The charges leveled by the New York Times against John McCain regarding his relationship with a K Street lobbyist mark the current low water mark for the newspaper and American journalism. The alleged "affair" took place during the 1990s, why wasn't this brought up then? The Times refuses to allow the authors of these charges to speak with other media outlets;why?
Apparently Rush Limbaugh's so-called decline will be discounted by the publication of these allegations. Limbaugh had predicted, when the Times endorsed McCain for president, that once he gained momentum that some type of smear campaign would be launched against him by the "liberal drive-by media". Is this Times article the opening salvo? The disgusting aspect of the charges is that they are unsubstantiated and in fact made by innuendo rather than directly; something beneath the dignity and misssion of the New York Times.
Has the immaturity level of liberalism pushed the Times to the level of a high school gossip publication? How the Times expect to be taken seriously now? This the latest in a few years long decline in its integrity. The vacuity of the liberal press is made obvious by those who read, believe, and espouse its ramblings. A close examination of the Obama phenomenom makes it clear that emotion not thought is the driving force behind his candidacy. This same attitude permeates the media: make a charge and see if it sticks seems to be the guiding editorial principle.
The New York Times masthead proclaims "All The News That's Fit To Print" one should remember the Mad Magazine parody of "All The News That Fits" when considering its efficacy.
World opinion appears to be important to most Americans, why then is there no blushing when stories like the McCain allegations are published. This is not reporting, nor is it thoughtful editorial posturing. It is simply aping the National Enquirer.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Americans?
During a dinner party I met several Europeans who had become US citizens. It was clear that their cultural biases probably will never be overcome by their commitment to citizenship. During the conversations they parrotted the media biased lines about the incompetence of George Bush; almost verbatum from NBC. Remarkably their voting inclination is towards John McCain, a paradox of large proportions.
It must be quite a struggle for a person born in one culture to take on the responsibility of adopting another. There are unconcious aspects of one's environment which are absorbed willingly but unkowingly. It is difficult for anyone to separate themselves from the prism of experience when considering a situation. For naturalized US citizens, particularly Euros, it is nearly impossible.
Europeans guage the United States from a perspective of history that they like to say is lengthy enough to make decisions that cannot be questioned. Their sense of superiority is based on overturning monarchies, destroying Christianity, adopting malicious socialism verging on communism, and with only a little help throwing out totalitarian facisim at the expense of millions of lives. To Europeans the United States is a lucky group of failed Euros forced to emigrate to escape their shortcomings. Of course this begs the question of their presence here.
Another view is that of Latinos who fear the repetition of oppressive government and so never really get integrated in society. Gang dominated social groups and neighborhood are a serious cancer within the American body politic. As Latinos are the fastest growing demographic within the US borders any failure to assimilate is bound to be dangerous. Of course Latino activists scoff at the idea of assimilation; a disturbing continuity of recent immigrants from any source.
The hope is that the third generation will be one that can only speak English.
It must be quite a struggle for a person born in one culture to take on the responsibility of adopting another. There are unconcious aspects of one's environment which are absorbed willingly but unkowingly. It is difficult for anyone to separate themselves from the prism of experience when considering a situation. For naturalized US citizens, particularly Euros, it is nearly impossible.
Europeans guage the United States from a perspective of history that they like to say is lengthy enough to make decisions that cannot be questioned. Their sense of superiority is based on overturning monarchies, destroying Christianity, adopting malicious socialism verging on communism, and with only a little help throwing out totalitarian facisim at the expense of millions of lives. To Europeans the United States is a lucky group of failed Euros forced to emigrate to escape their shortcomings. Of course this begs the question of their presence here.
Another view is that of Latinos who fear the repetition of oppressive government and so never really get integrated in society. Gang dominated social groups and neighborhood are a serious cancer within the American body politic. As Latinos are the fastest growing demographic within the US borders any failure to assimilate is bound to be dangerous. Of course Latino activists scoff at the idea of assimilation; a disturbing continuity of recent immigrants from any source.
The hope is that the third generation will be one that can only speak English.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Time for A Change
All the pundits agree that now is a great time to change direction. The wonder is which direction and what changes might be best. It is certainly true that George Bush has been a disappointment to Republicans and Democrats alike. The Democrats of course have become pyschotic about Bush while Republicans are merely worn out.
Bush has done a yeoman's job in holding back the Islamofascists, this of course may change with the Democrat ascendancy, still the public does not seem to appreciate the fact that no attacks have been successful since 2001. There are now many young people who have lived in peace and have no memory of the World Trade Center. The general public now has the belief that if good will is shown to those who would destroy Western Civilization that no harm will come.
Will Hillary or Obama really protect the nation? How can they be expected to protect against a threat they don't think exists? Is this the kind of change that will produce the best result? The main worry is that the Democrats actually believe their rhetoric and that the United States is solely to blame for the world's difficulties. Should that be the case the next four years will be difficult to say the least. Any damage will be temporary but still may take a long time to recover from or to change thinking enough to rectify.
The apparent inevitable Democrat electoral success will be ushered in on a theme of celebratory revenge against the hated Republicans. All will be able to witness some really outlandish comments and promises. Once reality sets in there will be the normal electoral remorse, too late.
Bush has done a yeoman's job in holding back the Islamofascists, this of course may change with the Democrat ascendancy, still the public does not seem to appreciate the fact that no attacks have been successful since 2001. There are now many young people who have lived in peace and have no memory of the World Trade Center. The general public now has the belief that if good will is shown to those who would destroy Western Civilization that no harm will come.
Will Hillary or Obama really protect the nation? How can they be expected to protect against a threat they don't think exists? Is this the kind of change that will produce the best result? The main worry is that the Democrats actually believe their rhetoric and that the United States is solely to blame for the world's difficulties. Should that be the case the next four years will be difficult to say the least. Any damage will be temporary but still may take a long time to recover from or to change thinking enough to rectify.
The apparent inevitable Democrat electoral success will be ushered in on a theme of celebratory revenge against the hated Republicans. All will be able to witness some really outlandish comments and promises. Once reality sets in there will be the normal electoral remorse, too late.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
John McCain Why Not?
The better question is "How long will it be until another old white man is elected President?". The relevancy of conservative support for John McCain is a mere sideshow, it is unlikely that any Republican will be elected to the presidency until there is a woman or some minority male candidate on offer. Why should this be the case? In one sense the Clinton's have had a major impact on American society: without Bill there would be no Hillary. What this means is that a tipping point has been reached where those who want and expect the government to run their lives are ascendant.
There is a constant reminder that women are more than fifty percent of the US electorate so why hasn't a woman reached the pinnacle? That question will soon fade as Hillary takes the reins. The likelihood of another white male being elected depends entirely on how Hillary handles the job. Should she stumble and outrage or frighten the population (two distinct possibilities) the damage to the female cause will be significant. The reverse is true if her term is judged as successful.
The United States ideal of "rugged individualism" is irretrievably lost. Those desirous of a "Nanny State" are going to have their wish granted and will probably enjoy it. Since World War II the rush to socialism in the US has been gaining momentum. Three generations have been indoctrinated by government schools to expect care and feeding from the government. No one should rise above the crowd, no one should be wealthier than anyone else (except the ruling class of course), no one should be happier or more miserable than anyone else. These tenents are obvious to those who don't want to be dependent on government but to no one else.
Take the example of Katrina. Why did the population, including government, fail to save themselves? Warnings were given, but mobilization was not ordered. The entitled waited for action by the leaders; when none came they drowned. The leadership, having rejected Federal intervention, then blamed the Feds for lack of help. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were paralysed they failed their charges, but in the tradition of liberalism no one can be blamed except the hated conservatives. The assumption being that conservatives want to eliminate all people of "color". A one dimensional picture of any human being is of course self limiting but allows venting of fear and frustration.
There is an apparent genetic or at least evolutionary need for females to seek out a male that will care for her and her offspring in terms of protection and provisions. This need is the basis of the Nanny State. No female can be expected to place herself or her children in harm's way and be considered to be in the mainstream. All so-called matchmakers use this premise, all socialist governments are rooted in this theory, no male political candidate can go against this tendency.
The goal of today's Democrat Party is to place the United States in decline so that by getting in touch with its femine side it will not offend any other countries. Bill Clinton, in his new role of Hillary surrogate, has recently stated that the US economy must be slowed to do its part in curing global warming. It is doubtful that the liberal leadership's "carbon footprint" will be reduced as they are fighting the good fight to subdue the rest of the population.
To be successful in future elections Republicans must, and most likely will, adapt to the situation of providing what the public wants rather than providing the leadership the public needs. For the past 15 years the Republicans in Washington have become lap dogs of the Democrat Party.
Hillary Clinton will be elected for a few reasons : 1) novelty, 2)Party Leadership has it planned, 3)white male Democrats will not vote for Obama, 4)Latino leadership will not support Obama, 5) white women are transferring their desires to Hillary's success.
The only hope, and it's a slim one, is that Conservatives will allow themselves to be disconnected from the Nanny State and begin a resistance movement and endure all the hardships that will entail. Perhaps such action will stir the dormant natural urges of their fellow citizens who will begin to long for freedom and liberty even though such urges will be frightening.
There is a constant reminder that women are more than fifty percent of the US electorate so why hasn't a woman reached the pinnacle? That question will soon fade as Hillary takes the reins. The likelihood of another white male being elected depends entirely on how Hillary handles the job. Should she stumble and outrage or frighten the population (two distinct possibilities) the damage to the female cause will be significant. The reverse is true if her term is judged as successful.
The United States ideal of "rugged individualism" is irretrievably lost. Those desirous of a "Nanny State" are going to have their wish granted and will probably enjoy it. Since World War II the rush to socialism in the US has been gaining momentum. Three generations have been indoctrinated by government schools to expect care and feeding from the government. No one should rise above the crowd, no one should be wealthier than anyone else (except the ruling class of course), no one should be happier or more miserable than anyone else. These tenents are obvious to those who don't want to be dependent on government but to no one else.
Take the example of Katrina. Why did the population, including government, fail to save themselves? Warnings were given, but mobilization was not ordered. The entitled waited for action by the leaders; when none came they drowned. The leadership, having rejected Federal intervention, then blamed the Feds for lack of help. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were paralysed they failed their charges, but in the tradition of liberalism no one can be blamed except the hated conservatives. The assumption being that conservatives want to eliminate all people of "color". A one dimensional picture of any human being is of course self limiting but allows venting of fear and frustration.
There is an apparent genetic or at least evolutionary need for females to seek out a male that will care for her and her offspring in terms of protection and provisions. This need is the basis of the Nanny State. No female can be expected to place herself or her children in harm's way and be considered to be in the mainstream. All so-called matchmakers use this premise, all socialist governments are rooted in this theory, no male political candidate can go against this tendency.
The goal of today's Democrat Party is to place the United States in decline so that by getting in touch with its femine side it will not offend any other countries. Bill Clinton, in his new role of Hillary surrogate, has recently stated that the US economy must be slowed to do its part in curing global warming. It is doubtful that the liberal leadership's "carbon footprint" will be reduced as they are fighting the good fight to subdue the rest of the population.
To be successful in future elections Republicans must, and most likely will, adapt to the situation of providing what the public wants rather than providing the leadership the public needs. For the past 15 years the Republicans in Washington have become lap dogs of the Democrat Party.
Hillary Clinton will be elected for a few reasons : 1) novelty, 2)Party Leadership has it planned, 3)white male Democrats will not vote for Obama, 4)Latino leadership will not support Obama, 5) white women are transferring their desires to Hillary's success.
The only hope, and it's a slim one, is that Conservatives will allow themselves to be disconnected from the Nanny State and begin a resistance movement and endure all the hardships that will entail. Perhaps such action will stir the dormant natural urges of their fellow citizens who will begin to long for freedom and liberty even though such urges will be frightening.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Democrats (neo-comms) a shoo in
The Neo-Comms, formerly known as the Democrat Party are going to increase their power in congress and win the White House; no matter which candidate wins the election. John McCain has always been a closet Democrat and a destroyer of individual rights. Hillary and Obama are not in the closet, they are telling the citizens what is going to happen. Neo-Comms are the New Communists and they are determined to make the United States pay for its economic and social success. The desired outcome is to have all the poor and middle class citizens working for the government while the wealthy continue to enjoy their privileges.
Every time you hear Howard Dean or a surrogate speak about how the "hard right" is taking away the rights of Americans remember that the Democrats are merely projecting their intended behavior on others to distract attention. The United States under the NeoComms will be a place that involves a tremendous amount of government intervention in every day life. This will be accepted because the majority of Americans are already so poorly educated and so well indoctrinated that the concept of liberty and freedom is essentially lost or at best misunderstood.
While the surge in Iraq has had a very positive impact on the violence and chance for victory a closer look might tell a different story. The Islamofacists are biding their time. The attacks on US and Iraqi forces are mere pin-pricks at the moment because our enemies know that the NeoComms will not resist once they take power. There is a good chance that military and anti-terror measures will be reduced. The simple fact is that liberals in America do not believe that their is a threat from Muslim extremists; and if there is it is only one of revenge. The revenge motive is assumed to be limited in scope and that after only a few thousand more Americans are killed by terrorists the whole situation will be satisfied and come to an end.
The central fact that is missed by liberals and other deniers is that the Wahabbists goal is simply complete conversion to Islam or death. Take it or leave it, they don't care.
The excitement over the budget deficit is misplaced and misleading. In 1961 the budget deficit was 286 billion dollars; forty-seven years later it is expected to rise to 350 billion dollars; making the actual deficit about 150 billion in 1960 dollars. What's the problem?
The essentially feudal outlook of the Democrat leadership should be a warning to their followers; it already is to right thinking citizens. The wealthy will have their privileges, the rest of the population will have their minimum safety guaranteed against any risk or danger in exchange for compliance and conformity. The Mark Cubans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, et al will not give up anything much compared to everyone else. Suppose a person had accumulated a savings of 100000 dollars; the NeoComms are proposing a "one-time" social security bailout tax that will confiscate 15% of those savings to give to those who had not saved. The natural conclusion is don't save for the future.
The NeoComms will force a person to purchase medical insurance or else have their wages garnished to make the payments. No choice only acceptance of medicore medical care.
A citizenery deserves the government it elects. Maybe there will be another chance to change.
Every time you hear Howard Dean or a surrogate speak about how the "hard right" is taking away the rights of Americans remember that the Democrats are merely projecting their intended behavior on others to distract attention. The United States under the NeoComms will be a place that involves a tremendous amount of government intervention in every day life. This will be accepted because the majority of Americans are already so poorly educated and so well indoctrinated that the concept of liberty and freedom is essentially lost or at best misunderstood.
While the surge in Iraq has had a very positive impact on the violence and chance for victory a closer look might tell a different story. The Islamofacists are biding their time. The attacks on US and Iraqi forces are mere pin-pricks at the moment because our enemies know that the NeoComms will not resist once they take power. There is a good chance that military and anti-terror measures will be reduced. The simple fact is that liberals in America do not believe that their is a threat from Muslim extremists; and if there is it is only one of revenge. The revenge motive is assumed to be limited in scope and that after only a few thousand more Americans are killed by terrorists the whole situation will be satisfied and come to an end.
The central fact that is missed by liberals and other deniers is that the Wahabbists goal is simply complete conversion to Islam or death. Take it or leave it, they don't care.
The excitement over the budget deficit is misplaced and misleading. In 1961 the budget deficit was 286 billion dollars; forty-seven years later it is expected to rise to 350 billion dollars; making the actual deficit about 150 billion in 1960 dollars. What's the problem?
The essentially feudal outlook of the Democrat leadership should be a warning to their followers; it already is to right thinking citizens. The wealthy will have their privileges, the rest of the population will have their minimum safety guaranteed against any risk or danger in exchange for compliance and conformity. The Mark Cubans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, et al will not give up anything much compared to everyone else. Suppose a person had accumulated a savings of 100000 dollars; the NeoComms are proposing a "one-time" social security bailout tax that will confiscate 15% of those savings to give to those who had not saved. The natural conclusion is don't save for the future.
The NeoComms will force a person to purchase medical insurance or else have their wages garnished to make the payments. No choice only acceptance of medicore medical care.
A citizenery deserves the government it elects. Maybe there will be another chance to change.
Monday, January 28, 2008
What's The Problem?
It's difficult for white citizens of the United States, particularly those born in the 1970's and later, to understand why there is a such an intractable racial divide in this nation. As a child growing up in Georgia during the 1950's one could read about lynching of black men in what seemed to remote country towns. Those same towns today are bedroom communities for Atlanta's business world. These years are not so far away historically, and just next door personally for those who lived through them.
For young people today these experiences have been trivialized by a culture that exploits rather than explores events. The so-called rap, hip-hop, and other artists express their own lives which are reflected against a contemporary background without reference to the historic basis. For this reason the perspective is shallow and tentative glorifying bad behavior that is justified by poorly understood history. The fact that murder, mayhem, drug deals, and dissipation are the predominant themes leads one to believe that this is a culture adrift and one which may be lost at sea forever.
Racial relations in the US are probably best in the southern tier of states as the races have lived together , not always peaceably, for a long time. This recent appreciation for each other is tenuous and suffering erosion by northern transplants seeking refuge from the expense and overcrowding of certain parts of the north; not to mention the weather.)
Up north race relations are worse because of the cynical outlook given by the self righteous view that the North saved the Union and freed the slaves. This is true and false at the same time. As is today political expediency accidentally resulted in a public good. If one should disagree consider that the worst racial violence occurred in Detroit, MI (1943), Los Angeles, CA (1965), Newark, NJ (1967), and Roxbury, MA (1972).
All this brings us to the Democrat Party's quest for the White House. The phony liberal sympathy and desire to end racial injustice has been revealed as just that: phony. Minorities must now realize this and seek a place in either a new party, force the Democrats to live up to their promises, or seek a place among Republicans and conservatives. The driving force of conservatism, personal responsibility and achievement, may be anathema to those used to Government programs, but is the only real hope of survival and progress minorities have.
The white or Anglo power holders will not surrender gladly, this is evidenced by John Edwards' campaign which is the height of political cynicism or else self delusion. Edwards, one of the wealthiest people in South Carolina, posits that because his background was economically disadvantaged he is uniquely qualified to speak for the poor. Nothing could be further from reality. Edwards simply wants another notch in his accomplishment record.
From the perspective of one who grew up during segregation and has been formed by it, this writer is amazed at how much change has occurred and how much more apparently must be done. If Bill Gates, Barbara Striesand, the Clintons, et al really want to give money to the "poor" let them dispose of their fortunes save enough to live on. Rich liberals do not want to donate their money but rather that of their fellow citizens. Is it possible that the John Corzines of the world could live in just one house? Does Al Gore really need a Lear Jet to get from place to place to sell his Barnumesque ideas?
The problem boils down to this: Barack Obama is a rogue negro venturing off the Democrat Plantation and the embedded racism of the Democrat party is being revealed. Just as is the closet racism in most liberals being pushed to the front for self examination.
For young people today these experiences have been trivialized by a culture that exploits rather than explores events. The so-called rap, hip-hop, and other artists express their own lives which are reflected against a contemporary background without reference to the historic basis. For this reason the perspective is shallow and tentative glorifying bad behavior that is justified by poorly understood history. The fact that murder, mayhem, drug deals, and dissipation are the predominant themes leads one to believe that this is a culture adrift and one which may be lost at sea forever.
Racial relations in the US are probably best in the southern tier of states as the races have lived together , not always peaceably, for a long time. This recent appreciation for each other is tenuous and suffering erosion by northern transplants seeking refuge from the expense and overcrowding of certain parts of the north; not to mention the weather.)
Up north race relations are worse because of the cynical outlook given by the self righteous view that the North saved the Union and freed the slaves. This is true and false at the same time. As is today political expediency accidentally resulted in a public good. If one should disagree consider that the worst racial violence occurred in Detroit, MI (1943), Los Angeles, CA (1965), Newark, NJ (1967), and Roxbury, MA (1972).
All this brings us to the Democrat Party's quest for the White House. The phony liberal sympathy and desire to end racial injustice has been revealed as just that: phony. Minorities must now realize this and seek a place in either a new party, force the Democrats to live up to their promises, or seek a place among Republicans and conservatives. The driving force of conservatism, personal responsibility and achievement, may be anathema to those used to Government programs, but is the only real hope of survival and progress minorities have.
The white or Anglo power holders will not surrender gladly, this is evidenced by John Edwards' campaign which is the height of political cynicism or else self delusion. Edwards, one of the wealthiest people in South Carolina, posits that because his background was economically disadvantaged he is uniquely qualified to speak for the poor. Nothing could be further from reality. Edwards simply wants another notch in his accomplishment record.
From the perspective of one who grew up during segregation and has been formed by it, this writer is amazed at how much change has occurred and how much more apparently must be done. If Bill Gates, Barbara Striesand, the Clintons, et al really want to give money to the "poor" let them dispose of their fortunes save enough to live on. Rich liberals do not want to donate their money but rather that of their fellow citizens. Is it possible that the John Corzines of the world could live in just one house? Does Al Gore really need a Lear Jet to get from place to place to sell his Barnumesque ideas?
The problem boils down to this: Barack Obama is a rogue negro venturing off the Democrat Plantation and the embedded racism of the Democrat party is being revealed. Just as is the closet racism in most liberals being pushed to the front for self examination.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Uncivil War
Recent developments in the Democrat party have revealed the true nature of the powerful and the rank and file. The Race Card, as played by the Clintons, has shown that racial prejudice is alive and well among those in the liberal ranks. While almost any negative prejudicial tendencies are ingrained from youthful exposure it is possible to overcome these feelings rationally. Most people simply repress these feelings and under stress or a sense of safety, will revert to their natural instincts.
Thus the white, or majority, will always revert to their natural position of fearing those socially and financially inferior to them. Fear often turns to hatred or at least dislike and is the justification for action. The wealthy often behave as if their resources entitle them to unearned respect and deference. The not in my backyard syndrome in Cape Cod is a good example. The wealthy "Greens" want environmental protection, but no windmills off their scenic shores.
The Democrat party has long demonized conservatives and Republicans as racial bigots, among other things, yet has done little to get the slaves off the political plantation. Certainly there are "house niggers" to quote Harry Belafonte: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind. Not one Democrat president has appointed any minority to a position of power comparable to those appointed by Ronald Reagan, and "W". The effrontery of Barack Obama is breathtaking, not to conservatives, to the Democrat elite. Even the black power structure is frightened; their fear is that by playing out of turn Obama has jeopardized the pitiful gains made to date.
Turn on any PBS late night program where prominent minority spokespeople are lamenting the fate of Latino and Black members of society. Their claims for reparations, more money for education, fewer incarcerations, etc. belie the achievements of the Democrat party which has been in control of the United States, almost without interruption, since 1960. Why is there still racial discord? Simply put it is the cynicism of liberals who would use these people as issues only and blather on while preserving there power. The message to minorities is that if they keep voting and waiting eventually the Democrats will act on their behalf.
First Global Warming must be solved, energy independence gained, US military disbanded, socialized medicine implemented, and perhaps taxpayer funded auto and home owners insurance provided.
The wacko left, symbolized by the billionaires Soros, Buffet, and Gates; abetted by their Hollywood surrogates, will not be satisfied until every spark of liberty and independent thought is extingquished from regular life as it has been from academia.
When the Castro-Chavez doctrines are made one with the United States then life will be acceptable to modern day US liberal progressives.
Thus the white, or majority, will always revert to their natural position of fearing those socially and financially inferior to them. Fear often turns to hatred or at least dislike and is the justification for action. The wealthy often behave as if their resources entitle them to unearned respect and deference. The not in my backyard syndrome in Cape Cod is a good example. The wealthy "Greens" want environmental protection, but no windmills off their scenic shores.
The Democrat party has long demonized conservatives and Republicans as racial bigots, among other things, yet has done little to get the slaves off the political plantation. Certainly there are "house niggers" to quote Harry Belafonte: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind. Not one Democrat president has appointed any minority to a position of power comparable to those appointed by Ronald Reagan, and "W". The effrontery of Barack Obama is breathtaking, not to conservatives, to the Democrat elite. Even the black power structure is frightened; their fear is that by playing out of turn Obama has jeopardized the pitiful gains made to date.
Turn on any PBS late night program where prominent minority spokespeople are lamenting the fate of Latino and Black members of society. Their claims for reparations, more money for education, fewer incarcerations, etc. belie the achievements of the Democrat party which has been in control of the United States, almost without interruption, since 1960. Why is there still racial discord? Simply put it is the cynicism of liberals who would use these people as issues only and blather on while preserving there power. The message to minorities is that if they keep voting and waiting eventually the Democrats will act on their behalf.
First Global Warming must be solved, energy independence gained, US military disbanded, socialized medicine implemented, and perhaps taxpayer funded auto and home owners insurance provided.
The wacko left, symbolized by the billionaires Soros, Buffet, and Gates; abetted by their Hollywood surrogates, will not be satisfied until every spark of liberty and independent thought is extingquished from regular life as it has been from academia.
When the Castro-Chavez doctrines are made one with the United States then life will be acceptable to modern day US liberal progressives.
Friday, January 04, 2008
The Times Wish List
Recently the New York Times lamented that they, the editors, hardly recognized the United States anymore. Perhaps this is acknowledgement of the dementia that has afflicted that venerable publication for many years. The editors expressed the hope that finally the American people could rectify the horrible mistake they made during the 2004 election by keeping a person of low character in office; namely George Bush. These citizens of the world went on to catalog the errors and atrocities committed in the name of the USA by the military and other governmental departments.
The list while not inclusive was not so different from acts that take place in every administration and during any war. Revenge killings after battle have been with mankind and will remain until the end of time. The recent debate over torture fails to recognize the "foulest" technique of water boarding is hardly new. In fact it was used by the US Army during the early 20th century to help suppress a rebellion in the Philippines.
Is the recent result in Iowa a response to the pleadings of the New York Times? If so the editors must disappointed. Barack Obama will not be elected. There are a few reasons for this but mainly because he is black. There are not enough unprejudiced Democrats to make that work, many simply will not vote or will crossover. Obama is simply too naive the be trusted with the country's welfare.
John Edwards is certainly not a highly principled individual he is a trial lawyer and embodies the worst of that ilk. As a single term senator from North Carolina he could not be re-elected mainly because the voters got to know him. Should he be elected to the presidency corruption on a grand scale would result.
Hillary Clinton's third place finish is a mild rebuke to the Clintonistas but will it carryover? Mrs. Clinton is without doubt the most dangerous politicians in the United States. Her plan to replace capitalism with some form of socialism, preferably a Stalinist model, may be thwarted by Blue Dog Democrats but she will still try if elected. Certainly her husband is no model of decency as demanded by the New York Times.
On the Republican side is the other Clinton known as Mike Huckabee. There is no public so gullible that a huckster cannot be elected. What the nation needs at this point is conservative leadership and Huckabee is not able to provide it. The only positive sign from him is his endorsement of the Fair Tax; a position he will abandon promptly after taking office.
Mr. Romney appears presidential but must be seen in the light of his cooperation with the Massachusetts's legislature. His health care plan is worse for the poor than before its passage. How can the government force its people to spend money they don't have for something they might not use? Appearances are often deceiving as in the case of Romney.
The appears to be scant resources of leadership in the USA. Perhaps this has always been the case with surprises emerging after the fact. In today's world events move too fast to chance a lackluster President. The nation needs leadership not pandering. Most of today's politicians simply want to keep their jobs and their perks. The rest of the population continues to watch and complain but not act.
The list while not inclusive was not so different from acts that take place in every administration and during any war. Revenge killings after battle have been with mankind and will remain until the end of time. The recent debate over torture fails to recognize the "foulest" technique of water boarding is hardly new. In fact it was used by the US Army during the early 20th century to help suppress a rebellion in the Philippines.
Is the recent result in Iowa a response to the pleadings of the New York Times? If so the editors must disappointed. Barack Obama will not be elected. There are a few reasons for this but mainly because he is black. There are not enough unprejudiced Democrats to make that work, many simply will not vote or will crossover. Obama is simply too naive the be trusted with the country's welfare.
John Edwards is certainly not a highly principled individual he is a trial lawyer and embodies the worst of that ilk. As a single term senator from North Carolina he could not be re-elected mainly because the voters got to know him. Should he be elected to the presidency corruption on a grand scale would result.
Hillary Clinton's third place finish is a mild rebuke to the Clintonistas but will it carryover? Mrs. Clinton is without doubt the most dangerous politicians in the United States. Her plan to replace capitalism with some form of socialism, preferably a Stalinist model, may be thwarted by Blue Dog Democrats but she will still try if elected. Certainly her husband is no model of decency as demanded by the New York Times.
On the Republican side is the other Clinton known as Mike Huckabee. There is no public so gullible that a huckster cannot be elected. What the nation needs at this point is conservative leadership and Huckabee is not able to provide it. The only positive sign from him is his endorsement of the Fair Tax; a position he will abandon promptly after taking office.
Mr. Romney appears presidential but must be seen in the light of his cooperation with the Massachusetts's legislature. His health care plan is worse for the poor than before its passage. How can the government force its people to spend money they don't have for something they might not use? Appearances are often deceiving as in the case of Romney.
The appears to be scant resources of leadership in the USA. Perhaps this has always been the case with surprises emerging after the fact. In today's world events move too fast to chance a lackluster President. The nation needs leadership not pandering. Most of today's politicians simply want to keep their jobs and their perks. The rest of the population continues to watch and complain but not act.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Energy Policy Joke
The United States Congress continues to live up to Mark Twain's assessment of the body as an exact replica of an insane asylum. The inmates, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, have reached out to make a great impression on the starving around the world. Now that US agricultural production will be devoted to the energy business prices are naturally rising. The demagogue leaders of poverty stricken nations can now truthfully blame the United States for promoting starvation in their lands. The liberals must be feeling hurt that the rest of the world doesn't recognize their good intentions; "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", that reliable chestnut is always ignored by liberals.
While Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela mine the oil in the Gulf of Mexico American idealist nuts are working to ensure that the US cannot do the same. Rather wind power, solar power, geo-thermal power, corn power et al is being hailed as the salvation of the planet.
The campaign started in the 1950's as an educational forum to rid the US of litter has turned into a gigantic way of life for those who cannot find one anywhere else. The so called leadership of the American people is incompetent and largely impotent when it comes to uniting the nation in a sensible way. When it comes to resolving conflicting interests the task has become impossible. There is no shading in opinions these days. Everyone is correct and wrong at the same time.
The United States has plenty of fossil fuel ready to be extracted for use by the nation. As a matter of fact fossil fuels by definition are still being created; as long as fossils remain buried in the earth they will continue to be squeezed into liquid form. Why should one suppose that the earth is no longer having an effect on fossilized animals and plant since the process began?
If only the self absorbed, frightened, liberal wackos could abandon their sleeping pills and simply go outside and contemplate the universe, it would become apparent to them that mankind can never have a major impact on creation.
The new energy policy of the United States of America will be much more devastating to human life than any sun flare that slightly warms the earth.
While Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela mine the oil in the Gulf of Mexico American idealist nuts are working to ensure that the US cannot do the same. Rather wind power, solar power, geo-thermal power, corn power et al is being hailed as the salvation of the planet.
The campaign started in the 1950's as an educational forum to rid the US of litter has turned into a gigantic way of life for those who cannot find one anywhere else. The so called leadership of the American people is incompetent and largely impotent when it comes to uniting the nation in a sensible way. When it comes to resolving conflicting interests the task has become impossible. There is no shading in opinions these days. Everyone is correct and wrong at the same time.
The United States has plenty of fossil fuel ready to be extracted for use by the nation. As a matter of fact fossil fuels by definition are still being created; as long as fossils remain buried in the earth they will continue to be squeezed into liquid form. Why should one suppose that the earth is no longer having an effect on fossilized animals and plant since the process began?
If only the self absorbed, frightened, liberal wackos could abandon their sleeping pills and simply go outside and contemplate the universe, it would become apparent to them that mankind can never have a major impact on creation.
The new energy policy of the United States of America will be much more devastating to human life than any sun flare that slightly warms the earth.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Onset Of Another Religious War
Actually religious wars have never ceased as evidenced by "terror attacks" on non-Muslim parts of the world. Thanks to oil wealth and a continued ascendancy of Wahabbism, the confidence that the Caliphate can be re-established is at an all time high. The skirmishes of the past were merely probes the large scale attack is now on.
The more interesting occurrence is the recent warning or notice by Pope Benedict XVI that the hoax of Global Warming must only be considered something else when hard incontrovertible scientific evidence can be offered in support. This is the first rebuke to Pope Al the 1st from a nearly unimpeachable source. The leader of one billion Catholics around the world has the weight to criticize and be noticed.
Because atheists, agnostics, puny liberals, and other dupes need something spiritual, they have embraced Global Warming as the cult that it is. Pope Al Gore I is it putative leader, though he must guard his title jealously. As the ideas promulgated by this group of fanatics is defined as a "consensus of the informed" it is really simply a way to have a spiritual life and feel good about oneself.
There can be no consensus in science beyond that of granting that a particular area of research has promise and should be further explored. Political and economic change should not be suggested nor implemented on the hysterical leadership of the UN or the fears of the bewildered. The outlandish claims in the face of contrary evidence are clues to the false premise being advanced.
The scene today is similar to other end of world cults in which the leadership advise abandoning all worldly goods (with the exception of the leader's) and sitting on a mountain top awaiting the end on a specified date. So too do the Global Warmites predict an end date: by the end of the century. Does this sound familiar?
The intrusion of Pope Benedict XVI will be unwelcome by Pope Al the 1st and ignored in Europe for reasons of secular ego. Around the world the result may be different. The development of this latest skirmish will be interesting to watch while the rest of the world ignores the more serious threat of Global Islamofascism.
The more interesting occurrence is the recent warning or notice by Pope Benedict XVI that the hoax of Global Warming must only be considered something else when hard incontrovertible scientific evidence can be offered in support. This is the first rebuke to Pope Al the 1st from a nearly unimpeachable source. The leader of one billion Catholics around the world has the weight to criticize and be noticed.
Because atheists, agnostics, puny liberals, and other dupes need something spiritual, they have embraced Global Warming as the cult that it is. Pope Al Gore I is it putative leader, though he must guard his title jealously. As the ideas promulgated by this group of fanatics is defined as a "consensus of the informed" it is really simply a way to have a spiritual life and feel good about oneself.
There can be no consensus in science beyond that of granting that a particular area of research has promise and should be further explored. Political and economic change should not be suggested nor implemented on the hysterical leadership of the UN or the fears of the bewildered. The outlandish claims in the face of contrary evidence are clues to the false premise being advanced.
The scene today is similar to other end of world cults in which the leadership advise abandoning all worldly goods (with the exception of the leader's) and sitting on a mountain top awaiting the end on a specified date. So too do the Global Warmites predict an end date: by the end of the century. Does this sound familiar?
The intrusion of Pope Benedict XVI will be unwelcome by Pope Al the 1st and ignored in Europe for reasons of secular ego. Around the world the result may be different. The development of this latest skirmish will be interesting to watch while the rest of the world ignores the more serious threat of Global Islamofascism.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Atheism Why So Strident?
There seems to be within the human psyche a need for spirituality, though obvious it is denied vociferously by many. Religion today takes many forms and perhaps this is a not so recent trend. In the United States of America there is much pain caused and endured by the greatly misunderstood doctrine of separation of church and state. This idea has been completely twisted out of shape by those who want attention, are conformists, want to seem more intelligent than they are, maliciously want to hurt others, and those who want a religion but one that seems unorganized.
Separation of Church and State simply means that there will be no national religion established, maintained, and dictated by the government of the United States. This has nothing to do with all the things atheists have, are, and will complain about. All this noise of being excluded, having their feelings hurt, and being snubbed by society is just that: noise. What is really going on is their need to believe clashing with their need for attention. They speak of the intolerance by believers regarding the beliefs of atheists. Is this true?
At this point atheists are reduced to an undignified search for symbols; the Tree of Knowledge comes to mind as does the "Celebration of The Seasons". Atheism is the polar opposite of any organized belief system that includes a deity or group of deities. Therefore no symbols should be needed. Rather atheists should go quietly on their way ignoring the stupidity of believers instead of competing with them for the spotlight.
For most human beings such an action, while noble, is spiritually impossible. This is proved by the confused nature of societies around the planet. In the USA drugged out teenagers are shooting their fellows in hopes of gaining notoriety; a desperate idea as they are usually not around themselves to know if they were successful. In Muslim society the fear of non conformance is so great that those groups have not advanced beyond the 9th Century AD. Contact with other religious groups is generally proscribed by "modern" Islam and in some cases is punishable by death. The main thrust of Islamic politics today is world domination by any means.
Neither Hindu nor Muslim will tolerate the other when the chance to kill one or the other presents itself. In China the government is the religion all others are not or only barely tolerated; in the latter case only if such religions resemble parlor games. This tedious situation abides almost everywhere.
Today a new religion with a secular caste is being foisted upon its citizens by the state. This attempt will probably be successful though short lived. Its name is Global Warming, its high priest is Al Gore and his acolytes though myriad are chiefly represented by politicians looking for a way to preserve their power. Once the sun flares abate the crisis will pass and success will be claimed by the Church of Global Warming: it is false.
However as in typical organized religions non-believers are considered heretics and persecution is allowed. Atheists are betraying their beliefs simply by making such an issue of them. The existence of any belief system is what irritates them. Their sad need for attention and the intolerance of any but their own ideas is bringing them to the fore now more than ever. It is safe for them.
Separation of Church and State simply means that there will be no national religion established, maintained, and dictated by the government of the United States. This has nothing to do with all the things atheists have, are, and will complain about. All this noise of being excluded, having their feelings hurt, and being snubbed by society is just that: noise. What is really going on is their need to believe clashing with their need for attention. They speak of the intolerance by believers regarding the beliefs of atheists. Is this true?
At this point atheists are reduced to an undignified search for symbols; the Tree of Knowledge comes to mind as does the "Celebration of The Seasons". Atheism is the polar opposite of any organized belief system that includes a deity or group of deities. Therefore no symbols should be needed. Rather atheists should go quietly on their way ignoring the stupidity of believers instead of competing with them for the spotlight.
For most human beings such an action, while noble, is spiritually impossible. This is proved by the confused nature of societies around the planet. In the USA drugged out teenagers are shooting their fellows in hopes of gaining notoriety; a desperate idea as they are usually not around themselves to know if they were successful. In Muslim society the fear of non conformance is so great that those groups have not advanced beyond the 9th Century AD. Contact with other religious groups is generally proscribed by "modern" Islam and in some cases is punishable by death. The main thrust of Islamic politics today is world domination by any means.
Neither Hindu nor Muslim will tolerate the other when the chance to kill one or the other presents itself. In China the government is the religion all others are not or only barely tolerated; in the latter case only if such religions resemble parlor games. This tedious situation abides almost everywhere.
Today a new religion with a secular caste is being foisted upon its citizens by the state. This attempt will probably be successful though short lived. Its name is Global Warming, its high priest is Al Gore and his acolytes though myriad are chiefly represented by politicians looking for a way to preserve their power. Once the sun flares abate the crisis will pass and success will be claimed by the Church of Global Warming: it is false.
However as in typical organized religions non-believers are considered heretics and persecution is allowed. Atheists are betraying their beliefs simply by making such an issue of them. The existence of any belief system is what irritates them. Their sad need for attention and the intolerance of any but their own ideas is bringing them to the fore now more than ever. It is safe for them.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Want To Change American Political Life?
Seldom are endorsements made in these pages, but this one is different and essential. Below is a transcription of a handout which will make clear the urgency:
"Wouldn't you love to see our representatives and senators in Washington accomplishing great things in an atmosphere of cooperation and productivity, without all the party politics and corruption that so often stops progress in its tracks?
I also have that wish, and I've given it a name : America 357.
For the last six year, the movement has been working at the grassroots level to get partisan politics out of the federal government. We've watched as party interests dominate decision-making in Washington. We've seen the undeserved influence enjoyed by lobbyists and others with enough money to buy preferential treatment from our lawmakers.....treatment the rest of us have a right to but can't afford.
And we have seen how all this degrades the quality of governance being delivered to average American citizens like you and me.
Do you agree that party politics has tainted our government?
America 357 was founded with a goal of uniting like-minded citizens who are prepared to stand together and demand that out politicians become accountable to us, the people, once again.
We, the people, elected them but you'd never guess it by their actions in Congress. That has to change.
There is a growing appetite in America for responsibility and accountability in government. We want to expand this movement into a nationwide revolution.
Do you believe in a peaceful political revolution?
Then please get involved in America 357 b y reading the companion document, which explains more about our goals (including why the number 357) Consider subscribing to our free newsletter.
By supporting America 357 you will help propel this movement forward into a much better future for all of us ; and you'll have the satisfaction of being at the forefront of a history making venture.
Let's make a promise to America. Let's promise we will wort to give her back the democratic principles that were her birthright from the very start. This is not only a gift to our nation but also to ourselves and future generations.
Together we can take the power out of party politics and put it back where it belongs: into the hands of the people. Together we can send a clear message to Washington : THE PARTY IS OVER! "
This article was written by Lee Scheaffer Founder and Director of America 357. It is highly recommended that anyone with further interest visit the web site www.america357.com
"Wouldn't you love to see our representatives and senators in Washington accomplishing great things in an atmosphere of cooperation and productivity, without all the party politics and corruption that so often stops progress in its tracks?
I also have that wish, and I've given it a name : America 357.
For the last six year, the movement has been working at the grassroots level to get partisan politics out of the federal government. We've watched as party interests dominate decision-making in Washington. We've seen the undeserved influence enjoyed by lobbyists and others with enough money to buy preferential treatment from our lawmakers.....treatment the rest of us have a right to but can't afford.
And we have seen how all this degrades the quality of governance being delivered to average American citizens like you and me.
Do you agree that party politics has tainted our government?
America 357 was founded with a goal of uniting like-minded citizens who are prepared to stand together and demand that out politicians become accountable to us, the people, once again.
We, the people, elected them but you'd never guess it by their actions in Congress. That has to change.
There is a growing appetite in America for responsibility and accountability in government. We want to expand this movement into a nationwide revolution.
Do you believe in a peaceful political revolution?
Then please get involved in America 357 b y reading the companion document, which explains more about our goals (including why the number 357) Consider subscribing to our free newsletter.
By supporting America 357 you will help propel this movement forward into a much better future for all of us ; and you'll have the satisfaction of being at the forefront of a history making venture.
Let's make a promise to America. Let's promise we will wort to give her back the democratic principles that were her birthright from the very start. This is not only a gift to our nation but also to ourselves and future generations.
Together we can take the power out of party politics and put it back where it belongs: into the hands of the people. Together we can send a clear message to Washington : THE PARTY IS OVER! "
This article was written by Lee Scheaffer Founder and Director of America 357. It is highly recommended that anyone with further interest visit the web site www.america357.com
Monday, December 03, 2007
A Believable Conspiracy Theory
It appears that Hillary Clinton, worried about her poll slippage, conceived and executed a plan that would reinstate her as the leading candidate for the Democrat Party. Last week in New Hampshire and nut-case schizophrenic entered the Clinton campaign headquarters and " held hostage" several people. Of course the campaign committee will deny the idea that they were behind the hostage situation, but will they be truthful?
The Clintons are well known for hard ball politics, deceit, revenge, anger, and one positive trait; determination. The syncophants that surround the Clintons will do anything for them e.g. Sand Berger stealing and destroying classified materials from the National Archive in an effort to protect Bill Clinton from scrutiny regarding Osma Bin Laden.
Today Hillary is being praised by her media cohorts as providing a shining example of leadership with her behavior during the "hostage situation". Further she demonstrated her compassion in allowing that the hostage taker was merely a troubled individual who needed help not harm. Various pundits have put forward the idea that Hillary could lose Iowa but not Iowa and New Hampshire. It seemed likely, before this incident, that she might indeed lose Iowa. Now such an outcome is more problematic as the welling of misplaced and phony sympathy is being heaped upon the candidate.
She might still come in behind Obama in Iowa as she has been slipping in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It is interesting that the hostage event took place in New Hampshire and not Iowa. Of course New Hampshire is much more accessible to national media, including CNN which apparently got the first call about this occurrence. New Hampshire is in the correct time zone to get the largest audience most immediately.
Clinton's stock is on the rise once again. Based on the dirty tricks the Clintons are known for it is not unreasonable to expect more such media events. It is easier to believe that the Clinton campaign deliberately stage this incident especially in light of the perpetrator's statement that had was compelled to act because he had no access to health care: a patent falsehood that fits in well with the campaign to socialize medicine in the United States.
Osama Bin Laden constantly claims sole credit for 9/11 and yet the 9?11 "Truthers" refuse to accept his word. How will they react to this claim about the Clinton campaign's responsibility for a fake hostage situation?
The Clintons are well known for hard ball politics, deceit, revenge, anger, and one positive trait; determination. The syncophants that surround the Clintons will do anything for them e.g. Sand Berger stealing and destroying classified materials from the National Archive in an effort to protect Bill Clinton from scrutiny regarding Osma Bin Laden.
Today Hillary is being praised by her media cohorts as providing a shining example of leadership with her behavior during the "hostage situation". Further she demonstrated her compassion in allowing that the hostage taker was merely a troubled individual who needed help not harm. Various pundits have put forward the idea that Hillary could lose Iowa but not Iowa and New Hampshire. It seemed likely, before this incident, that she might indeed lose Iowa. Now such an outcome is more problematic as the welling of misplaced and phony sympathy is being heaped upon the candidate.
She might still come in behind Obama in Iowa as she has been slipping in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It is interesting that the hostage event took place in New Hampshire and not Iowa. Of course New Hampshire is much more accessible to national media, including CNN which apparently got the first call about this occurrence. New Hampshire is in the correct time zone to get the largest audience most immediately.
Clinton's stock is on the rise once again. Based on the dirty tricks the Clintons are known for it is not unreasonable to expect more such media events. It is easier to believe that the Clinton campaign deliberately stage this incident especially in light of the perpetrator's statement that had was compelled to act because he had no access to health care: a patent falsehood that fits in well with the campaign to socialize medicine in the United States.
Osama Bin Laden constantly claims sole credit for 9/11 and yet the 9?11 "Truthers" refuse to accept his word. How will they react to this claim about the Clinton campaign's responsibility for a fake hostage situation?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Irrational Left: Confused and Feeling Abused
Following a bumper-stickered 10 year old Jeep Wrangler one might suppose it was being driven by a friend of the earth; if the publicly displayed thought can be believed. That is until the driver's window comes down and out comes a burning cigarette. The symptoms are classic.
All liberals are bleeding heart liberals at some level. Even when they claim to be conservative liberals their true colors are revealed as they explain how their view of family values, immigration, and defense of the nation. The essence of their arguments always return to objection to talk radio and their strict adherence to so-called " ancient American values". These people are in need of a new religion and have found it through Global Warming.
It is amazing how people who purport that Evolution is more than theoretically correct can reject the idea of a disinterested creator. Darwin, the original proponent of Evolution, was a devout Christian with capacity of imagination. If Evolution is correct then the idea of cyclical climate change as natural phenomenon follows logically.
Today more and more climate scientists are losing faith in the dogma promulgated by Pope Albert I. He is now calling for the abolition of opposing points of view or dissenting analysis of climate "data". This despite the fact that such data is sketchy at best and distorted at worst.
It is impossible to definitively ascribe climate change to human activity.
All liberals are bleeding heart liberals at some level. Even when they claim to be conservative liberals their true colors are revealed as they explain how their view of family values, immigration, and defense of the nation. The essence of their arguments always return to objection to talk radio and their strict adherence to so-called " ancient American values". These people are in need of a new religion and have found it through Global Warming.
It is amazing how people who purport that Evolution is more than theoretically correct can reject the idea of a disinterested creator. Darwin, the original proponent of Evolution, was a devout Christian with capacity of imagination. If Evolution is correct then the idea of cyclical climate change as natural phenomenon follows logically.
Today more and more climate scientists are losing faith in the dogma promulgated by Pope Albert I. He is now calling for the abolition of opposing points of view or dissenting analysis of climate "data". This despite the fact that such data is sketchy at best and distorted at worst.
It is impossible to definitively ascribe climate change to human activity.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
The Savage Nation
After many years of listening to Talk Radio, right and left, the conclusion I have reached is that Michael Savage is the most interesting, entertaining, least pretentious of the lot. Rush Limbaugh is brilliant but beats the horse to death hour by hour attempting to fill up the time. Sean Hannity is the worst when it comes to an exchange of ideas often shouting down his callers in a vain attempt to replace substance with noise.
Neal Boorts is probably the most reasonable, even he brooks no foolishness, and will at least listen to differing views. Michael Savage is in another class altogether. He does not mince words, is politically completely incorrect and often hilarious in his repartee'.
Liberal hosts a la Alan Combs and Alan Handleman are way too earnest and obvious in their attempts to out right the right on the left. Al Franken ( what is it with Al's?) is merely pedantic and lacks a sense of humor; very strange in a comedian.
Perhaps that lack of a sense of humor, absolute on the left, is the main reason for the success of the right leaning shows when compared to the ratings for the lefties. Even Sean Hannity has a sense of humor, though it can be difficult to detect at times. The apparent success formula in Talk Radio is to realize that all human beings are pretty much ridiculous and that life spans are short.
The obvious fear on the left of the right to free speech makes it clear that they are way to concerned with living forever. Why else the calorie police, the seat belt police, et al? In the minds of leftists there can be only one way to think: their way. All other thought must be stifled. Even Al Gore recently said that with regard to Global Warming the "Fair and Balanced" approach to discussion must be abandoned. He meant it.
As proponents of the evolution theory the left is self-contradictory. If evolution is true then survival of the fittest and natural selection obviate any need for regulation of human behavior with regard to choice of food, vices such as drinking and smoking, seat belt use etc. Let the worst of us die by our own choice. The joy of living is just that: living.
Neal Boorts is probably the most reasonable, even he brooks no foolishness, and will at least listen to differing views. Michael Savage is in another class altogether. He does not mince words, is politically completely incorrect and often hilarious in his repartee'.
Liberal hosts a la Alan Combs and Alan Handleman are way too earnest and obvious in their attempts to out right the right on the left. Al Franken ( what is it with Al's?) is merely pedantic and lacks a sense of humor; very strange in a comedian.
Perhaps that lack of a sense of humor, absolute on the left, is the main reason for the success of the right leaning shows when compared to the ratings for the lefties. Even Sean Hannity has a sense of humor, though it can be difficult to detect at times. The apparent success formula in Talk Radio is to realize that all human beings are pretty much ridiculous and that life spans are short.
The obvious fear on the left of the right to free speech makes it clear that they are way to concerned with living forever. Why else the calorie police, the seat belt police, et al? In the minds of leftists there can be only one way to think: their way. All other thought must be stifled. Even Al Gore recently said that with regard to Global Warming the "Fair and Balanced" approach to discussion must be abandoned. He meant it.
As proponents of the evolution theory the left is self-contradictory. If evolution is true then survival of the fittest and natural selection obviate any need for regulation of human behavior with regard to choice of food, vices such as drinking and smoking, seat belt use etc. Let the worst of us die by our own choice. The joy of living is just that: living.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The New Look of The USA
Times are about to change in the United States of America. Should the expected Hillary Clinton presidency take place and the control of congress remaining with the Democrat party the stage will be set for the the greatest political, social, and financial changes in at least the last 70 years. The transformation of the US from a "Can Do" society to a "Take Care of Me" society will be getting started. The irony is that this change will be based on a "Fairness Doctrine" that will allow the super wealthy (Democrats and Republicans) will continue to enjoy their privileges and peruisites at the expense of the rest of society. The John Edwards idea of two societies will be brought to fruition, imaginary as it is at the moment.
It is likely that Constitutional changes will be made that will eliminate most of the Rights currently enjoyed by US citizens once the corrosive effects of socialism take hold. Today's wealthy actually feel that the minimum wage job holders are grateful for their jobs and don't aspire to a better life. That this is so for some seems to prove the rule for all others.
The only hope may rest in home schoolers, parachial schools and other institutions that don't sell the brand of social schemes espoused by the NEA et al.
The hypocrisy of the left is matched only by the cowardice on the right; not to mention blissful ignorance in the middle. It is very disappointing to those who have a view of pragmatic optimism as the behavior of unthinking liberal aherents run over any reasonable arguement.
It is likely that Constitutional changes will be made that will eliminate most of the Rights currently enjoyed by US citizens once the corrosive effects of socialism take hold. Today's wealthy actually feel that the minimum wage job holders are grateful for their jobs and don't aspire to a better life. That this is so for some seems to prove the rule for all others.
The only hope may rest in home schoolers, parachial schools and other institutions that don't sell the brand of social schemes espoused by the NEA et al.
The hypocrisy of the left is matched only by the cowardice on the right; not to mention blissful ignorance in the middle. It is very disappointing to those who have a view of pragmatic optimism as the behavior of unthinking liberal aherents run over any reasonable arguement.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Why The Democrats Accuse Bush of Dictatorship
As this year has passed the public have been treated to various instances of praise for Hugo Chavez, the soon to be dictator for life in Venezuela. Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and other liberal luminaries have sung Chavez's praises. Yet Chavez is about to receive powers that will enable him to imprison critics without charges and for an indefinite period. Recently Robert Redford , during a speech in Italy, lamented the loss of personal freedoms in the United States.
While this behavior may not seem odd to many, it is revealing if considered in the context of liberal plans for the USA. Already at "elite" colleges and universities free speech is only allowed if the choir already agrees with the preacher. The "intellectual left" does not want to do much thinking. For this reason the left calls George Bush a dictator. In reality this is behavior projection, and unwitting at that.
When or if Hillary is elected president the change will be slow be inevitable. The Democrat Party will attempt to move in the direction of Venezuela, Cuba, and Putin's Russia. This may seem far fetched to most but it is true. Be wary and observe; all the Democrat leadership's actions since taking power have been the mirror image of what they have accused George Bush.
Bush is no prize but he is at least relatively honest. There is no integrity on display by the left in the US. Emotional outrage that their ideas are not accepted by all. This is the behavior of children and that is what the citizens of the Americas are up against. All the adults are going home and leaving the kids to demolish the playroom.
In the United States today not one right has been lost. In fact several have been invented e.g. the right to privacy, the right to abortion on demand and the right to health care. Since none of these "rights" are listed in the Constitution they have been deduced as inherent because a voting group wanted them.
Many of the protections under The Bill of Rights will be lost over the next twenty years or so, depending on how fast the liberal majority feels safe in moving. The fact is that the body politic is in decline and the possibility of Civil War is not inconceivable.
While this behavior may not seem odd to many, it is revealing if considered in the context of liberal plans for the USA. Already at "elite" colleges and universities free speech is only allowed if the choir already agrees with the preacher. The "intellectual left" does not want to do much thinking. For this reason the left calls George Bush a dictator. In reality this is behavior projection, and unwitting at that.
When or if Hillary is elected president the change will be slow be inevitable. The Democrat Party will attempt to move in the direction of Venezuela, Cuba, and Putin's Russia. This may seem far fetched to most but it is true. Be wary and observe; all the Democrat leadership's actions since taking power have been the mirror image of what they have accused George Bush.
Bush is no prize but he is at least relatively honest. There is no integrity on display by the left in the US. Emotional outrage that their ideas are not accepted by all. This is the behavior of children and that is what the citizens of the Americas are up against. All the adults are going home and leaving the kids to demolish the playroom.
In the United States today not one right has been lost. In fact several have been invented e.g. the right to privacy, the right to abortion on demand and the right to health care. Since none of these "rights" are listed in the Constitution they have been deduced as inherent because a voting group wanted them.
Many of the protections under The Bill of Rights will be lost over the next twenty years or so, depending on how fast the liberal majority feels safe in moving. The fact is that the body politic is in decline and the possibility of Civil War is not inconceivable.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
There's a New Pope In Town
Pope Albert I has arrived as the first pontiff of the world's newest religion: Global Warming. The Holy See is somewhere in the state of Tennessee in the USA, though Pope Albert I is frequently on the move in his Lear Jet. The Pope was elected in the normal manner, secret ballot, and was confirmed by the Nobel committee; something a little more unusual. Apparently the Nobel committee has usurped the place of the traditional College of Cardinals.
Global Warming as a creed is still developing but traces its origins to Germany in the early 1970's when the Green Party first emerged as a political force. The Green Gospel has been evolving, much as did the now archaic Christian, Judaic, and Muslim dogma proceeded centuries ago. As might be expected in the era of higher technology, that is relative to biblical times, the message and its development are gaining momentum as the former social ties to religion have frayed.
The new Pope and his followers however have revealed the banality of human nature. This new religion already has its proponents of inquisition and punishment. The rooting out of heretics is essential to the safety of the new religion. This was also the case of the old religions which frequently expressed this through the concepts of blasphemy and apostasy. Even today Islam attempts to maintain control of its adherence through the fatwa death sentence for those who raise doubts.
The call for disbarment of heretical meteorologists, college professors and any other dissident makes this comparison apt. The apparent vacuum left in the lives of those who have declared God to be dead has made it necessary to find something else to hold onto that requires faith.
The chance to rise through the episcopal ranks has reached the Hollywood elite, the heights of Eurotrash proponents, and every other opportunist who recognizes a chance to make a buck from the fears of the gullible. Every event on earth is directed by Global Warming in much the same way as the faithful were kept in check by disasters that were God's revenge for earthly sins.
Technology might advance but human nature evolution moves much more slowly. It is far easier to shrink atoms and use nano science than to get humankind to make an intellectual jump past dishonesty.
Of course the climate is changing. The moment the climate stops changing will signal the demise of the planet and most probably the solar system in which it revolves. The earth's climate is determined by numerous factors not the least of which is the heat of the sun. This temperature is currently at a high point in its normal cycle.
Beware Greeks bearing gifts is a good rule to live by when encountering Global Warming Evangelists; make no mistake that is what Pope Albert I and his acolytes are doing.
Global Warming as a creed is still developing but traces its origins to Germany in the early 1970's when the Green Party first emerged as a political force. The Green Gospel has been evolving, much as did the now archaic Christian, Judaic, and Muslim dogma proceeded centuries ago. As might be expected in the era of higher technology, that is relative to biblical times, the message and its development are gaining momentum as the former social ties to religion have frayed.
The new Pope and his followers however have revealed the banality of human nature. This new religion already has its proponents of inquisition and punishment. The rooting out of heretics is essential to the safety of the new religion. This was also the case of the old religions which frequently expressed this through the concepts of blasphemy and apostasy. Even today Islam attempts to maintain control of its adherence through the fatwa death sentence for those who raise doubts.
The call for disbarment of heretical meteorologists, college professors and any other dissident makes this comparison apt. The apparent vacuum left in the lives of those who have declared God to be dead has made it necessary to find something else to hold onto that requires faith.
The chance to rise through the episcopal ranks has reached the Hollywood elite, the heights of Eurotrash proponents, and every other opportunist who recognizes a chance to make a buck from the fears of the gullible. Every event on earth is directed by Global Warming in much the same way as the faithful were kept in check by disasters that were God's revenge for earthly sins.
Technology might advance but human nature evolution moves much more slowly. It is far easier to shrink atoms and use nano science than to get humankind to make an intellectual jump past dishonesty.
Of course the climate is changing. The moment the climate stops changing will signal the demise of the planet and most probably the solar system in which it revolves. The earth's climate is determined by numerous factors not the least of which is the heat of the sun. This temperature is currently at a high point in its normal cycle.
Beware Greeks bearing gifts is a good rule to live by when encountering Global Warming Evangelists; make no mistake that is what Pope Albert I and his acolytes are doing.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Global Warming Boredom
The only thing about predicting the weather is that it cannot be reliably forecast. All the hysteria about a ferocious hurricane season has turned out to be a flop. Farming in Greenland is back to normal, that is conditions that existed in the 14th century of a green and viable farmland with a temperate climate are back.
Some group is now offering a $100,000 prize for anyone who can scientifically prove that human activity and not the universe is causing "climate change". Of course there is climate change, always has been and always will be, and perhaps the increased number of living beings on the earth is having a minor impact but the simple rotation of the earth and the variations in proximity to other celestial bodies during its annual transit have a much greater and obvious one. Fluctuations in solar activity are also part of the cause of any change; the sun has been in a state of much greater radiation and heating during the past ten years. When this increase begins to decrease there will be another version of climate change: global cooling.
North Carolina, where this is being written, depends on hurricane season to make it through the summer without a devastating drought. No hurricanes means no rain, or at least not enough for gardens and farms to flourish. Like the Nile floods in Egypt the hurricanes in summer cause damage but bring renewable water resources in its place.
One can be forgiven for ignoring most of the babble from prognosticators for whom climate change is merely an opportunity to foster a political agenda. These governments and academic plodders want to pass laws to correct the life of the universe. What is really going on is an attempt to gain control over the masses; who obviously can not be trusted to live their lives wisely.
Already the results of various politically correct behaviors are having a negative effect. For example the "food police" have taken all the taste out of food. No fat means no taste. Yet obesity is a worse problem today than it was ten years ago and will continue to worsen. Most low fat foods have a large amount of sugar used to add taste or a reasonable facsimile thereof. There are many other examples of how life has changed for the worse thanks to "do-gooders".
Once the climate change gurus have their way human kind will be less free and less productive: but probably fatter.
Some group is now offering a $100,000 prize for anyone who can scientifically prove that human activity and not the universe is causing "climate change". Of course there is climate change, always has been and always will be, and perhaps the increased number of living beings on the earth is having a minor impact but the simple rotation of the earth and the variations in proximity to other celestial bodies during its annual transit have a much greater and obvious one. Fluctuations in solar activity are also part of the cause of any change; the sun has been in a state of much greater radiation and heating during the past ten years. When this increase begins to decrease there will be another version of climate change: global cooling.
North Carolina, where this is being written, depends on hurricane season to make it through the summer without a devastating drought. No hurricanes means no rain, or at least not enough for gardens and farms to flourish. Like the Nile floods in Egypt the hurricanes in summer cause damage but bring renewable water resources in its place.
One can be forgiven for ignoring most of the babble from prognosticators for whom climate change is merely an opportunity to foster a political agenda. These governments and academic plodders want to pass laws to correct the life of the universe. What is really going on is an attempt to gain control over the masses; who obviously can not be trusted to live their lives wisely.
Already the results of various politically correct behaviors are having a negative effect. For example the "food police" have taken all the taste out of food. No fat means no taste. Yet obesity is a worse problem today than it was ten years ago and will continue to worsen. Most low fat foods have a large amount of sugar used to add taste or a reasonable facsimile thereof. There are many other examples of how life has changed for the worse thanks to "do-gooders".
Once the climate change gurus have their way human kind will be less free and less productive: but probably fatter.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Bridges to Nowhere
Hurtling through space in confusion is not the experience one expects to have while crossing a bridge on the way home. Alas as events in Minneapolis have shown such things might become more common. Those with existing bridge phobias, and there are many, feel a little less crazy at the moment.
The reaction of the media, congress, and the general public is a bit puzzling since the problems with the infrastructure of the United States have been remarked upon many times in the past 30 years or so. What is the surprise? For many years the bridges in major American cities have been the subject of concern and derision. As an example Manhattan's 59th Street Bridge was falling apart in the mid-1980s as were other spans around the country. Some bridges had maintenance stepped up or resumed. Many cities has postponed the work to save money, or rather apply the funds to vote getting projects like welfare.
Maintenance is not glamorous or interesting, even though it does require workers thereby creating jobs; something one would imagine even politicians would notice. The preference is to build new bridges like the new Ted Stevens bridge in Alaska. This 250 million dollar project connects an obscure island to the mainland allowing its 50 residents access during the summer. In winter they cross over the frozen lake so it is only a part time bridge. It's possible that the money could have been spent more wisely elsewhere but Stevens called in favors and got his way. Now it seems he might be on the way to prison so perhaps the bridge won't get built after all.
The public has the right to expect that structures paid for with tax dollars should stand the test of time. In Europe there are bridges and tunnels that have been in constant use for more than 2000 years, why can't the US build them to last at least 200 years? Corruption in public works is endemic of course, so much so that it has become a joke. It's hard to laugh when someone is killed because someone else wants to get rich.
What can be expected in the after math of the I-35 bridge collapse? Most likely there will be hearings, blame assignment, promises, outrage, and then a return to the status quo until the next disintegration; which will probably sooner than one expects.
The reaction of the media, congress, and the general public is a bit puzzling since the problems with the infrastructure of the United States have been remarked upon many times in the past 30 years or so. What is the surprise? For many years the bridges in major American cities have been the subject of concern and derision. As an example Manhattan's 59th Street Bridge was falling apart in the mid-1980s as were other spans around the country. Some bridges had maintenance stepped up or resumed. Many cities has postponed the work to save money, or rather apply the funds to vote getting projects like welfare.
Maintenance is not glamorous or interesting, even though it does require workers thereby creating jobs; something one would imagine even politicians would notice. The preference is to build new bridges like the new Ted Stevens bridge in Alaska. This 250 million dollar project connects an obscure island to the mainland allowing its 50 residents access during the summer. In winter they cross over the frozen lake so it is only a part time bridge. It's possible that the money could have been spent more wisely elsewhere but Stevens called in favors and got his way. Now it seems he might be on the way to prison so perhaps the bridge won't get built after all.
The public has the right to expect that structures paid for with tax dollars should stand the test of time. In Europe there are bridges and tunnels that have been in constant use for more than 2000 years, why can't the US build them to last at least 200 years? Corruption in public works is endemic of course, so much so that it has become a joke. It's hard to laugh when someone is killed because someone else wants to get rich.
What can be expected in the after math of the I-35 bridge collapse? Most likely there will be hearings, blame assignment, promises, outrage, and then a return to the status quo until the next disintegration; which will probably sooner than one expects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
