Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) just made a 5 minute speech ON THE SENATE FLOOR(!) to brag about the University of Nevada beating Boise State in a football game last week. Pardon me sir but I seem to recall that there are several pretty important national issues that we need you to address. Yes, possible national bankruptcy and EVERY other issue the senate needs to tackle ARE more important than your state's university football team winning a game.
Here's an idea, sir. Do the job we sent you there to do and that we pay you to do!!! I have news for you ... not everything is about you!
I can't believe Nevada citizens just reelected that knucklehead. Good Grief!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Democrats Think Obama Policies Are Center-Right? Pardon me, but HUH?
According to the AP this week, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA and co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus) said this: Peolosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right". The president's policies are center-right? Huh? What planet does she live on? Oh, that's right. Planet California!
In her world, President Obama is operating center-right which means he actually doesn't support the new health care law, cap and trade, all the bailouts, etc. Oh, and he supports Fox news too ... thinks they're doing a fine job, right?
Good Grief Lady!
In her world, President Obama is operating center-right which means he actually doesn't support the new health care law, cap and trade, all the bailouts, etc. Oh, and he supports Fox news too ... thinks they're doing a fine job, right?
Good Grief Lady!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Much For Which To Be Thankful
Thank God for the country in which I live. We're far from perfect but we live in a country where the founders established a form of government directed toward the goal of real freedom and opportunity. We haven't executed that vision perfectly by any means but we keep trying and that's the beauty and wisdom of it.
God Bless you and yours! God Bless our country to continue striving to live up to it's potential in all the good ways.
God Bless you and yours! God Bless our country to continue striving to live up to it's potential in all the good ways.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Making Nice-Nice With Dictatorships Is Not Only Unproductive, It's Dangerous
So, since President Obama began a new and kinder diplomacy with N. Korea what has happened? What has been their response to being nicer to them?
- Although Bush had achieved a preliminary agreement with N. Korea on stopping their nuclear plans in return for aid and a better relationship, that agreement was scraped by Obama in favor of one based more on 'mutual respect'. Mr. President, that can only work if there's a reasonable chance the other guy is even capable of being, much less willing to be, respectful. N. Korea has rejected all of Obama's overtures so, instead of having something that's better than what Bush's adminstration developed, we now have nothing at all. In fact, we just found out that shortly after Obama took office, they began construction of a new uranium enrichment facility intended to support nuclear weapons production. Talk about in your face! Their actions suggest they think they had a better chance of getting away with it than under the Bush deal.
- Obama recently went on a good will tour and apolgized to them again and asked them for a more cooperative relationship ... the new agreement he's wanted instead of Bush's. They gave him nothing. How's that new diplomacy working out sir?
- Shortly after Obama's recent visit N. Korea announced they not only began construction of the aforementioned uranium enrichment facility but that it's already becoming operational. The fact that it has some 2,000 centrifuges means ONLY one thing. They don't need that many centrifuges to enrich uranium sufficient for use in power plants. Guess what the plant's main purpose is! How IS that new diplomacy working out sir?
- Yesterday they launched a mortar (maybe rockets too?) attack on a S. Korean island. I'd call that pretty provocative. S. Korea didn't do anything deserving of something that aggressive and today S. Korea basically said if they do any more of that it'll mean "an enormous retaliation". Too close to war to suit me. That's the kind of thing that can get escalated beyond a country's ability to avoid a major conflict, especially when the leadership on one side is disinclined to be (if not incapable of being) rational. And even more especially if they think S. Korea's allies are too weak-willed to actually do anything about it! Major wars (I'm talking world war as well) have begun over less. How is that new, kinder/gentler diplomacy working out sir?
When they have gone so far as to make an agreement with Western nations, N. Korea has broken every one of them ... after they got what they wanted. To them, diplomacy is just another weapon to use on countries naive and stupid enough to believe they haven't been lied to.
Democrats have tried this before so why would supposedly rational people think the results would be different this time? Clinton famously negotiated an agreement with N. Korea not to develop nuclear weapons if we'd give them food and other aid. While (not even after!) they were getting the aid WE promised, they were breaking THEIR promise and were developing nuclear energy for the purpose of building nuclear weapons. Don't the events of the past two weeks affirm anything rational? Is it more or less rational to expect them to build more and more powerful WMD's as well as delivery vehicles no matter how nice we are to them? Time to live in the real world Mr. President. This isn't a classroom. It's real life.
This is what bullies do and being nice to them only reflects weakness to them and encourages them to bully us and our allies more, not less. This pie-in-the-sky approach to dealing with dictatorships, bullies and psychopaths (that only 'works' in Harvard classrooms) is not only unrealistic and a huge waste of time, it makes the world a flat-out more dangerous place. History, if one were to examine 'real' history, shows time and again that this is what that kind of nutjob ruler can be counted on to do. It's tempting, in response to what N. Korea has done the past week, to think they're just unpredictable. In fact, history (if you're interested in facts) tells us this is exactly what we can expect from power-hungry thugs.
In fact, Iran is doing exactly the same thing as N. Korea has done for the past 20 years and our current leaders are acting as if N. Korea is an exception. N. Korea DID export its nuclear weapons technology to countries unfriendly to us. Iran WILL do the same thing but the really important difference is that Iran exports terrorism as well. Soon those terrorists will be armed with nukes! History tells us it's irrational to assume they won't do that. The 'new diplomacy' not only didn't work in N. Korea, it emboldened them against a perceived weak enemy. It would take ignoring history and human nature to conclude Iran is a different situation. Although, it IS different to the extent that the consequences there will be FAR worse.
This is a very dangerous game our current leaders are playing with international diplomacy, thinking that being nice to bullies, thugs and psychopaths will make them want to be nice back. As on the playground, if you don't stand your ground early and forcefully enough, they'll kick you in your 'junk'. Our current leaders think diplomacy is just a tool. To the likes of N. Korea and Iran it's a distraction and a weapon to use against those who rely on it irrationally!
Monday, November 22, 2010
A Something For Nothing Country
We've developed an odd attitude over the past hundred years or so. More people want more government services and societal support. They just don't want to pay for them.
I grew up in an era and place when/where we believed it was our responsibility to take care of ourselves ... dependency on others (including debt) was a thing to be avoided if possible. Indebtedness was to be avoided but if debt were necessary it was to be repaid fully and quickly.
Now we see ads on TV telling us we "have a RIGHT to pay back as little as 10 cents on the dollar". Sorry but you do NOT have a 'right' to bail out on a debt. Of course, you have a right to renegotiate the repayment contract but the person holding your debt has NO obligation whatsoever to let you change any aspect of it. There used to be stigma attached to non-repayment of debt unless you were and remained destitute. Now we're told we have a 'right' not to repay debt.
In the past we'd do without luxuries and many necessities in order to honor our word to repay a debt. Now wayyyyy too many people see nothing wrong with spending pretty liberally on themselves while claiming they can't afford to repay a debt. Two or three cars, two or three TV's, two or three computers, cell phones, cable TV with multiple add-on packages, a new car every three years rather than getting by on the 'old' one for a few more years, iPods, iPads, expensive vacations, eating out many times/week, a closet-full of new clothes. All those are more important than repaying a debt. My word and honor are disposible things but don't expect me to give up all my cable add-ons to honor a contract! Something for nothing. Gimme stuff but don't expect me to actually repay the debt that purchase created.
Half of Americans pay no income taxes which are used to pay for essential services from which all of us benefit. What's up with the mentality that a minority of people ought to pay for services from which we all benefit? Do you benefit from decent roads, schools, general government services, fire and police protection, emergency services, protection by the National Guard and military? What's up with a society where the majority of citizens don't feel any obligation to help pay for that? How has it become okay and even desirable(!) for other people to pay for everyone's derived benefits? Something for nothing. A lot of something for nothing!
You do not have a 'right' to get a free ride in life but, in a civil society (if you want to keep it a civil society!), you DO have a responsibility to not only take care of yourself and your family to the best of your ability but also to help take care of others who are truly unable to take care of themselves. It's the Christian and moral thing to do. Aside from that it's the civil, honorable and principled thing to do. Selflessness is becoming too rare but selfishness abounds and increases. Not good for the future of any civil society.
I grew up in an era and place when/where we believed it was our responsibility to take care of ourselves ... dependency on others (including debt) was a thing to be avoided if possible. Indebtedness was to be avoided but if debt were necessary it was to be repaid fully and quickly.
Now we see ads on TV telling us we "have a RIGHT to pay back as little as 10 cents on the dollar". Sorry but you do NOT have a 'right' to bail out on a debt. Of course, you have a right to renegotiate the repayment contract but the person holding your debt has NO obligation whatsoever to let you change any aspect of it. There used to be stigma attached to non-repayment of debt unless you were and remained destitute. Now we're told we have a 'right' not to repay debt.
In the past we'd do without luxuries and many necessities in order to honor our word to repay a debt. Now wayyyyy too many people see nothing wrong with spending pretty liberally on themselves while claiming they can't afford to repay a debt. Two or three cars, two or three TV's, two or three computers, cell phones, cable TV with multiple add-on packages, a new car every three years rather than getting by on the 'old' one for a few more years, iPods, iPads, expensive vacations, eating out many times/week, a closet-full of new clothes. All those are more important than repaying a debt. My word and honor are disposible things but don't expect me to give up all my cable add-ons to honor a contract! Something for nothing. Gimme stuff but don't expect me to actually repay the debt that purchase created.
Half of Americans pay no income taxes which are used to pay for essential services from which all of us benefit. What's up with the mentality that a minority of people ought to pay for services from which we all benefit? Do you benefit from decent roads, schools, general government services, fire and police protection, emergency services, protection by the National Guard and military? What's up with a society where the majority of citizens don't feel any obligation to help pay for that? How has it become okay and even desirable(!) for other people to pay for everyone's derived benefits? Something for nothing. A lot of something for nothing!
You do not have a 'right' to get a free ride in life but, in a civil society (if you want to keep it a civil society!), you DO have a responsibility to not only take care of yourself and your family to the best of your ability but also to help take care of others who are truly unable to take care of themselves. It's the Christian and moral thing to do. Aside from that it's the civil, honorable and principled thing to do. Selflessness is becoming too rare but selfishness abounds and increases. Not good for the future of any civil society.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
So, How's That 'Play Nice With People Who Hate Us And They'll Cooperate' Thing Working Out Mr. President?
Ck this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40294341/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
For some reason most of us on the 'right' never understood, President Obama always said he could change the attitudes of people around the world, especially those who want to do us harm, by showing them a different attitude toward them. How IS that working out sir?
This link is but one more example that demonstrates we're disliked for a lot of reasons he has no clue about. And those who want to do us harm want to do that simply because of who we are and what we stand for, not because of what we (or he!) says or does.
Freedom stands for things our enemies fundamentally and often irrationally hate us for. Acts of a free people are hated by them as is the success of a free people. Yes, we stand up to the bullies of the world. It's what free people do who 'get' freedom. Bullies do what bullies do when someone stands up to their shennanigans. They get even or try to and will NOT stop being bullies if we try to make nice with them. They ONLY see that as a sign of weakness and it ONLY emboldens them. Human nature keeps getting in the way of what sounds good on paper at Harvard and too many people in power don't and apparently never will understand that.
(Just like human nature leads those in power to want more power and control for its own sake rather than for the sake of what's best to sustain a truly free society. They become the kind of bullies ... to their own people ... that real freedom is incompatible with but that's a subject for another day.)
Before you go off on how we can be a bully sometimes remember this. We're not the ones killing others simply because of what they believe. We're not the ones keeping our citizens mercilessly in poverty, ignorance and under an iron and uncompassionate rule. Focus on this: if other countries that are trying to do us harm would stop their tyrannical ways and focus on taking care of their own people, they'd find us using more of our resources to help them than defend ourselves against them.
For some reason most of us on the 'right' never understood, President Obama always said he could change the attitudes of people around the world, especially those who want to do us harm, by showing them a different attitude toward them. How IS that working out sir?
This link is but one more example that demonstrates we're disliked for a lot of reasons he has no clue about. And those who want to do us harm want to do that simply because of who we are and what we stand for, not because of what we (or he!) says or does.
Freedom stands for things our enemies fundamentally and often irrationally hate us for. Acts of a free people are hated by them as is the success of a free people. Yes, we stand up to the bullies of the world. It's what free people do who 'get' freedom. Bullies do what bullies do when someone stands up to their shennanigans. They get even or try to and will NOT stop being bullies if we try to make nice with them. They ONLY see that as a sign of weakness and it ONLY emboldens them. Human nature keeps getting in the way of what sounds good on paper at Harvard and too many people in power don't and apparently never will understand that.
(Just like human nature leads those in power to want more power and control for its own sake rather than for the sake of what's best to sustain a truly free society. They become the kind of bullies ... to their own people ... that real freedom is incompatible with but that's a subject for another day.)
Before you go off on how we can be a bully sometimes remember this. We're not the ones killing others simply because of what they believe. We're not the ones keeping our citizens mercilessly in poverty, ignorance and under an iron and uncompassionate rule. Focus on this: if other countries that are trying to do us harm would stop their tyrannical ways and focus on taking care of their own people, they'd find us using more of our resources to help them than defend ourselves against them.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Hypocrisy In Politics
"Political hypocrisy" is, of course, redundant. Nevertheless it's fun(?) to call out periodically. Take how 'reform' is characterized.
When the party in power wants to include in reform something 70% of Americans do NOT want, the politicians of that party dig in their heels and refuse to do it 'partially'. The only way you Americans can have ANY reform is if we in power also include the thing we want in spite of the fact that 70% of Americans don't want it. ANY reform in this area REQUIRES "COMPLETE" REFORM! NO piecemeal reform will be allowed. We can't have ANY reform unless we include everything we're dreaming of having.
That. ladies and gentlemen is exactly why we don't have immigration reform yet. Neither party will agree to do the part of immigration reform that 80% of Americans DO want until the politicians (both parties!) get amnesty ... for the umpteenth time.
Democrats, the party currently in power, have been doing that a lot (just as Republicans have done in the past) the past four years they've been in power. Repeatedly, they've refused to pass just the parts of legislation they could get general agreement on and held progress hostage to getting something included that most Americans don't even want. A recent legislative need illustrates the hypocrisy so well that it's worth noting.
After refusing to pass health care reform, immigration reform, finance reform, and many other reforms unless they got 'total reform', Democrats are saying we need to attack tax extensions piece-meal. Most Americans want all of the 'Bush tax cuts' extended because they've figured out that reducing the profits of companies that hire most working folks during a serious recession is not just undesirable, it's stupid. Idiologically Democrats are for more taxes for 'the rich' and against tax cut extensions for them. They cannot bring themselves to extend all the tax cuts for purely idiological reasons. No matter that most serious economists and most Americans say that'll hurt employment and recovery. So, after saying no to partial reforms on other legislation for the past four years, Democrats are now saying we have to do this one piece-meal.
Unbelievably (according to today's paper), they are submitting legislation to extend the tax cuts for everyone but those THEY define as 'rich'. They say THIS is a temporary economic reform that MUST be done piece-meal ... because WE are idiologically opposed to doing part of it.
This same party has blasted Republicans REPEATEDLY for opposing legislation because they want to attack various reforms more piece-meal is now saying piece-meal is required. When Republicans try to block 'comprehensive' legislation in favor of piece-meal Democrats say Republicans are the party of no. But when it's Democrats blocking comprehensive legislation in favor of piece-meal, and Republicans don't like that, Republicans are STILL 'the party of no'. Huh?
When the party in power wants to include in reform something 70% of Americans do NOT want, the politicians of that party dig in their heels and refuse to do it 'partially'. The only way you Americans can have ANY reform is if we in power also include the thing we want in spite of the fact that 70% of Americans don't want it. ANY reform in this area REQUIRES "COMPLETE" REFORM! NO piecemeal reform will be allowed. We can't have ANY reform unless we include everything we're dreaming of having.
That. ladies and gentlemen is exactly why we don't have immigration reform yet. Neither party will agree to do the part of immigration reform that 80% of Americans DO want until the politicians (both parties!) get amnesty ... for the umpteenth time.
Democrats, the party currently in power, have been doing that a lot (just as Republicans have done in the past) the past four years they've been in power. Repeatedly, they've refused to pass just the parts of legislation they could get general agreement on and held progress hostage to getting something included that most Americans don't even want. A recent legislative need illustrates the hypocrisy so well that it's worth noting.
After refusing to pass health care reform, immigration reform, finance reform, and many other reforms unless they got 'total reform', Democrats are saying we need to attack tax extensions piece-meal. Most Americans want all of the 'Bush tax cuts' extended because they've figured out that reducing the profits of companies that hire most working folks during a serious recession is not just undesirable, it's stupid. Idiologically Democrats are for more taxes for 'the rich' and against tax cut extensions for them. They cannot bring themselves to extend all the tax cuts for purely idiological reasons. No matter that most serious economists and most Americans say that'll hurt employment and recovery. So, after saying no to partial reforms on other legislation for the past four years, Democrats are now saying we have to do this one piece-meal.
Unbelievably (according to today's paper), they are submitting legislation to extend the tax cuts for everyone but those THEY define as 'rich'. They say THIS is a temporary economic reform that MUST be done piece-meal ... because WE are idiologically opposed to doing part of it.
This same party has blasted Republicans REPEATEDLY for opposing legislation because they want to attack various reforms more piece-meal is now saying piece-meal is required. When Republicans try to block 'comprehensive' legislation in favor of piece-meal Democrats say Republicans are the party of no. But when it's Democrats blocking comprehensive legislation in favor of piece-meal, and Republicans don't like that, Republicans are STILL 'the party of no'. Huh?
Friday, November 19, 2010
92% Of Afghans Don't Know What They Did To Us Or, Therefore, Why We're There!
Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40273302/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
So, 92% of Afghans don't know our country was attacked by Muslims FROM THEIR COUNTRY on 9/11/2001! Therefore, they don't know people in THEIR country are responsible for thousands of innocent deaths in our country! Therefore, also, they don't know why we're in their country. Therefore, no wonder they want us out and oppose so much of what we're doing there.
Wouldn't you be mad at people you thought were killing people in your country for no good reason? Wouldn't you strongly support the Taliban in getting that 'invader' kicked out of your country? Don't you think that this has EVERYTHING to do with why their countrymen are so easily recruited into fighting us ... not only there but everywhere in the world?
I wonder what possible reason Karzai might have for keeping this a secret from his country's citizens? Hmmmm. Corruption comes to mind. Maybe, just maybe, he's manipulating his country's citizens for nefarious purposes? Hmmm. Maybe the heroin trade? Hmmm. Maybe he has some shennanigans going on with rulers in various provinces in his country? Hmmm. Maybe if the citizens knew they might kick him out of office? Hmmm. Remember how he keeps telling his citizens how he wants us out quickly ... while telling us privately he wants us to stay? Hmmm. Maybe if his citizens knew the truth they'd not want him around?
This Karzai is NO friend of ours and it's a shame we're stuck with working with him. No wonder we can't get him to shut up about wanting us out and criticizing everything we do there. He HAS to do that because his citizens have no clue why were really there!
What are the chances we will EVER succeed in 'the mission' there when the president of their country keeps his people fired up to resist us? Does this nutjob help or hinder the fight against terrorism? On balance, does he do more harm in the war against terror than good? Maybe so!
So, 92% of Afghans don't know our country was attacked by Muslims FROM THEIR COUNTRY on 9/11/2001! Therefore, they don't know people in THEIR country are responsible for thousands of innocent deaths in our country! Therefore, also, they don't know why we're in their country. Therefore, no wonder they want us out and oppose so much of what we're doing there.
Wouldn't you be mad at people you thought were killing people in your country for no good reason? Wouldn't you strongly support the Taliban in getting that 'invader' kicked out of your country? Don't you think that this has EVERYTHING to do with why their countrymen are so easily recruited into fighting us ... not only there but everywhere in the world?
I wonder what possible reason Karzai might have for keeping this a secret from his country's citizens? Hmmmm. Corruption comes to mind. Maybe, just maybe, he's manipulating his country's citizens for nefarious purposes? Hmmm. Maybe the heroin trade? Hmmm. Maybe he has some shennanigans going on with rulers in various provinces in his country? Hmmm. Maybe if the citizens knew they might kick him out of office? Hmmm. Remember how he keeps telling his citizens how he wants us out quickly ... while telling us privately he wants us to stay? Hmmm. Maybe if his citizens knew the truth they'd not want him around?
This Karzai is NO friend of ours and it's a shame we're stuck with working with him. No wonder we can't get him to shut up about wanting us out and criticizing everything we do there. He HAS to do that because his citizens have no clue why were really there!
What are the chances we will EVER succeed in 'the mission' there when the president of their country keeps his people fired up to resist us? Does this nutjob help or hinder the fight against terrorism? On balance, does he do more harm in the war against terror than good? Maybe so!
The Crooks and Thieves In Congress
Okay. So GM is about to pay back a big chunk of the stimulus money they got from The People. (It was OUR money after all.) So what do you think congress is going to do with it? Same thing they've done with all the other stimulus money they borrowed from us. Spend it!
Do you remember that, upon hearing loud protests from The People about various stimulus plans from them, the Democratic congress did two things. They:
Do you remember that, upon hearing loud protests from The People about various stimulus plans from them, the Democratic congress did two things. They:
- Made them loans rather than gifts to the financial companies, GM and all the others and
- PROMISED the American people that, when the loans were paid back they'd give ALL that money back to those from whom they got it (US!) via paying down the loans used to get the money in the first place?
- LIARS
- CROOKS and THIEVES
- VIOLATORS OF THEIR OATH OF OFFICE (Violating, y'know, that pesky little document they swear to uphold and defend, the Constitution?)
- HOW ABOUT CORRUPT?
So, America, don't you care that they've LITERALLY stolen TRILLIONS OF $s from us and, in the process, violated their oath of office? I do! It makes me angry! Because, guess what? That debt created by borrowing the stimulus money in the first place IS STILL THERE ... EVEN THOUGH NEARLY HALF OF IT HAS BEEN PAID BACK!!! Guess what else? Guess who's on the hook to pay off that debt they didn't pay down as promised? We The People! Unfortunately, I'm not the one who's on the hook to pay it back. My kids and their kids will have to.
Y'know what would happen if you or I did that with money from OUR employer? We'd go to jail because when an ordinary citizens does something like that it IS a crime.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Rangel Betrayed A Trust And A Responsibility
Until he was charged with ethics violations, Charlie Rangel was the Chairman of the US House of Representatives Ways And Means Committee, one of the most powerful bodies in all of US government. They are, for example, responsible for our federal tax code.
He is also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
He is also a military hero ... recipient of a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for sevice in the Korean War.
In 2008 he was charged by the US House Ethics Committee of ethics violations and failure to comply with tax laws (ie, TAX EVASION!). This month he was convicted on 11 of 12 house rules violations charges and has now been recommended to receive censure. Among the penalties recommended by the Ethics Committee was repaying taxes he failed to pay.
I don't believe his failure to pay taxes was from a devious intent but it surely is both negligent and irresponsible. It would be bad enough if he had 'average' responsibilities and roles in the House but he was chairman of the very committee responsible for the US Tax Code! OMG! As for all the other charges not related to tax evasion, whether one would consider all or any of them to be very serious, the fact that he's been convicted of 11(!) House rules violations doesn't speak well for his integrity and honesty does it? What does it say about his integrity that he allowed all this to happen without recognizing the wrongness? What does it say about his integrity that he fought against the charges strongly to the end?
Perhaps most sadly, the only contriteness we've seen from him was AFTER he was convicted. Seems to me a man of integrity would have owned up to the wrongness immediately and not spend two years denying he did anything wrong when it was so clear he had. What about showing some respect to the institution and to his colleagues by admitting the wrongness and apologizing? He doesn't say he didn't do those things, only that it wasn't intentional. Well, Mr. Rangel, that doesn't make them less wrong sir.
Apparently all the things of which he was convicted were 'accidental'. In that case, what is he? Incompetent? Irresponsible? Both? And he led one of the most powerful bodies in American politics. I feel sad for him. And then there's the loss of respect for and integrity of The House of Representatives. The House salvaged some respect by dealing with his misdeeds responsibly.
He is a man who earned and deserves much respect, regardless. Nevertheless, this is a sad way to end his career. It's truly sad that a distinguished career like his will be remembered significantly for this (minor by comparison) disgrace.
By the way, Ms. Pelosi was correct when she took over as Speaker of The House; there's much in 'the swamp' that needed to be cleaned up. I just don't think she was thinking of her own party at the time.
He is also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
He is also a military hero ... recipient of a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for sevice in the Korean War.
In 2008 he was charged by the US House Ethics Committee of ethics violations and failure to comply with tax laws (ie, TAX EVASION!). This month he was convicted on 11 of 12 house rules violations charges and has now been recommended to receive censure. Among the penalties recommended by the Ethics Committee was repaying taxes he failed to pay.
I don't believe his failure to pay taxes was from a devious intent but it surely is both negligent and irresponsible. It would be bad enough if he had 'average' responsibilities and roles in the House but he was chairman of the very committee responsible for the US Tax Code! OMG! As for all the other charges not related to tax evasion, whether one would consider all or any of them to be very serious, the fact that he's been convicted of 11(!) House rules violations doesn't speak well for his integrity and honesty does it? What does it say about his integrity that he allowed all this to happen without recognizing the wrongness? What does it say about his integrity that he fought against the charges strongly to the end?
Perhaps most sadly, the only contriteness we've seen from him was AFTER he was convicted. Seems to me a man of integrity would have owned up to the wrongness immediately and not spend two years denying he did anything wrong when it was so clear he had. What about showing some respect to the institution and to his colleagues by admitting the wrongness and apologizing? He doesn't say he didn't do those things, only that it wasn't intentional. Well, Mr. Rangel, that doesn't make them less wrong sir.
Apparently all the things of which he was convicted were 'accidental'. In that case, what is he? Incompetent? Irresponsible? Both? And he led one of the most powerful bodies in American politics. I feel sad for him. And then there's the loss of respect for and integrity of The House of Representatives. The House salvaged some respect by dealing with his misdeeds responsibly.
He is a man who earned and deserves much respect, regardless. Nevertheless, this is a sad way to end his career. It's truly sad that a distinguished career like his will be remembered significantly for this (minor by comparison) disgrace.
By the way, Ms. Pelosi was correct when she took over as Speaker of The House; there's much in 'the swamp' that needed to be cleaned up. I just don't think she was thinking of her own party at the time.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The President Gets Some Lessons On Becoming Dependent On Others; Will The Consequences Finally Register Before It's Too Late?
So, president Obama goes overseas, hat in hand, and gets rebuffed when he asks for help on his terms.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40143947/ns/business-world_business/
He's getting a lesson on the consequences of becoming economically (and otherwise) dependent on and beholding to others but the question is, will he 'get' it before it's too late for Americans ... if it's not already?
When you allow yourself to become economically dependent on others, you give them power over you. In the hands of a benevolent person, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. In the hands of someone who wants to 'remake' your life, it's a bad thing. Let's examine whether there's an analogy here worth discussing and learning from that could help us in our current and potential future dilemmas.
We conservatives really, REALLY hate becoming dependent on the federal government. For that matter, we strive really hard not to become dependent on ANYONE else. To us, it's a matter of an important principle. In fact, it's one which our founders believed was key to establishing and maintaining freedom. We understand history ... our history. We think it matters.
A tyrannical government held us in contempt and practiced arbitrary rule over us. We revolted and became the great nation we are today. The flaws that can result in becoming powerful are a fact for discussion another day. But becoming the opposite ... ie, subservient to others ... has consequences too ... consequences that we'll have no control over and which have the potential to RE-enslave us economically and otherwise.
Democrats, especially progressives, try to create a fear of us 'returning to tired old Republican ideas that got us into this difficulty or which never worked'. What too many people don't appear to understand is that progressives want to return us to an even older and truly insideous form of government that controls everything. We've been there people! It's why our ancestors fought and died to stop it over 200 years ago. We STARTED with the kind of government progressives want but what they want is that kind of government on steroids! They're counting on us not remembering what that was like. In fact, they've been working hard to remove that rememberance from the teaching of our history in public schools and replace it with the progressive view of benevolent governments being best for a people. It's nonsense! Not only is it a lie that it's good for us, it's been proven time and again throughout(!) history not to work!
President Obama and progressives in general strive to make us Americans dependent on them through various means of 'taking care of us'. That kind of paternalism is seductive to those who don't like the hard work of taking care of one's self and being responsible so they tend to want it. Many others, while not liking the consequences, allow it to happen because it appears to ease the troubles of life.
Look what our own government has done in the past two years. They passed legislation that most of us have said multiple times we don't want but they did it anyway because they think it's their job to take care of us. It WILL make us more dependent on and subservient to them. We'll accept their money, welfare and 'benefits' and, in return, they'll tell us how to live or not live our lives. Gone will be the incentive to succeed on one's own merit. That dependency on the federal government will literally enslave us.
Problem is, those very actions by our federal government will, in turn, enslave America to other country's whims and desires. There IS a legitimate analogy in this. In order to enslave us to federal welfare, they have to borrow extraordinary amounts of money from other countries and now that they've max'd out their credit with other countries, they're in the process of devaluing our GDP through the printing of tons of money. That IS enslaving us to welfare, to inflation and to control by others. SADLY, THIS UNFORTUNATE STATE OF AFFAIRS WAS COMPLETELY PREDICTED! And now that people are beginning to realize the folly of their utopian choices in the previous two elections, they're in the process of trying to correct it. Unfortunately many of the horses have escaped before we'll be able to get the barn door closed.
Obama and his fellow progressives WANT to enslave us to their 'protection' but they don't understand that what they're doing will do the same thing on a world scale. It will in turn enslave us to other countries to exactly the same ends and for exactly the same reasons.
Other countries want us weaker, just as progressive do. Other countries are no doubt enjoying having us become dependent on them for a change. Some for very nefarious reasons that could lead to our demise in fact. Obama and progressives do not understand the danger in what they're doing. They do not understand what economic dependency (slavery) does to people and countries. Their theories based on the unrealistic assumption of benevolence by government only work in a classroom but this is NOT a classroom experiment here. This is how REAL life works. They're in the process of destroying our economy and currency. Other countries WILL take advantage of that because, for the first time in our country's history(!), they have power over us. The enslavement in other ways that WILL follow is pretty unpleasant to contemplate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40143947/ns/business-world_business/
He's getting a lesson on the consequences of becoming economically (and otherwise) dependent on and beholding to others but the question is, will he 'get' it before it's too late for Americans ... if it's not already?
When you allow yourself to become economically dependent on others, you give them power over you. In the hands of a benevolent person, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. In the hands of someone who wants to 'remake' your life, it's a bad thing. Let's examine whether there's an analogy here worth discussing and learning from that could help us in our current and potential future dilemmas.
We conservatives really, REALLY hate becoming dependent on the federal government. For that matter, we strive really hard not to become dependent on ANYONE else. To us, it's a matter of an important principle. In fact, it's one which our founders believed was key to establishing and maintaining freedom. We understand history ... our history. We think it matters.
A tyrannical government held us in contempt and practiced arbitrary rule over us. We revolted and became the great nation we are today. The flaws that can result in becoming powerful are a fact for discussion another day. But becoming the opposite ... ie, subservient to others ... has consequences too ... consequences that we'll have no control over and which have the potential to RE-enslave us economically and otherwise.
Democrats, especially progressives, try to create a fear of us 'returning to tired old Republican ideas that got us into this difficulty or which never worked'. What too many people don't appear to understand is that progressives want to return us to an even older and truly insideous form of government that controls everything. We've been there people! It's why our ancestors fought and died to stop it over 200 years ago. We STARTED with the kind of government progressives want but what they want is that kind of government on steroids! They're counting on us not remembering what that was like. In fact, they've been working hard to remove that rememberance from the teaching of our history in public schools and replace it with the progressive view of benevolent governments being best for a people. It's nonsense! Not only is it a lie that it's good for us, it's been proven time and again throughout(!) history not to work!
President Obama and progressives in general strive to make us Americans dependent on them through various means of 'taking care of us'. That kind of paternalism is seductive to those who don't like the hard work of taking care of one's self and being responsible so they tend to want it. Many others, while not liking the consequences, allow it to happen because it appears to ease the troubles of life.
Look what our own government has done in the past two years. They passed legislation that most of us have said multiple times we don't want but they did it anyway because they think it's their job to take care of us. It WILL make us more dependent on and subservient to them. We'll accept their money, welfare and 'benefits' and, in return, they'll tell us how to live or not live our lives. Gone will be the incentive to succeed on one's own merit. That dependency on the federal government will literally enslave us.
Problem is, those very actions by our federal government will, in turn, enslave America to other country's whims and desires. There IS a legitimate analogy in this. In order to enslave us to federal welfare, they have to borrow extraordinary amounts of money from other countries and now that they've max'd out their credit with other countries, they're in the process of devaluing our GDP through the printing of tons of money. That IS enslaving us to welfare, to inflation and to control by others. SADLY, THIS UNFORTUNATE STATE OF AFFAIRS WAS COMPLETELY PREDICTED! And now that people are beginning to realize the folly of their utopian choices in the previous two elections, they're in the process of trying to correct it. Unfortunately many of the horses have escaped before we'll be able to get the barn door closed.
Obama and his fellow progressives WANT to enslave us to their 'protection' but they don't understand that what they're doing will do the same thing on a world scale. It will in turn enslave us to other countries to exactly the same ends and for exactly the same reasons.
Other countries want us weaker, just as progressive do. Other countries are no doubt enjoying having us become dependent on them for a change. Some for very nefarious reasons that could lead to our demise in fact. Obama and progressives do not understand the danger in what they're doing. They do not understand what economic dependency (slavery) does to people and countries. Their theories based on the unrealistic assumption of benevolence by government only work in a classroom but this is NOT a classroom experiment here. This is how REAL life works. They're in the process of destroying our economy and currency. Other countries WILL take advantage of that because, for the first time in our country's history(!), they have power over us. The enslavement in other ways that WILL follow is pretty unpleasant to contemplate.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Mortgage Crisis Is Getting Worse And The Experts Have No Idea How Bad It'll Get!
Guess what? They can't keep the lid on the news about those toxic sub-prime mortgages any longer. Y'know, the ones that no one wants to talk about that I've said multiple times are still(!) out there, ready to sink our economy even worse? Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40075142/ns/business-personal_finance/
Here are a couple of the eye-catching comments from that article. "When you look at the scope of the problem, it's a very, very large problem. We really don't know how deep the hole is." And here's a 'good' one: "Where you’re really going to see the hit is off in the future a few years, when there’s no money to pay your life insurance policy or when your pension is gone or when your mutual fund is unable to pay you the interest rate they promised you". OMG!
Now isn't THAT fun? Just a barrel of laughs, huh? Guess who's going to be hurt the worst? Yeah, it's the same(!) ones hurt the worst in the collapse of two years ago ... us retirees who, throughout our lives, have poured our life's savings into such 'investments'. While it's true that it hits everyone, we're retired ... couldn't work any more if we wanted (thanks to age discrimination but that's a story for another day). So, unlike younger people, we have NO way to make up for the these loses by future work and savings. We're done saving and the idiots who caused this problem are about to take blood from these turnips. It's not bad enough that we lost so much of our life savings two years ago. NOW we're about to lose EVERYTHING else ... insurance policies, pensions, etc ... even our homes because that's what happens when all sources of income evaporate and you have absolutely nothing left to live on.
To fix it properly, as I've been saying, we must understand the root cause. From whomever brought this about we should accept NO MORE of their nonsense. Let's review it. Q: What caused the collapse and is about to cause what the link above talks about? Ans: those 'toxic' sub-prime mortgages. Q: who created that program? Ans: Democrats. Q: when did we start down this path? Ans: during the Clinton administration, especially when Clinton, as a lame duck in the last month of his presidency, signed an executive order forcing Fannie and Freddie to make half of their mortgages be sub-prime mortgages. Q: who pushed them super hard the past ten years when everyone else with half a brain was telling them it would cause problems? Ans: Democrats (Thanks Chris Dodd and Barney Frank). I know it's hard to stop drinking the "Bush did it" Kool-Aid but, c'mon, doesn't the severity of this problem deserve some serious evaluation what really caused it?
Tell me something please. Has this mess gotten your attention yet? I mean your full attention. Are you prepared to face what has to be done to fix it or will you just continue marching along, drinking your Kool-Aid as if there's nothing wrong and expecting your paternalistic government to fix it like you expect it to fix everything else. I have news for you. They CAN'T fix it. They can diminish the impact if they start acting in a fiscally responsible way. With Republicans (esp with the Tea Party influence) in charge we at least have a chance of minimizing the impact .. which still won't be pretty by any stretch.
This REALLY sucks! Oh, by the way, I TOLD YOU SO!
Here are a couple of the eye-catching comments from that article. "When you look at the scope of the problem, it's a very, very large problem. We really don't know how deep the hole is." And here's a 'good' one: "Where you’re really going to see the hit is off in the future a few years, when there’s no money to pay your life insurance policy or when your pension is gone or when your mutual fund is unable to pay you the interest rate they promised you". OMG!
Now isn't THAT fun? Just a barrel of laughs, huh? Guess who's going to be hurt the worst? Yeah, it's the same(!) ones hurt the worst in the collapse of two years ago ... us retirees who, throughout our lives, have poured our life's savings into such 'investments'. While it's true that it hits everyone, we're retired ... couldn't work any more if we wanted (thanks to age discrimination but that's a story for another day). So, unlike younger people, we have NO way to make up for the these loses by future work and savings. We're done saving and the idiots who caused this problem are about to take blood from these turnips. It's not bad enough that we lost so much of our life savings two years ago. NOW we're about to lose EVERYTHING else ... insurance policies, pensions, etc ... even our homes because that's what happens when all sources of income evaporate and you have absolutely nothing left to live on.
To fix it properly, as I've been saying, we must understand the root cause. From whomever brought this about we should accept NO MORE of their nonsense. Let's review it. Q: What caused the collapse and is about to cause what the link above talks about? Ans: those 'toxic' sub-prime mortgages. Q: who created that program? Ans: Democrats. Q: when did we start down this path? Ans: during the Clinton administration, especially when Clinton, as a lame duck in the last month of his presidency, signed an executive order forcing Fannie and Freddie to make half of their mortgages be sub-prime mortgages. Q: who pushed them super hard the past ten years when everyone else with half a brain was telling them it would cause problems? Ans: Democrats (Thanks Chris Dodd and Barney Frank). I know it's hard to stop drinking the "Bush did it" Kool-Aid but, c'mon, doesn't the severity of this problem deserve some serious evaluation what really caused it?
Tell me something please. Has this mess gotten your attention yet? I mean your full attention. Are you prepared to face what has to be done to fix it or will you just continue marching along, drinking your Kool-Aid as if there's nothing wrong and expecting your paternalistic government to fix it like you expect it to fix everything else. I have news for you. They CAN'T fix it. They can diminish the impact if they start acting in a fiscally responsible way. With Republicans (esp with the Tea Party influence) in charge we at least have a chance of minimizing the impact .. which still won't be pretty by any stretch.
This REALLY sucks! Oh, by the way, I TOLD YOU SO!
Monday, November 8, 2010
Not Only Lying But Being The REAL Party Of No
We in the conservative ranks have been saying for 1 1/2 years that it was Democrats who were saying no to Republicans, not the other way around but the media and Democrats kept saying it was the Republicans who weren't cooperating. Hmmmm. Now that they've taken a thumping in the recent election, they're beginning to admit what was obvious to anyone not drinking the progressive Kool-Aid nonsense.
MSNBC's First Read reported this today: "From NBC's Chuck todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg: To us, the most striking part of President Obama's "60 Minutes" interview was his admission that he and his administration didn't compromise and work with the Republicans. Per Obama's 60 Minutes interview, "In terms of setting the tone and how this town operates, we just didn't pay enough attention to some of the things that we had talked about.""
Well, DUH! They ... Obama and his White House leadership, Pelosi, Reid, and Democrat leadership in general ... ALL promised during the 2008 campaign that they would bring a new spirit of cooperation to DC and would reach across the aisle. They promised(!) openness in all legislation. Thing is they did none of that. In fact, they set a new standard for exactly the opposite. Their two-year tenure has been the most closed and uncooperative reign in memory.
Now, president Obama is admitting that's what they did. So, I ask you, what exactly does that mean regarding his statements for the past 1 1/2 years ... incessant and insistent ... that he, his administration and Democrats in the legislature were NOT doing that? Obviously, they WERE doing that ... even he admits it now. Obviously, they knew they were doing it ... a conscious decision to behave that way. An average American behaving that way in the course of life would be called an arrogant liar and provocateur.
Are those character traits we really want/need in a president and legislative leadership? I'm reluctant to use such descriptors of any president so I'll just close with this: it's behavior unbecoming a president of these United States of America.
MSNBC's First Read reported this today: "From NBC's Chuck todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg: To us, the most striking part of President Obama's "60 Minutes" interview was his admission that he and his administration didn't compromise and work with the Republicans. Per Obama's 60 Minutes interview, "In terms of setting the tone and how this town operates, we just didn't pay enough attention to some of the things that we had talked about.""
Well, DUH! They ... Obama and his White House leadership, Pelosi, Reid, and Democrat leadership in general ... ALL promised during the 2008 campaign that they would bring a new spirit of cooperation to DC and would reach across the aisle. They promised(!) openness in all legislation. Thing is they did none of that. In fact, they set a new standard for exactly the opposite. Their two-year tenure has been the most closed and uncooperative reign in memory.
Now, president Obama is admitting that's what they did. So, I ask you, what exactly does that mean regarding his statements for the past 1 1/2 years ... incessant and insistent ... that he, his administration and Democrats in the legislature were NOT doing that? Obviously, they WERE doing that ... even he admits it now. Obviously, they knew they were doing it ... a conscious decision to behave that way. An average American behaving that way in the course of life would be called an arrogant liar and provocateur.
Are those character traits we really want/need in a president and legislative leadership? I'm reluctant to use such descriptors of any president so I'll just close with this: it's behavior unbecoming a president of these United States of America.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Independents: Conundrum and Contradiction
I don't get "Independent" as a political force, thinking or party. They always say they're independent thinkers, preferring to function freely and highly value their independence. So, why would such a party put Obama and the Obama agenda (ie, progressivism) in power by their vote in the previous two elections? Just look at what that wrought.
Are we more or less controlled by government? Are we about to be more or less taxed by government? Will independents fundamentally have more or less freedom to practice what they preach under progressives' rule? Considering how the election went this time, I think it's pretty obvious they decided they were wrong.
Only two years after leading the progressive overthrow of our government, independents now have credit for 'tossing the bums out'. It leads me to wonder what were they thinking in the first place?
Progressives told us exactly what they intended to do if we put them in power in the 2008 elections. Weren't independents paying attention? Or maybe they aren't nearly as independent as they like to think. They fell for the progressive nonsense hook, line and sinker. How independent IS that? The answer of course is, not very. Maybe they're not as smart and above-it-all as they'd like us to think?
To independents everywhere to whom all political analysts have given credit for the progressive takeover of 2008: thanks a lot! Those who you elected then have done a lot of harm to our country and to the spirit that you claim to embrace. At least you tried to correct your error this time around.
Are we more or less controlled by government? Are we about to be more or less taxed by government? Will independents fundamentally have more or less freedom to practice what they preach under progressives' rule? Considering how the election went this time, I think it's pretty obvious they decided they were wrong.
Only two years after leading the progressive overthrow of our government, independents now have credit for 'tossing the bums out'. It leads me to wonder what were they thinking in the first place?
Progressives told us exactly what they intended to do if we put them in power in the 2008 elections. Weren't independents paying attention? Or maybe they aren't nearly as independent as they like to think. They fell for the progressive nonsense hook, line and sinker. How independent IS that? The answer of course is, not very. Maybe they're not as smart and above-it-all as they'd like us to think?
To independents everywhere to whom all political analysts have given credit for the progressive takeover of 2008: thanks a lot! Those who you elected then have done a lot of harm to our country and to the spirit that you claim to embrace. At least you tried to correct your error this time around.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Regardless What You're Hearing From Obama, The Economy Is Still Really Sick
Does this sound like the economy is doing as well as the President is saying?:
- Banks folding faster than they have since the Savings and Loan crisis. YES, faster than at any time yet during this current recession. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40034941/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/
- Remember those "toxic investments" that sank our economy in the first place? Y'know the ones that Democrats created and pushed so hard ... sub-prime mortgages? Well, they don't like talking about it (for obvious reasons) but most of those toxic things are still out there. Foreclosures continue at a high rate. This suppresses the housing market and keeps alive the risk of a second, probably worse, recession if our unemployment remains high much longer.
- We retirees are suffering more than ever economically. What's left of a lifetime of savings after the stock market crash two years ago is evaporating rapidly because interest rates and, therefore, interest income are so low that we're cashing in all of our investments to live on. Soon many (most?) of us won't have any savings left. If it weren't for our savings propping up the economy you all would be in lots worse trouble. What'll you do when that's gone and you have to support us after we can no longer support ourselves? If the economy doesn't recover soon a large number of us will be dependent on you.
- The extraordinary debt piled up by Democrats ($6 Trillion in only four years) is about to create a devaluation of the dollar and inflation that will suppress, if not crater, our economy for years to come. Those of you in the current younger generations have never experienced either devaluation or inflaction and don't know how bad it'll get but we who are propping up the economy with our life savings remember and we know what'll happen when our savings run out.
- We have become a debtor nation; in fact, the biggest of all time. It thoroughly disgusts those of us who lived through world wars and other tough times because we know what that does to a country. Those of you who voted for this are about to learn it's harsh consequences. One BIG consequence is that we won't control our destiny again for a very long time. That alone has bigger consequences than you can imagine. Will we be able to afford defending ourselves for example? That's not an idle, irrational or inconsequential question.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Different Standards For Republicans? Maybe Just A Little Hypocrisy By The Left?
I remember vividly as you should what Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and President Obama and his staff said after the 2008 election when Democrats took control of the Senate, House and White House. They actually, literally said, "We won so we get to do things OUR way!" And they proceeded to do exactly that, blocking Republicans out of the legislative process almost entirely. And President Obama flat refused to talk with Republican leadership about their ideas for various legislation including health care reform.
Republicans just won as big a victory in one election as Democrats did in the previous two elections. In fact, the swing in the House was the biggest in over 60 years by either party. So, what are Democrats and liberal media saying Republicans should do? Are we hearing "they won so they get to do it their way?" HARDLY!
Republicans are being lectured by Democrats that they need to compromise with Democrats. Maybe just a bit of a double standard? Maybe just a touch of hypocrisy? By the benevolent and fair Left? Naw, can't be! Hmmmmm.
Republicans just won as big a victory in one election as Democrats did in the previous two elections. In fact, the swing in the House was the biggest in over 60 years by either party. So, what are Democrats and liberal media saying Republicans should do? Are we hearing "they won so they get to do it their way?" HARDLY!
Republicans are being lectured by Democrats that they need to compromise with Democrats. Maybe just a bit of a double standard? Maybe just a touch of hypocrisy? By the benevolent and fair Left? Naw, can't be! Hmmmmm.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The New Deal, EITHER Roosevelt's OR Obama's Version, IS A Raw Deal!
On another subject, this is what I've been saying for a couple of years:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251822/guess-who-thomas-sowell
'The Left' keeps preaching that progressivism works in spite of the fact that history proves it does not. History and facts seem to matter little to them ... 200 years of success under the constitution is an irrelevance and annoyance standing in the way of progressivism. The success of the constitution and the actual history about Roosevelt are inconveniences they cannot ignore so they revise the facts of both to suit and support their tired and failed philosophies.
Americans prefer not getting too involved in politics because they think that a government that is meant to be small and 'do' little should not need their involvement. Problem is, our government has gotten big and controlling over everything so we have no choice but to reign it in. The constitution IS relevant and it's what We (Most of) The People want governing us! It worked! So, LEAVE IT ALONE ALREADY! Doesn't the FACT that government screws up pretty much everything it touches tell us anything? (Check out the blog two entries down.) HELLO?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251822/guess-who-thomas-sowell
'The Left' keeps preaching that progressivism works in spite of the fact that history proves it does not. History and facts seem to matter little to them ... 200 years of success under the constitution is an irrelevance and annoyance standing in the way of progressivism. The success of the constitution and the actual history about Roosevelt are inconveniences they cannot ignore so they revise the facts of both to suit and support their tired and failed philosophies.
Americans prefer not getting too involved in politics because they think that a government that is meant to be small and 'do' little should not need their involvement. Problem is, our government has gotten big and controlling over everything so we have no choice but to reign it in. The constitution IS relevant and it's what We (Most of) The People want governing us! It worked! So, LEAVE IT ALONE ALREADY! Doesn't the FACT that government screws up pretty much everything it touches tell us anything? (Check out the blog two entries down.) HELLO?
It's What I've Been Saying: They Should Have Left The Stinking Economy Alone!
I've been saying for a long time that:
- You cannot prove a negative ... ie, you can't say what you didn't try would have been worse because you have NO way of knowing and
- Actual history shows our economy to be the strongest in the world. Left to itself, it'll tend to correct economic/market problems on its own. IF you don't mess with it!
There not only is NO evidence that what the president and Dems in general are saying ("the economy would have been worse if we had done nothing" ... therefore, "we saved the economy from a depression"), there is abundant PROOF from historical facts that our economy IS resilient enough to overcome most of the problems from the collapse of two years ago.
Reason I bring it up (again) is this article posted on The National Review website this week: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251635/two-kinds-recessions-michael-baroneReputable media/analysts are publishing this truth about our economy. WE DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO FIX EVERYTHING! For two reasons:
- OUR economy is VERY capable of healing itself and
- The government tends to screw up everything it touches! HELLO!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Good Idea Mr. President; Let's DO Remember Who Brought Us This Mess!
I'll take your challenge at face value Mr. President. Here goes:
Problem: Sub-Prime Mortgages (NOT derivatives) cratered the mortgage and housing industries. Cause: Sub-Prime Mortgages were Democrats' program AND they were the ones who mismanaged it, thanks primarily to the 'sterling' leadership of that Dynamic Duo, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Problem: Economy cratered two years ago. Cause: The Sub-Prime Mortgage mess caused by Democrats.
Problem: National debt is about to bankrupt the country. Cause: While the Republican congress created considerable debt during its 6-year tenure, the Democratic congress, in its past 4 years has created nearly twice as much. (Subtract the Dems' various stimulus programs and you still arrive at an amount of debt equal to Republicans' ... in 2/3 the time.) Both parties created a ridiculous amount of debt but Democrats created more, faster.
Problem: High unemployment. Cause: Cratered economy which was caused by Democrats' Sub-Prime Mortgage fiasco.
Problem: High unemployment has remained high too long. Cause: Democrats' fix didn't help.
Problem: Social Security not far from bankruptcy. Cause: Social Security created and mismanaged by Democrats.
Problem: Medicare not far from bankruptcy. Cause: Medicare created and mismanaged by Democrats.
Problem: Health Care premiums and co-pays are in the process of skyrocketing. Cause: Democrats' National Health Care. That seems odd, by the way, because I thought the whole point of doing health care reform in the first place was some 80% of Americans wanted them to reign in costs so that high quality care could be affordable to everyone. Costs are skyrocketing and quality is about to go in the toilet (thanks to government 'regulation'). What exactly happened to what The People thought they were getting when they voted Democrats into total control of government?
Problem: Education system is among the worst among Western nations. Cause: Democrats created the Department of Education 30 years ago and our education system has declined steadily ever since. 30 years of experimenting with our kids' education by Democrats have taken us from best to worst. (Art Robinson, candidate for US House of Reps District 4 in Oregon was correct ... what we've done in producing uneducated kids, leaving them ill-prepared to compete for jobs in the world market place, IS a kind of child abuse.)
Problem: Illegal immigration STILL not fixed. Cause: Progress stymied by Democrats' insistence on not doing any part of immigration reform unless they could get amnesty included, contrary to the will of The People. They've held ALL immigration reform hostage to approval of amnesty. That's pretty irresponsible, especially now that illegal immigration has created a serious national security problem along our southern border.
If you've just arrived from Mars and don't understand how Democrats could possibly be responsible for all this, consider this. For 30 of the past 60 years, Democrats have held a veto-proof majority (not just a simple majority!) in one or both branches of the legislature. Republicans have held a veto-proof majority exactly ... ZERO times! You can't create much legislation or fix what's broken very effectively if you never have a big enough majority to do so. So, how exactly is it that the party that has NOT had enough political power to cause all these problems gets the credit for it?
Thanks for asking the question Mr. President ... you're correct, we SHOULD throw out the bums who DID cause all these problems! In fact, we're in the process of doing just that! :-)
Problem: Sub-Prime Mortgages (NOT derivatives) cratered the mortgage and housing industries. Cause: Sub-Prime Mortgages were Democrats' program AND they were the ones who mismanaged it, thanks primarily to the 'sterling' leadership of that Dynamic Duo, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Problem: Economy cratered two years ago. Cause: The Sub-Prime Mortgage mess caused by Democrats.
Problem: National debt is about to bankrupt the country. Cause: While the Republican congress created considerable debt during its 6-year tenure, the Democratic congress, in its past 4 years has created nearly twice as much. (Subtract the Dems' various stimulus programs and you still arrive at an amount of debt equal to Republicans' ... in 2/3 the time.) Both parties created a ridiculous amount of debt but Democrats created more, faster.
Problem: High unemployment. Cause: Cratered economy which was caused by Democrats' Sub-Prime Mortgage fiasco.
Problem: High unemployment has remained high too long. Cause: Democrats' fix didn't help.
Problem: Social Security not far from bankruptcy. Cause: Social Security created and mismanaged by Democrats.
Problem: Medicare not far from bankruptcy. Cause: Medicare created and mismanaged by Democrats.
Problem: Health Care premiums and co-pays are in the process of skyrocketing. Cause: Democrats' National Health Care. That seems odd, by the way, because I thought the whole point of doing health care reform in the first place was some 80% of Americans wanted them to reign in costs so that high quality care could be affordable to everyone. Costs are skyrocketing and quality is about to go in the toilet (thanks to government 'regulation'). What exactly happened to what The People thought they were getting when they voted Democrats into total control of government?
Problem: Education system is among the worst among Western nations. Cause: Democrats created the Department of Education 30 years ago and our education system has declined steadily ever since. 30 years of experimenting with our kids' education by Democrats have taken us from best to worst. (Art Robinson, candidate for US House of Reps District 4 in Oregon was correct ... what we've done in producing uneducated kids, leaving them ill-prepared to compete for jobs in the world market place, IS a kind of child abuse.)
Problem: Illegal immigration STILL not fixed. Cause: Progress stymied by Democrats' insistence on not doing any part of immigration reform unless they could get amnesty included, contrary to the will of The People. They've held ALL immigration reform hostage to approval of amnesty. That's pretty irresponsible, especially now that illegal immigration has created a serious national security problem along our southern border.
If you've just arrived from Mars and don't understand how Democrats could possibly be responsible for all this, consider this. For 30 of the past 60 years, Democrats have held a veto-proof majority (not just a simple majority!) in one or both branches of the legislature. Republicans have held a veto-proof majority exactly ... ZERO times! You can't create much legislation or fix what's broken very effectively if you never have a big enough majority to do so. So, how exactly is it that the party that has NOT had enough political power to cause all these problems gets the credit for it?
Thanks for asking the question Mr. President ... you're correct, we SHOULD throw out the bums who DID cause all these problems! In fact, we're in the process of doing just that! :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)