government can pretty easily put together a little movie that shows them everywhere I went and everything I did for any given day. Some folks think the movie also includes audio, so lots of folks are a little paranoid about talking politics or criticizing the government in conversation. I have noticed that people at work are mysteriously disappearing more often than ever. The managers never tell us any more about why they're gone than, "Joe isn't with us anymore". Questions about why are not tolerated, as they explain that termination reasons are confidential. Disclosing that information is apparently a felony.
I had a pretty good friend at work until 6 months ago. David was a great guy and we met during breaks and at lunchtime nearly every day. We even met for drinks after work now and then, although I've never really been a drinker. One day David just didn't show up, and his boss just parroted the standard, "David isn't with us anymore" line. He like to talk politics, so I'm afraid that may have led to his downfall.
I am looking to retire in a few years when I hit the official retirement age of 70. But I'm not sure I'm that excited about the idea. Without a car, I'd be stuck in the apartment or just going places I can get to in the Indy area using public transportation. Like maybe hanging out in a park when the weather's decent. I can't go to Florida, because virtually nobody can relocate there after retirement without government permission. Last I heard that government permt costs about $50,000 (not officially, of course). Wow, that bureaucrat's sure getting rich! Anyway, Florida's a place where only the very wealthy can retire these days.
Vacations are possible, but we have to plan ahead. Say we want to take a week's vacation in Florida, the waiting list for travel permits is now more than 2 years. So I just submitted the application this week, but I know better than to look for the permit anytime before 2 years from now. It's very difficult for us in the sense that we can no longer go visit our children and grandchildren who live in other states. Nor can they visit us. We have to use SKYPE to see and talk with our family. We particulary miss them during the holidays.
The travel restrictions came about in response to terrorism. President Obama, who by the way was declared "President for Life" by the Democrat-dominated congress back in 2016 (Folks brought a lawsuit that took about a year to get to the Supreme Court, but they ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring suit, not technically ruling at all on the constitutional question), tells us he's eradicated terrorism through this travel regulation system he implemented. Strange, but I keep hearing about bombs going off on trains, airplanes, and buses. I saw a burning bus on the way home from work just last week, but there was nothing about it on the evening news last night.
Speaking of news, I remember several years ago we used to have Fox News on television and Talk Radio. Since I don't have a car any longer, I don't listen to the radio anymore, but it is generally known that Talk Radio is dead. Fox News was found guilty of promoting "Hate Speech" by the FCC in 2016, which penalized them by arresting their corporate officers and pulling the channel off the air permanently.
There are rumors that some of the famous conservative talkers, like Rush Limbaugh and others, died in prison sometime between 2016 and last year.
Well, at least my job's pretty easy. I get plenty of holidays and vacation days, and my assignments are so easy that most days at work I'm bored. I have plenty of time to read or surf the net while I wait for my next assignment. I mostly read, because the net is so heavily locked down it's difficult to find much of anything interesting online.
I did miss going to church, until I found an underground Roman Catholic parish nearby. We rotate between various homes and other places to try to stay a step ahead of the police, because it's illegal to gather in groups of more than 10 for any purpose other than a government-sanctioned meeting or event. Our group is growing very rapidly these days, we just recently had to split into more groups to keep our numbers down so we don't get noticed. There's a heady feeling that we're living like the early Christians, who were hunted and persecuted back in the first century.
Sadly, our parish priest was arrested about 2 weeks ago. The police just showed up at his apartment, cuffed him and took him away. We don't know where he is, but fortunately a new priest has just arrived from Africa to take his place. Most of the Roman Catholic seminaries are now Africa, the only place left on earth where the government does not interfere with religion. The churches were closed by Obama only recently, back in 2018, apparently because he believed that the churches were threatening his authority. He claimed at the time that churches were hotbeds for breeding terrorism, but to my knowledge nobody I ever heard of who blew things up was affiliated with the Christian church. Certainly I never heard a priest advocating violent overthrow of the government from the pulpit, although we prayed regularly for an end to forced abortions, a return to freedom of religion, and a less repressive government.
I finish my workday around 4 and often pick up something at a convenience store on the way to the bus stop that we can cook for dinner. We don't watch much television anymore, because most of the programming is produced by the government these days, and it gets a bit tiresome. Incessantly hearing messages about our caring, benevolent government making our country so peaceful, harmonious, caring, and tolerant can drive you batty after awhile. Even SitComs have turned into silly stories set to laugh tracks of people who love their benevolent government so much they teach their children lessons on being compliant and obendient to their government, which of course leads to success and happiness.
So I increasingly find myself reading the Bible (technically against the law, but they haven't caught me yet), praying, and planning where to hold the next Mass or practicing the music we'll use there.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Best Thing I've Read Recently on Global Climate Change
From the moment I first heard about the scheme to use the climate to drive global socialism, I suspected that Global Warming (later renamed Global Climate Change) was a scam.
I found the best exposition of the difference between science and politics at Powerline.
I highly recommend reading Dr. Deming's letter if you have any curiosity about the topic of Climate Change. Even if you're a true believer that our use of carbon energy is destroying the planet by putting to much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you should at a minimum find this food for thought.
I found the best exposition of the difference between science and politics at Powerline.
I highly recommend reading Dr. Deming's letter if you have any curiosity about the topic of Climate Change. Even if you're a true believer that our use of carbon energy is destroying the planet by putting to much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you should at a minimum find this food for thought.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Thinking Through Background Checks
They're already the law of the land. Gun stores have to run all customers through a background check system associated with local law enforcement before they can sell them firearms.
Now we hear that the Democrats have figured out they won't be able to get bans of scary-looking guns (called "assault weapons") or high-capacity magazines (they still haven't figured out whether to call them magazines or clips). So they've fallen back on something they call "Universal Background Checks".
I don't know the details of the current version of the law, which was written in secret by a hanful of Senators. But by just listening to the debate, I think I've picked up that the Democrats believe that private sales of guns are the biggest problem that needs to be overcome. They also claim that polls indicate that as many as 90 percent of American support the idea of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.
Why of course, who doesn't think that the criminal and insane shouldn't be able to own guns?
But let's think through this for a minute. First of all, what does "Universal Background Checks" on gun sales mean? Well, it would seem to mean that if I want to sell my gun to somebody for cash, say in my garage sale, I can't. I'd have to get my hands on an application that the potential buyer has to fill out, then I'd have to submit it to the Federal Government. After some indeterminate time period, certainly well after my garage sale has been closed down, the bureaucracy will come back to me to let me know whether I have their permission to sell the gun to my garage sale customer. Why am I guessing that answer might be "No" regardless of the applicant? So presumably at that time I would track the buyer down, collect the cash, and hand over the gun. If he's still interested by that time, that is.
What if I go ahead and sell the gun to my garage sale customer and ignore the new law? How will the Federal government find out I broke their law by selling my gun without their background check? If they do find out, will they send me to prison? Even if the buyer would have passed the background check easily and has never used the gun for any illegal purpose?
Just the fact I don't know the answer to those questions makes me very uneasy. I'm not happy with the idea of having to cut through a mountain of red tape just to sell an old shotgun to my neighbor, and I'm certainly not happy with the possibility that there might be somebody from the government slapping handcuffs on me and hauling me off to jail for skipping some silly red tape.
There's also a lot of talk about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed. New York is already doing it. So how exactly do you define "mentally disturbed"? If somebody's received counseling for depression, will they be disqualified from owning a gun? If somebody got a prescription for a anti-depressant or some other psychotropic drug, does that disqualify him from owning a firearm? What if someone's merely talked to a counselor or therapist at some point during their lifetime? Many atheist liberals call us Christians are mentally disturbed, so would their fellow travelers in the bureaucracy deny us on that basis?
Where does it all end, and who decides, and what are the criteria?
Therefore my message to Congress is this:
Please don't allow anything the Democrats so desperately want you to pass related to gun control. There is nothing good that will come of this.
Now we hear that the Democrats have figured out they won't be able to get bans of scary-looking guns (called "assault weapons") or high-capacity magazines (they still haven't figured out whether to call them magazines or clips). So they've fallen back on something they call "Universal Background Checks".
I don't know the details of the current version of the law, which was written in secret by a hanful of Senators. But by just listening to the debate, I think I've picked up that the Democrats believe that private sales of guns are the biggest problem that needs to be overcome. They also claim that polls indicate that as many as 90 percent of American support the idea of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.
Why of course, who doesn't think that the criminal and insane shouldn't be able to own guns?
But let's think through this for a minute. First of all, what does "Universal Background Checks" on gun sales mean? Well, it would seem to mean that if I want to sell my gun to somebody for cash, say in my garage sale, I can't. I'd have to get my hands on an application that the potential buyer has to fill out, then I'd have to submit it to the Federal Government. After some indeterminate time period, certainly well after my garage sale has been closed down, the bureaucracy will come back to me to let me know whether I have their permission to sell the gun to my garage sale customer. Why am I guessing that answer might be "No" regardless of the applicant? So presumably at that time I would track the buyer down, collect the cash, and hand over the gun. If he's still interested by that time, that is.
What if I go ahead and sell the gun to my garage sale customer and ignore the new law? How will the Federal government find out I broke their law by selling my gun without their background check? If they do find out, will they send me to prison? Even if the buyer would have passed the background check easily and has never used the gun for any illegal purpose?
Just the fact I don't know the answer to those questions makes me very uneasy. I'm not happy with the idea of having to cut through a mountain of red tape just to sell an old shotgun to my neighbor, and I'm certainly not happy with the possibility that there might be somebody from the government slapping handcuffs on me and hauling me off to jail for skipping some silly red tape.
There's also a lot of talk about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed. New York is already doing it. So how exactly do you define "mentally disturbed"? If somebody's received counseling for depression, will they be disqualified from owning a gun? If somebody got a prescription for a anti-depressant or some other psychotropic drug, does that disqualify him from owning a firearm? What if someone's merely talked to a counselor or therapist at some point during their lifetime? Many atheist liberals call us Christians are mentally disturbed, so would their fellow travelers in the bureaucracy deny us on that basis?
Where does it all end, and who decides, and what are the criteria?
Therefore my message to Congress is this:
Please don't allow anything the Democrats so desperately want you to pass related to gun control. There is nothing good that will come of this.
CNN Gushing over the Obamas
I was in the hotel restaurant for my breakfast. CNN was on the television, but I wasn't watching it. Instead I was scanning through the USA Today as I munched on my eggs.
But suddenly CNN grabbed my attention. What drew my attention was the new female morning anchor, apparently the replacement for Soledad O'Brien. Her name I don't know and frankly don't really care. I looked up from my USA Today because she was over-the-top excited. I wanted to see what she was so excited about.
She was talking about the White House concert last night, which I believe she was calling "Memphis Soul". But she wasn't really gushing about the concert or the performers. She was excitedly gushing over the Obamas. Sort of like a teenage girl from the 60's who just got to see the Beatles in concert.
That concert got some play on Fox News recently as yet another example of the Obama's living like America's King and Queen. They enjoy hosting concerts from famous entertainers held privately in the White House for only them and their closest friends. All at taxpayer expense, of course.
The White House shut down that criticism for this private concert by inviting the PBS cameras in to broadcast it. That way it looks no different than all the White House performances we've been seeing on PBS through the last several presidencies.
The most striking thing I noticed from this small event is the polar opposite coverage. Sour grapes criticism from the Right about the "Imperial Presidency" contrasted with groupie-like worship of the Obamas is about as stark as you can find an example of the polarization represented by the media these days.
All over a silly concert, which in the grand scheme of things means nothing to the weighty issues of the economy, unemployment, Iran, North Korea, immigration, etc. The appropriate reporting would have been to say the White House hosted a private concert last night featuring this list of performers. Leave the discussions about imperial presidency and the Obamas' coolness factor to the editorialists and move on to the important stories.
I know, silly pipe dreams.
But suddenly CNN grabbed my attention. What drew my attention was the new female morning anchor, apparently the replacement for Soledad O'Brien. Her name I don't know and frankly don't really care. I looked up from my USA Today because she was over-the-top excited. I wanted to see what she was so excited about.
She was talking about the White House concert last night, which I believe she was calling "Memphis Soul". But she wasn't really gushing about the concert or the performers. She was excitedly gushing over the Obamas. Sort of like a teenage girl from the 60's who just got to see the Beatles in concert.
That concert got some play on Fox News recently as yet another example of the Obama's living like America's King and Queen. They enjoy hosting concerts from famous entertainers held privately in the White House for only them and their closest friends. All at taxpayer expense, of course.
The White House shut down that criticism for this private concert by inviting the PBS cameras in to broadcast it. That way it looks no different than all the White House performances we've been seeing on PBS through the last several presidencies.
The most striking thing I noticed from this small event is the polar opposite coverage. Sour grapes criticism from the Right about the "Imperial Presidency" contrasted with groupie-like worship of the Obamas is about as stark as you can find an example of the polarization represented by the media these days.
All over a silly concert, which in the grand scheme of things means nothing to the weighty issues of the economy, unemployment, Iran, North Korea, immigration, etc. The appropriate reporting would have been to say the White House hosted a private concert last night featuring this list of performers. Leave the discussions about imperial presidency and the Obamas' coolness factor to the editorialists and move on to the important stories.
I know, silly pipe dreams.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Letter to a Democrat
Dear Mr. Democrat:
We've known each other for a very long time, and although I disagree with you on pretty much every issue, I still believe we could be friends. Unfortunately you seem to hold a hatred for me that I believe stems from a serious misunderstanding about who I am and what I believe.
There are things I think I understand about you. Many of your attitudes and opinions are based on what you view as your inherent qualities of tolerance and understanding. You hold the belief that a compassionate government must redistribute the wealth from those who have it to those who do not. You've also told me that there should never be any judgement or strings attached to that redistribution. That the simple fact someone is poor and needy is the only qualification needed to receive their share of my hard-earned income.
Please explain why you believe it's compassionate to take half of everything I earn, stuff most of it into the pockets of hordes of faceless Washington bureaucrats, then toss the spare change to the poor. Are you unaware of that reality or do you really think that solves the problem of poverty?
We hold nearly polar opposite philosophies about the role of government. You're a socialist and I'm a capitalist. You believe that people are poor because they are somehow forced into poverty by the greedy wealthy elite. I believe that people are poor because of their own life choices and are kept poor by the power-hungry socialist bureaucracy who believe they must be every poor person's surrogate parent.
So what exactly is wrong with my idea that those able to work should earn their own way? I've never heard a logical explanation from your socialist friends answering that question.
You're an atheist and you hate me mainly because of my Christian faith. Whatever happened in your life that offended you so throughly toward the Church I deeply regret. If I could only make you understand one thing, it's that Christian people are flawed and sinful. It's unfortunate that we all can't be shining examples of Jesus Christ to the world, but I know there are lots of folks out there who call themselves Christians that fail to model the principles of the faith to others. The fact that redemption is available to us despite the evil we do is the beauty of our faith.
My faith makes it clear that sexual promiscuity outside the institution of marriage is wrong. You call me homophobic for holding on to that outdated and unenlightened point of view. You also call me a bigot and hateful. What you don't seem to understand is that I would counsel you against having sex with multiple partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual. I'd also suggest that divorcing and remarrying is equally wrong. So if I'm a hating bigot for saying that homosexuality is wrong, then you'd have to apply the same charges to me for my belief that divorce and remarriage is wrong, promiscuity with multiple hetero partners is wrong, and of course adultery is wrong.
It seems to me that my moral compass in the area of sexuality is what makes you more upset with me than anything else. Why does that upset you so much? Do you imagine me standing in the corner with my arms crossed, shaking my head and clicking my toungue, whenever you're in bed with someone not your wife? Getting the Supreme Court to declare homosexual "marriage" a consititutional right does not override God's law and make it morally acceptable.
If I cite the undisputable facts that have demonstrated for most of human history that the nuclear family is the best environment for raising children, why does that upset you? Children who are raised in a home with a mom and a dad who are gainfully employed and go to church on Sundays are the most successful people over their lifetimes. Why does that truth threaten you?
As a Christian, I'm deeply concerned for you. I grieve that you go through life with such anger and hatred for me, even though I've given you no cause to do so. I grieve that if you do not have a life-altering experience someday soon, your soul will suffer the tortures of Hell. I'm sorry you will never know true love or happiness, and I blame my own generation who allowed the Socialists and Communists to invade and destroy our educational institutions.
Perhaps one day you will write me a letter in response. I long to understand you better, even though I promise you will never succeed in dissuading me from my faith or my political philosophy.
I will continue to pray for you.
Sincerely,
Dan
We've known each other for a very long time, and although I disagree with you on pretty much every issue, I still believe we could be friends. Unfortunately you seem to hold a hatred for me that I believe stems from a serious misunderstanding about who I am and what I believe.
There are things I think I understand about you. Many of your attitudes and opinions are based on what you view as your inherent qualities of tolerance and understanding. You hold the belief that a compassionate government must redistribute the wealth from those who have it to those who do not. You've also told me that there should never be any judgement or strings attached to that redistribution. That the simple fact someone is poor and needy is the only qualification needed to receive their share of my hard-earned income.
Please explain why you believe it's compassionate to take half of everything I earn, stuff most of it into the pockets of hordes of faceless Washington bureaucrats, then toss the spare change to the poor. Are you unaware of that reality or do you really think that solves the problem of poverty?
We hold nearly polar opposite philosophies about the role of government. You're a socialist and I'm a capitalist. You believe that people are poor because they are somehow forced into poverty by the greedy wealthy elite. I believe that people are poor because of their own life choices and are kept poor by the power-hungry socialist bureaucracy who believe they must be every poor person's surrogate parent.
So what exactly is wrong with my idea that those able to work should earn their own way? I've never heard a logical explanation from your socialist friends answering that question.
You're an atheist and you hate me mainly because of my Christian faith. Whatever happened in your life that offended you so throughly toward the Church I deeply regret. If I could only make you understand one thing, it's that Christian people are flawed and sinful. It's unfortunate that we all can't be shining examples of Jesus Christ to the world, but I know there are lots of folks out there who call themselves Christians that fail to model the principles of the faith to others. The fact that redemption is available to us despite the evil we do is the beauty of our faith.
My faith makes it clear that sexual promiscuity outside the institution of marriage is wrong. You call me homophobic for holding on to that outdated and unenlightened point of view. You also call me a bigot and hateful. What you don't seem to understand is that I would counsel you against having sex with multiple partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual. I'd also suggest that divorcing and remarrying is equally wrong. So if I'm a hating bigot for saying that homosexuality is wrong, then you'd have to apply the same charges to me for my belief that divorce and remarriage is wrong, promiscuity with multiple hetero partners is wrong, and of course adultery is wrong.
It seems to me that my moral compass in the area of sexuality is what makes you more upset with me than anything else. Why does that upset you so much? Do you imagine me standing in the corner with my arms crossed, shaking my head and clicking my toungue, whenever you're in bed with someone not your wife? Getting the Supreme Court to declare homosexual "marriage" a consititutional right does not override God's law and make it morally acceptable.
If I cite the undisputable facts that have demonstrated for most of human history that the nuclear family is the best environment for raising children, why does that upset you? Children who are raised in a home with a mom and a dad who are gainfully employed and go to church on Sundays are the most successful people over their lifetimes. Why does that truth threaten you?
As a Christian, I'm deeply concerned for you. I grieve that you go through life with such anger and hatred for me, even though I've given you no cause to do so. I grieve that if you do not have a life-altering experience someday soon, your soul will suffer the tortures of Hell. I'm sorry you will never know true love or happiness, and I blame my own generation who allowed the Socialists and Communists to invade and destroy our educational institutions.
Perhaps one day you will write me a letter in response. I long to understand you better, even though I promise you will never succeed in dissuading me from my faith or my political philosophy.
I will continue to pray for you.
Sincerely,
Dan
Sunday, April 07, 2013
Basketball Update
Tonight I'm watching the Notre Dame v Connecticut women's semifinal, where it looks like UConn is going to take their first of 4 games against the Irish this year. Unfortunately for Notre Dame it's the most important of the 4 games. There's still a lot of time left, so I know I shouldn't count ND out just yet.
So Louisville seems to have both their men and women in the national championship. Was it Florida that did that last? I suppose I could look it up, but not tonight.
On the men's side, Louisville seems to be the team of destiny. Everybody seems to be rooting for them, with their very own George Gipp giving them motivation. Kevin Ware's broken leg and the way it has inspired his teammates makes a nice story, but I'm getting a bit weary hearing it.
Michigan's been playing great, so they can't be dismissed out of hand. They handled Syracuse in the way I thought Indiana should have, if Indiana had played the way they normally play. Disappointing.
Next year's going to be very different. Indiana is almost certain to lose both Victor Oladipo and Cody Zeller to the NBA. I think Victor most definitely should go this year - I don't see his draft value going any higher if he stays another season. Cody is a bit different, as he had a bit of a disappointing year. If Cody came back next year and became the dominant center and national player of the year people thought he'd be this year, he'd be the #1 pick in next year's draft.
But Zeller's probably a top-10 pick this year, so he'll probably go pro. Perhaps a bit selfishly, I'd like to see him come back next year and help the Hoosiers get that national title while proving he can be tougher and more dominant inside. Michigan will lose at least 2 or 3 of their guys to the NBA, regardless of the outcome of that national championship game. Trey Burke from Michigan seems like he'll definitely enter the draft. Many of the top players from the Big 10 are going pro, so the league will look a lot different next year.
So as I finish up this post, there's a little over 5 minutes left in the game, and Notre Dame's closed the gap but still has a lot of work to do if they're going to pull this one out. I'd like to see them get the title (UConn's got enough of them), but won't lose sleep either way.
So Louisville seems to have both their men and women in the national championship. Was it Florida that did that last? I suppose I could look it up, but not tonight.
On the men's side, Louisville seems to be the team of destiny. Everybody seems to be rooting for them, with their very own George Gipp giving them motivation. Kevin Ware's broken leg and the way it has inspired his teammates makes a nice story, but I'm getting a bit weary hearing it.
Michigan's been playing great, so they can't be dismissed out of hand. They handled Syracuse in the way I thought Indiana should have, if Indiana had played the way they normally play. Disappointing.
Next year's going to be very different. Indiana is almost certain to lose both Victor Oladipo and Cody Zeller to the NBA. I think Victor most definitely should go this year - I don't see his draft value going any higher if he stays another season. Cody is a bit different, as he had a bit of a disappointing year. If Cody came back next year and became the dominant center and national player of the year people thought he'd be this year, he'd be the #1 pick in next year's draft.
But Zeller's probably a top-10 pick this year, so he'll probably go pro. Perhaps a bit selfishly, I'd like to see him come back next year and help the Hoosiers get that national title while proving he can be tougher and more dominant inside. Michigan will lose at least 2 or 3 of their guys to the NBA, regardless of the outcome of that national championship game. Trey Burke from Michigan seems like he'll definitely enter the draft. Many of the top players from the Big 10 are going pro, so the league will look a lot different next year.
So as I finish up this post, there's a little over 5 minutes left in the game, and Notre Dame's closed the gap but still has a lot of work to do if they're going to pull this one out. I'd like to see them get the title (UConn's got enough of them), but won't lose sleep either way.
Friday, April 05, 2013
Historic Anomaly
Assuming that history is not destroyed by a totalitarian regime, future historians will be scratching their heads over the events that occurred in the years of Obama. Sentient Americans with an IQ above 80 are already scratching our heads over what happened last fall and continues to occur. How can history explain a generation of Americans who have lost their minds?
We re-elected a president who brought us
Obamacare: The worst law in the history of the nation. If you set out to pass the worst possible law to make healthcare more expensive and less accessible while enriching your political cronies, I suppose Obamacare is what happens. Even today in the local paper there was a letter to the editor expressing the writer's surprise that so many oppose a law that will help people get access to care and cost less; I suppose she's been living under a rock somewhere. The poor woman will be shocked when she finds out what happens when the law's fully in force next year.
Poverty: We haven't seen poverty levels this high since the Great Depression. Yet this president claims we avoided another Depression by implementing his policies. I suppose people are more easily fooled this time because all those falling into poverty now get food stamps and welfare. Slightly more than half the population has embraced the message, "Don't believe your lying eyes, believe me!".
Energy: Our country is sitting on the greatest energy reserves in the world - gas, oil, coal. We might come at least close if not completely wipe out poverty if only we loosen the regulations that close those resources and go as far as close down existing sources (i.e. coal). Meanwhile the middle east is exploding and we're paying record high prices for the energy we need to heat our homes, run our vehicles, and transport goods around the country.
Ruinous Deficits and Debt: The president's own agenda has created a structural deficit that will never be closed. His only proposal to reduce the ruinous deficits is to take more taxes from the "rich", but then he wants to plow those extra taxes into more spending on his pet projects that only further enrich his friends and cronies.
Religion: He's produced more anti-Christian policy than any president in the history of America. Obamacare tramples the right of churches and individuals to follow their conscience by forcing everyone to participate in his infanticide agenda. He further pushes a homosexual marriage agenda that will marginalize the Church and force it underground.
Yet slightly more than half the country turned out in the last election to keep him in the White House. In the highly unlikely event an historian from the 24th century who is scratching his head over how Americans could have allowed all this to happen, here's my answer.
That narrow majority happened because their votes were purchased. This president successfully used a compliant media to paint his opponent as a threat to those monthly welfare checks and food stamp handouts. Romney's message of bringing back opportunity and jobs that would free the poor from the government dole was twisted into a mischaracterized theme suggesting his objective would be to strip those welfare recipients of their monthly benefits. Therefore the recipients simply voted to protect their income, at least as far as they were misled to believe.
The bottom line is that we have the first president in the history of America who was elected under false pretenses. Amazingly, he and his campaign advisors perpetrated a massive fraud on approximately half of America.
We re-elected a president who brought us
Obamacare: The worst law in the history of the nation. If you set out to pass the worst possible law to make healthcare more expensive and less accessible while enriching your political cronies, I suppose Obamacare is what happens. Even today in the local paper there was a letter to the editor expressing the writer's surprise that so many oppose a law that will help people get access to care and cost less; I suppose she's been living under a rock somewhere. The poor woman will be shocked when she finds out what happens when the law's fully in force next year.
Poverty: We haven't seen poverty levels this high since the Great Depression. Yet this president claims we avoided another Depression by implementing his policies. I suppose people are more easily fooled this time because all those falling into poverty now get food stamps and welfare. Slightly more than half the population has embraced the message, "Don't believe your lying eyes, believe me!".
Energy: Our country is sitting on the greatest energy reserves in the world - gas, oil, coal. We might come at least close if not completely wipe out poverty if only we loosen the regulations that close those resources and go as far as close down existing sources (i.e. coal). Meanwhile the middle east is exploding and we're paying record high prices for the energy we need to heat our homes, run our vehicles, and transport goods around the country.
Ruinous Deficits and Debt: The president's own agenda has created a structural deficit that will never be closed. His only proposal to reduce the ruinous deficits is to take more taxes from the "rich", but then he wants to plow those extra taxes into more spending on his pet projects that only further enrich his friends and cronies.
Religion: He's produced more anti-Christian policy than any president in the history of America. Obamacare tramples the right of churches and individuals to follow their conscience by forcing everyone to participate in his infanticide agenda. He further pushes a homosexual marriage agenda that will marginalize the Church and force it underground.
Yet slightly more than half the country turned out in the last election to keep him in the White House. In the highly unlikely event an historian from the 24th century who is scratching his head over how Americans could have allowed all this to happen, here's my answer.
That narrow majority happened because their votes were purchased. This president successfully used a compliant media to paint his opponent as a threat to those monthly welfare checks and food stamp handouts. Romney's message of bringing back opportunity and jobs that would free the poor from the government dole was twisted into a mischaracterized theme suggesting his objective would be to strip those welfare recipients of their monthly benefits. Therefore the recipients simply voted to protect their income, at least as far as they were misled to believe.
The bottom line is that we have the first president in the history of America who was elected under false pretenses. Amazingly, he and his campaign advisors perpetrated a massive fraud on approximately half of America.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
The Myth of the Stupid Conservative Woman
The poster woman for the political left as the dumbest politician in America has been Sarah Palin. They still jump at every opportunity to make fun of her today, despite the fact that she hasn't run for anything since losing the VP to Joe Biden more than 4 years ago.
Which is funny by itself, given that Sarah would bury Joe any day, any place, any time in any intelligence test. The campaign to discredit Sarah Palin went from incessant frivolous lawsuits filed against her in Alaska to an HBO movie solely dedicated to proving that she was hopelessly ignorant during the McCain campaign.
I tuned into that HBO movie for a few minutes once. The scene I caught portrayed Sarah displaying a stunning ignorance as she seemed incapable of explaining the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. Pardon me for not buying what you're selling, I sent out telepathically to the producers of the poorly disguised hit piece, as I surfed away to watch something else.
The left has this strange belief that anyone who chooses to be a conservative must be stupid, because in their world the political worldview of the left is the only reasonable one. Sarah was an easy target because of her unsophisticated accent and manner and the fact she didn't graduate from an Ivy League university. They have a lot more trouble making believable charges of stupidity against such high profile conservative women as Condi Rice. But they love to portray Michelle Bachman almost like Palin's sister.
The famous line from Forrest Gump was "Stupid is as stupid does". So I'll provide my bipartisan list I'll call the
Stupid Hall of Fame
Nancy Pelosi (#1 All-Time)
Barbara Boxer
Diane Feinstein
Lindsey Graham
Joe Biden
Harry Reid
Alan Grayson
Newest Inductee: Diana DeGette (the ignorant gun control advocate from Colorado's state legislature)
I'd suggest everybody in this hall of fame falls well below Sarah on the intelligence scale.
Other Halls of Fame worth considering in the future might be
Evil Hall of Fame (Headlined by luminaries like Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Dick Durbin. Alan Grayson may deserve a spot in two halls)
Corruption Hall of Fame (Headlined by Bob Menendez, Maxine Waters)
Which is funny by itself, given that Sarah would bury Joe any day, any place, any time in any intelligence test. The campaign to discredit Sarah Palin went from incessant frivolous lawsuits filed against her in Alaska to an HBO movie solely dedicated to proving that she was hopelessly ignorant during the McCain campaign.
I tuned into that HBO movie for a few minutes once. The scene I caught portrayed Sarah displaying a stunning ignorance as she seemed incapable of explaining the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. Pardon me for not buying what you're selling, I sent out telepathically to the producers of the poorly disguised hit piece, as I surfed away to watch something else.
The left has this strange belief that anyone who chooses to be a conservative must be stupid, because in their world the political worldview of the left is the only reasonable one. Sarah was an easy target because of her unsophisticated accent and manner and the fact she didn't graduate from an Ivy League university. They have a lot more trouble making believable charges of stupidity against such high profile conservative women as Condi Rice. But they love to portray Michelle Bachman almost like Palin's sister.
The famous line from Forrest Gump was "Stupid is as stupid does". So I'll provide my bipartisan list I'll call the
Stupid Hall of Fame
Nancy Pelosi (#1 All-Time)
Barbara Boxer
Diane Feinstein
Lindsey Graham
Joe Biden
Harry Reid
Alan Grayson
Newest Inductee: Diana DeGette (the ignorant gun control advocate from Colorado's state legislature)
I'd suggest everybody in this hall of fame falls well below Sarah on the intelligence scale.
Other Halls of Fame worth considering in the future might be
Evil Hall of Fame (Headlined by luminaries like Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Dick Durbin. Alan Grayson may deserve a spot in two halls)
Corruption Hall of Fame (Headlined by Bob Menendez, Maxine Waters)
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
If We Must Have This Debate
Obama's second highest priority for his second term is what he calls "Comprehensive Immigration Reform". Of course it's only second behind those tax increases he's lusted after since his first campaign. So he and the Democratic senate are forcing the debate, even though it's low on the list of the country's most critical issues.
All this talk about immigration reform has generated a massive new influx of Mexicans desperately climbing the fences to get in before the law passes, assuming they've got to be in the country to qualify for the amnesty about to be granted by the Democrats.
Most remarkable about Obama's enforcement of immigration law is that he's actually violating it through selective enforcement that is neither fair nor formally sanctioned by the law itself. He's decided to use discretion in which illegal immigrants get processed and which are released. Supposedly if an illegal gets caught but hasn't been convicted of a felony, he or she is turned loose. Otherwise, it's deportation.
But stories abound of illegals with felony records getting released, then committing all manner of crimes in American communities. So I'm not sure the unilateral "policy" dictated by the White House is actually what's being followed.
There's this "Gang of 8" senators, 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats, supposedly meeting in secret to hammer out a grand bargain for immigration reform that might actually pass both houses and become law. Given the current political environment, that seems about as likely has a snowstorm in Hades.
On the Republican side, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are joined by Jeff Flake and Marco Rubio. McCain has been supporting amnesty for illegals since long before he ran for President against Barack Obama. That's a pretty major reason he was unable to beat Obama, as far as I can tell. Lots of folks who found his grandstanding attempts to liberalize his positions to gain the false adulation of the media nauseating.
Equally nauseating is the sycophantic Graham, who is little more than a McCain sidekick. I hear that South Carolina is organizing a strong candidate to unseat Lindsey, and think it's about time.
Rubio's a rising star in the party, and is walking a dangerous fine line by allowing himself to be sucked into this gang. It's practically a no-win situation for Rubio. He may please Mexican immigrants by helping push through an amnesty program, but they still won't vote for him for President. Meanwhile the conservative base will turn away from him if he supports an inherently unfair amnesty program that automatically legalizes millions of people who shouldn't be here, given the presumed millions of others from around the world that want to come but have been blocked because they chose to try the legal route.
Obama is demanding the immediate granting of "legal status" to all the illegals in the country already (translation: Legal Status=Amnesty). Without any prerequisites, especially without securing the border first as Republicans are insisting.
I've posted my solution to the illegal immigration problem elsewhere in the blog, but obviously nobody in the Gang of 8 reads it, so virtually nothing in it is in what they've deigned to share with the public about their proposed legislation.
So I have to default back to the standard GOP requirement: Secure the border first, confirm it's secure, then we'll talk about what to do with the illegals still here.
Jay Leno had the best line I've heard on the subject lately. The press has changed the term "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented Democrat". Most great comedy is rooted in truth.
All this talk about immigration reform has generated a massive new influx of Mexicans desperately climbing the fences to get in before the law passes, assuming they've got to be in the country to qualify for the amnesty about to be granted by the Democrats.
Most remarkable about Obama's enforcement of immigration law is that he's actually violating it through selective enforcement that is neither fair nor formally sanctioned by the law itself. He's decided to use discretion in which illegal immigrants get processed and which are released. Supposedly if an illegal gets caught but hasn't been convicted of a felony, he or she is turned loose. Otherwise, it's deportation.
But stories abound of illegals with felony records getting released, then committing all manner of crimes in American communities. So I'm not sure the unilateral "policy" dictated by the White House is actually what's being followed.
There's this "Gang of 8" senators, 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats, supposedly meeting in secret to hammer out a grand bargain for immigration reform that might actually pass both houses and become law. Given the current political environment, that seems about as likely has a snowstorm in Hades.
On the Republican side, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are joined by Jeff Flake and Marco Rubio. McCain has been supporting amnesty for illegals since long before he ran for President against Barack Obama. That's a pretty major reason he was unable to beat Obama, as far as I can tell. Lots of folks who found his grandstanding attempts to liberalize his positions to gain the false adulation of the media nauseating.
Equally nauseating is the sycophantic Graham, who is little more than a McCain sidekick. I hear that South Carolina is organizing a strong candidate to unseat Lindsey, and think it's about time.
Rubio's a rising star in the party, and is walking a dangerous fine line by allowing himself to be sucked into this gang. It's practically a no-win situation for Rubio. He may please Mexican immigrants by helping push through an amnesty program, but they still won't vote for him for President. Meanwhile the conservative base will turn away from him if he supports an inherently unfair amnesty program that automatically legalizes millions of people who shouldn't be here, given the presumed millions of others from around the world that want to come but have been blocked because they chose to try the legal route.
Obama is demanding the immediate granting of "legal status" to all the illegals in the country already (translation: Legal Status=Amnesty). Without any prerequisites, especially without securing the border first as Republicans are insisting.
I've posted my solution to the illegal immigration problem elsewhere in the blog, but obviously nobody in the Gang of 8 reads it, so virtually nothing in it is in what they've deigned to share with the public about their proposed legislation.
So I have to default back to the standard GOP requirement: Secure the border first, confirm it's secure, then we'll talk about what to do with the illegals still here.
Jay Leno had the best line I've heard on the subject lately. The press has changed the term "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented Democrat". Most great comedy is rooted in truth.
More Evidence
Still more evidence of the decline of our once-great nation was provided in this morning's USA Today.
The gist of the article is that marijuana is no big deal. Singers and actors are smoking the weed every day without consequence. So I suppose the suggestion is, why even bother trying to enforce laws against it?
First and foremost, because it isn't harmless. That old caricature of the 26 year old guy who is still unemployed and living in his Mom's basement, where he does nothing but toke and play video games? It's more true than caricature.
I saw it among my peers in college. Friends who fell in with the pot-head crowd stopped going to class, didn't bother to study or do homework, and flunked out of their program. Often all this happened in the course of a single term. These guys went from concientious, hard-working, pretty good students to slackers in the course of only a few short weeks. Their attitudes changed, even their personalities seemed to change. They just stopped caring.
Then there's the crime aspect. All those murders on the Mexican border and in the big cities aren't over petty jealousies or old-fashioned gang turf wars. They are killing each other over control of the drug trade.
Irresponsible messages like the one pushed in the USA Today article are contributing to the problem. They make pot smoking sound cool and suggest there really isn't going to be any consequence to doing so. Why not be like your favorite actor or singer and start toking? Nobody's going to arrest you, and you will be considered cool by your peers.
What value is it to anyone to learn that singers like Beyonce and Justin Bieber are big-time pot-heads? Or that actors from Matthew McConaughy to Kristin Stewart are well-known tokers. The article is basically an advertisement for the legalization group called NORML.
I think Colorado and Washington are already finding out what a huge mistake they've made in passing laws legalizing the drugs. And the California fig leaf law permitting "medical marijuana" was a joke even before it passed.
This adds fodder to the previous post to illustrate the destruction of American society. Pretty soon the welfare state will topple and sonny will get kicked out of Mom's basement and we'll have millions of people incapable of fending for themselves. Will they starve to death? Certainly it will be difficult for them to fend off the munchies when there is no longer any source of funds available to run to the grocery store or call the pizza delivery guy. Oh, the torture!
The gist of the article is that marijuana is no big deal. Singers and actors are smoking the weed every day without consequence. So I suppose the suggestion is, why even bother trying to enforce laws against it?
First and foremost, because it isn't harmless. That old caricature of the 26 year old guy who is still unemployed and living in his Mom's basement, where he does nothing but toke and play video games? It's more true than caricature.
I saw it among my peers in college. Friends who fell in with the pot-head crowd stopped going to class, didn't bother to study or do homework, and flunked out of their program. Often all this happened in the course of a single term. These guys went from concientious, hard-working, pretty good students to slackers in the course of only a few short weeks. Their attitudes changed, even their personalities seemed to change. They just stopped caring.
Then there's the crime aspect. All those murders on the Mexican border and in the big cities aren't over petty jealousies or old-fashioned gang turf wars. They are killing each other over control of the drug trade.
Irresponsible messages like the one pushed in the USA Today article are contributing to the problem. They make pot smoking sound cool and suggest there really isn't going to be any consequence to doing so. Why not be like your favorite actor or singer and start toking? Nobody's going to arrest you, and you will be considered cool by your peers.
What value is it to anyone to learn that singers like Beyonce and Justin Bieber are big-time pot-heads? Or that actors from Matthew McConaughy to Kristin Stewart are well-known tokers. The article is basically an advertisement for the legalization group called NORML.
I think Colorado and Washington are already finding out what a huge mistake they've made in passing laws legalizing the drugs. And the California fig leaf law permitting "medical marijuana" was a joke even before it passed.
This adds fodder to the previous post to illustrate the destruction of American society. Pretty soon the welfare state will topple and sonny will get kicked out of Mom's basement and we'll have millions of people incapable of fending for themselves. Will they starve to death? Certainly it will be difficult for them to fend off the munchies when there is no longer any source of funds available to run to the grocery store or call the pizza delivery guy. Oh, the torture!
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
The Secret National Emergency
Bet you haven't heard a word about it, but Sexually Transmitted Disease has reached epidemic levels. Per the CDC, there has been an explosion of Gonnorrhea and Chlamydia among our children, the vast majority of cases occurring between age 15 and 24. There's also an epidemic of Syphillis among homosexual men.
Bet you haven't heard anything about the explosion in the illigitimacy rate either. The rate of births to unmarried women is now 40.8% overall. Overall birth rates are falling precipitously, but the nuclear family is all but destroyed. The birth rate has declined by around 60 percent in the last 20 years.
If you look at the trends of illegitimate births (a term the CDC refuses to use), it is true they are trending downward slightly over the past 5 years, but still are up 100% from 1985. But compared to the drastic reduction in the overall birth rate, I have to assume that the decline in total unwed births is misleading. There's a trend of women having children later and later, with women over 40 having babies at a record rate for that age group.
88 percent of births to teens were illegitimate, and 63 percent to women between age 20 and 24 were also illegitimate. Sounds like a crisis level to me.
Wonder why none of the news networks have picked this up?
Bet you haven't heard anything about the explosion in the illigitimacy rate either. The rate of births to unmarried women is now 40.8% overall. Overall birth rates are falling precipitously, but the nuclear family is all but destroyed. The birth rate has declined by around 60 percent in the last 20 years.
If you look at the trends of illegitimate births (a term the CDC refuses to use), it is true they are trending downward slightly over the past 5 years, but still are up 100% from 1985. But compared to the drastic reduction in the overall birth rate, I have to assume that the decline in total unwed births is misleading. There's a trend of women having children later and later, with women over 40 having babies at a record rate for that age group.
88 percent of births to teens were illegitimate, and 63 percent to women between age 20 and 24 were also illegitimate. Sounds like a crisis level to me.
Wonder why none of the news networks have picked this up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)