Friday, October 07, 2011
We must all be stakeholders
A Rant!
I see that the symbolism of contributing to the federal income tax escapes progressives and screamers. To be expected, I guess, since they are fully guilty of promoting and installing the virtually zero FIT the lower quartiles end up paying. Hint: paying in, then receiving it back doesn’t count.
Defenders all of the give-away programs, the discovery of ever newer needs, creating and expanding the dependency society, castigating capitalism and the capitalists alike, and installing much, much bigger government, for which they must seek greater and greater tax revenues, even if it emasculates our defenses, and actually increases our costs in the long run for just about everything, especially our soaring national debt and the interest payments we must keep up. Running up the bill for pork every year to the tune of billions and calling them earmarks, when they are actually a form of payoff or bribe, is a bad thing, an even dishonest thing, for any public servant to support, Democratic or Republican. Of course we have a President that says he will fight earmarks–sure he did, to the tune of even more of them! Say one thing and do the other! Unbelievable! And jobs, where are the jobs?
One gets the impression that all of these people only think about today, and not tomorrow; willing to shove our fiscal problems out to generations yet to come. We read about how FDR raised taxes to 90% at the top with considerable pride, forgetting that it was meant to be an expedient of war, not a permanent thing as the current leftists seem want, and the percentages did come down– eventually, and then the economy roared off!. Seems to be a rule that, if you raise taxes far enough, it is a hell of a job to get them back down again to rational levels. Other People’s Money is an aphrodisiac to the left; they really believe it is theirs to spend any way they can conceive. It is not, but they do it anyway, which is theft.
But this era of chaotic, Chicago-style, and spendthrift government is just about over. Sensible citizens have had enough of the cronyism, the lies, the dodges, the misdirection, and the stonewalling of what was touted early on to be the most transparent US government in history–yet another bald lie out of the book full.
The only word that satisfies this chaos is rampant hypocrisy.
A Rant!
I see that the symbolism of contributing to the federal income tax escapes progressives and screamers. To be expected, I guess, since they are fully guilty of promoting and installing the virtually zero FIT the lower quartiles end up paying. Hint: paying in, then receiving it back doesn’t count.
Defenders all of the give-away programs, the discovery of ever newer needs, creating and expanding the dependency society, castigating capitalism and the capitalists alike, and installing much, much bigger government, for which they must seek greater and greater tax revenues, even if it emasculates our defenses, and actually increases our costs in the long run for just about everything, especially our soaring national debt and the interest payments we must keep up. Running up the bill for pork every year to the tune of billions and calling them earmarks, when they are actually a form of payoff or bribe, is a bad thing, an even dishonest thing, for any public servant to support, Democratic or Republican. Of course we have a President that says he will fight earmarks–sure he did, to the tune of even more of them! Say one thing and do the other! Unbelievable! And jobs, where are the jobs?
One gets the impression that all of these people only think about today, and not tomorrow; willing to shove our fiscal problems out to generations yet to come. We read about how FDR raised taxes to 90% at the top with considerable pride, forgetting that it was meant to be an expedient of war, not a permanent thing as the current leftists seem want, and the percentages did come down– eventually, and then the economy roared off!. Seems to be a rule that, if you raise taxes far enough, it is a hell of a job to get them back down again to rational levels. Other People’s Money is an aphrodisiac to the left; they really believe it is theirs to spend any way they can conceive. It is not, but they do it anyway, which is theft.
But this era of chaotic, Chicago-style, and spendthrift government is just about over. Sensible citizens have had enough of the cronyism, the lies, the dodges, the misdirection, and the stonewalling of what was touted early on to be the most transparent US government in history–yet another bald lie out of the book full.
The only word that satisfies this chaos is rampant hypocrisy.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Hypocrisy Reigns
Verbal political battles are rife with hypocrisy.
The tactic of saddling a political party or an individual with historical misadventures is a well-developed art. It presumes that the misadventure of years ago in different circumstances and for rather uniquely different reasons is cause to believe that the same or very similar decision or policy would be promoted the next time the party or the individual is in a power position. So beat them over the head with it till they bleed!
Such a tactic wilfully ignores several points: 1) Parties and people do learn from their mistakes and will most likely take a far better position the next time out; 2) The accusers most often do not have all of the facts, and wilfully ignore what actually was the case for political reasons. Then too, hindsight is so much more accurate than foresight! The real factual basis quite often turns a trumped up losing proposition into a winner if you maintain your objectivity; 3) Quite a few of the accusers are simply twisting the facts around to create a (false) club with which to clobber the opposition and influence the average voter; 4) The emphasis should be on the NOW and not the past; and, just to be a tad facetious, 5) Political promises are not worth very much in the scheme of things to begin with. We have ample proof of that in the last two years from Obama, and from other Presidents as well, as we all know! Circumstances alter cases, as the saying goes, just to make things more difficult for you and me.
You know who your are and which tactics you use–honest or dishonest!
Labels: Honesty, hypocrisy, politics
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Amnesty NO!
Many steps too far over, around and against the people!
This purple people eater administration is running our nation into the ground. Amnesty is the latest kick they are on, and with stealth orders to refuse action against illegals, if Congress fails to pass their stupid comprehensive immigration bill, which features amnesty over everything else.
This Hispanic vote-buying gimmick should be roundly condemned by Americans as being totally contrary to the will of the majority of citizens. We seem to be in the grip of a dictator.
Labels: Amnesty, hypocrisy, Liberalism, Obamania
Monday, September 14, 2009
"Call it the Constitution Revolution!"
Good name!
Chris Burgard on the blog Big Hollywood: "Call it the Constitution Revolution! " He also reports that the police and others savvy about crowd counts put the number of marchers at 1.6 million.
My own calculations, knowing the length of Pennsylvania Avenue, its width, the average space for one person, and the walking speed one could expect, gives a range of 250,000 to 500,000 people just on the Avenue, and doesn't count the crowds at the Capitol and the Reflecting Pool, nor those observing, but not streaming into the flow. I believe it is reasonable to estimate the crowd at over a million just from looking at the density of the marchers in the photos.
It is indeed a revolution to return us to constitutional law, and not the feel-good, nanny-state laws that liberals want to institute in the nation. With Spend, spend, spend will come tax, tax, tax, unless we kick the bums out of office real soon now!
Labels: Conservatism, hypocrisy, Obamania
Friday, September 04, 2009
Obama's First Months
It is a simple score:
Foreign Policy: F
Islam Policy: F
Health Policy: F
Stimulus: F
Budget: F-
WH Hires: F
Mug shots: F
GWOT: F-
Trust: F
Calming Fear: F
Clunkers: F
Cap&Trade: F-
Honesty: F
Friends: F-
Debt: F-
Most Other: F
So far, he is the worst President I have ever known; including LBJ, Clinton, and Carter, although they, too, rank way down.
Labels: GWOT, Honesty, hypocrisy, Integrity, Obama, Radicalism, Stimulus
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Selling Snake Oil to the Public
The Citizens Have a Right to be Mad!
I am still mad about various Democratic sources calling town hall protesters un-American, rude, or simply numbskulls. That, after all, is what they themselves are showing themselves to be, with their leftist agenda to turn America into wasteland. Why a wasteland?
As things stand, we will have a national debt of at least 17.5 trillion dollars in 2019 because of their profligate spending and commitments to spend this year and for the next 9 or10 years. This is over 3 trillion dollars more than our entire GNP in 2008. Just how can we pay that sum back? No rational plan to reduce the debt has been put forward, only legislation that is certain to raise it by trillions!
It is no wonder that ordinary America citizens are very upset at their representatives for trying to foster this abomination off on us and on our children’s children, and maybe even another generation. There is little need to debate the fine tuning of various propositions, all of which raise the debt level even more. Thus the protesters are simply shooting the messengers from this spendthrift Congress and President. No one believes the President’s assertion that Obama Care will be revenue neutral, either, unless it is to cut services the citizens feel necessary.
Citizens also perceive that these town hall types of sessions are merely a cover for the administration’s real plan, which is virtually hidden in 1,000 pages of gobbledygook, and impenetrable to the common reader. Thus, various possibilities, such as paying for the health care of Illegal immigrants, or the start of advisory panels on death options, have seized the public’s imagination, and no declarations to the contrary from Obama are believed anymore.
Then, too, with a Democratic majority in both houses and the presidency, people realize that their opinions have been submerged under the thrust of leftists to pass their own agenda, and to hell with public opinion. “Bi-partisan” support in Congress has withered under the take-it-or-leave-it positions of Democrats.
So, why should enraged citizens be quiet and respectful of their representatives, when they have not been shown even the respect of being presented with a sensible draft of a bill to peruse, feel that they are being sold out by snake oil salesmen, and being asked to give Congress a blank check?
Labels: Health Debate, hypocrisy, Obamacare
Friday, July 03, 2009
Political Virtues
More like political vices today!
The vetting process is terribly faulty for our politicians at every level. If you can speak well, look pretty, dress well, and have money to burn, you are odds on to win something. If you have friends in high places, you can win big. If you have an issue or two that pleases the electorate, so much the better, particularly if they involve payouts to the public of some sort. Virtues? Well, these virtues seem to be all that are required.
If you tear the lid off of some of these practitioners of politics, the smell of rotting goop will overpower you. That is why they seek guides from the professional ranks of seers–to provide them with cover and polishing for their private and public sins, past and present.
We need more tearers-of-lids at an earlier point in the soddy careers of many politicians. Plus, we need a surer mechanism for shedding those who have outstayed their welcome or have committed egregious sins at citizen’s expense. Quite a few names come to mind, but I will refrain from calling them out here. Perhaps term limits will help.
Virtue is happiness! — Socrates
Labels: Government, Honesty, hypocrisy, Virtue
Friday, June 19, 2009
Obama:Loved and Unloved
Where the puzzling poll statements love Obama for himself, but not his policies!
Over and over, I hear this meme: the public adores Obama, but they are learning to hate his policies. So he is portrayed as a very nice man, generous, caring, devoted, and certainly energetic. But he institutes policies that leave the citizens to wonder if they are not reading the media correctly. How can such a nice man overspend the budget by such a large margin, with no plan to pay it back? How can he allow cabinet choices to be approved when they have tax deficits. Just why is he firing Inspector Generals, that are supposed to keep things on the level? Why is he so apologetic about America when he speaks to foreign audiences? In the face of a nearly two trillion dollar deficit, how can he propose a health plan that will defy all projections of cost, and place us in more trillions of dollars in debt? Why is it that he doesn't come out strongly for the Iranian dissidents?
For those, like me, that have lost track of the wild and speedy spending of this year's government, I suggest a look at this site:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/bailout-costs-vs-big-historical-events/
Adoration may have its place for leaders, but when that leader heads the nation further into bankruptcy, shows great weakness to our pledged enemies, actually hates the military, and allows Congress to write and not read their huge pork-filled spending bills under the rubric of "stimulus" that isn't stimulating the economy, and he violates the Constitution by vesting huge power to his "czars" which downgrades his cabinet members, why has he decided to own the lion's share of GM and Chrysler? Is he heading us towards socialism?...and on, and on...
I cannot see how anyone can continue to admire him. He says one thing and does the opposite so often that it is hard to nail down just what he believes. It will take two full terms for a Conservative President and Congress to reset us on the right path. I hope that will start in 2012.
Labels: hypocrisy, Obama, Obamania
Thursday, April 23, 2009
It is Good if a Majority Says So!
NORMALIZATION
Rules for social behaviors are not the responsibility of a majority.
The idea that a majority “normalizes” a given behavior seems to me to be pure moral relativity, where the crowd’s behavior defines the good and the bad. This is as opposed to moral absolutes, where either a religion or a government, or even an atheist group, defines for all a moral code to be followed, and sets forth clear rules for social behaviors. Many aspects of the moral code are thus found to be incorporated into the laws of the land.
If moral degeneration takes place in a society and the established moral code or the laws are flouted by the majority of citizens, what is the proper response? Should the code or laws be changed to reflect the changing behavior of the crowd, or should they be more strongly enforced for the greater good?
Not reinforcing the existing codes and laws opens the door for flouting other rules of behavior as well in order to let the code or law follow the preferences of the citizens.
The fear this creates is one of supporting nihilism and hedonism, and eventually evolving a society with few rules and few unacceptable behaviors.
The syndrome of: “well, just one more little change” to the code and all will be well, is an exceedingly slippery slope. To me a moral code that has been fashioned by both wise souls and by experience over centuries is an organic whole, such that little modifications here and there may well unravel that wholeness, and hence unravel significant behaviors of the society.
For those that believe in God-given moral strictures, tinkering with the moral code to please the crowd is a flat out sin.
Labels: hypocrisy, Liberalism, Secular Humanism
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Shudders of the Day: "Spend and Tax" Liberals
Watch out, Guys and Gals, we are well on the road to socialism!
So many shuddering events and statements have surfaced that I am overwhelmed:
Hillary putting blame on the US for the Mexican drug cartels: we use the drugs--Duh!
The latest budget of the Obama administration has over 8,000 earmarks.
Now we are going to create an Obama army, dedicated to him, using taxpayer dollars, under the guise of National Service!
This Administration is seeking authority to close down firms that become a hazard to the economy (in their opinion!). This is totalitarian!
The budget has a provision that puts aside over 600 billion dollars for health care. Our tax dollars are to be banked by the government to pay for the care of low income people. There has to be a better way than a massive government bureaucracy that returns little on the tax dollar.
Now there is a proposal to fund the media by the government! Shades of controlled printing we saw in Russia.
The other media proposition in parallel is aimed at shutting down talk radio, especially rightist stations such as Rush Limbaugh, under the guise of "fairness."
It isn't Obama that writes legislation, it is the Pelosi and Reid staff members that are going wild! They need to be stopped!
Ever heard of "Tax and Spend Democrats"? The new kind of Democrat is: "Spend Now, Tax Later."
Do you find it hard to keep up? That is the plan.
Labels: Earmarks, hypocrisy, Liberalism, Obama, Pelosi, Reid
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Retreat is Ugly, Retreat is Deadly
Obama the Messiah enters into Foreign Policy
Seems to me that the collective wisdom of the “leave Iraq” crowd was that: a) we were a cause of unrest, death and terror; and that once we withdraw, if things go sour and genocide begins, b)we can always go back into Iraq to fix it once more.
Was it Ramsey Clark that voiced this stupid idea on behalf of moonbats everywhere?
This is nonsense simply because we have done nothing to alter the multiple tribes and cultures within Iraq, nor could we, and we have not been able to proof Iraq from the gentle ministrations of Iran, which means that the current Iraqi government will fall apart in a short time once we depart.
Were we to stay longer with a reasonable force, a few years more, however, there would be a better chance of a stable Iraq emerging from the chaos that is just under the surface now. We made the choice to go in; now we are making the choice to go out, I believe, before Iraq can cope effectively with its internal contradictions and external threats.
Going back into Iraq would be nearly impossible to pull off, I suggest, because it would be in the face of Iranian and AQ infiltration, support and threats, which a basically pacifist government would be reluctant to challenge yet again.
What a memorial to our casualties, and especially the deaths, and our lost treasure, in that awful place. It is the retreat that pacifists order, out of totally misguided humanitarianism.
It would appear to me that a renewed insurgency and genocide is just around the corner; say, a day after our last combat troops leave, which day, in some 16 months from now, AQ and others will have marked on their calendar in red and planned for in detail.
Oh, it isn’t our responsibility then, is it? Smacks of how we abandoned Nam,”with honor!”, refused them financial support, and turned our heads away from the communist takeover and genocides that followed in Laos, Cambodia and Nam itself.
That is the false pacifism we practice.
Labels: hypocrisy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Liberalism, Pacifism
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Big Hoax of Global Warming
This article summarizes the negative view of the Global Warming Scare by Fred Singer.
A Review Of' 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' By S. Fred Singer, (Atmospheric Physicist)March 19, 2007
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.
The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:
1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.
2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
• Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
• Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
• Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
• Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!
3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.
But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!
I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.
Labels: Global Warming, hypocrisy
Sunday, October 19, 2008
If Obama Wins--
Taxes will go up.
No sense in investing when you must give up all but 35% of your profits.
More government buyouts of industries, leading to socialism.
Far greater expenditures by government to live up to Obama's giveaway promises.
Greater percentage of people that do not pay taxes--65%, it is said.
Maybe I can go back to college for a PhD on Obama's government.
Free Speach will be curbed, and Politically Correct Speach will be expanded.
Pelosi and Reid will have a field day passing really dumb legislation.
Amnesty will happen for all illegal immigrants.
The UN will get a huge boost in US contributions, Law of the Sea, the International Court...
Nationalization will hit transportation, communications, energy companies, oil companies, banks.
I think I will put in for a free ride too! If we all do, that will crimp their style! Or, maybe not! With the elites and ranking Dems controlling the means of production, we will all be subservient to the government for our daily bread. That is, until they run our economy into the ground just as the USSR did, and many people starve.
Vote Republican!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Pseudo-Elites Use Bad Words
Words to Hate From So-called Friends of Conservatism
There are several words that are bound to seriously annoy rank and file Republicans and conservatives. I identify the words as: Intellectuals, elites, liberals, and hacks, all having been used to bolster the egos of a few pseudo-elite types, while they seem to want to vent their ire at the poor ole hacks that are the bedrock of conservatism. Even some elitist-oriented conservatives have this attitude.
The superior, even snobbish, attitudes of these writings on the web come across very clearly, as if the sniff of dismissal was appended after each post: oh, a hack! oh, a working conservative!
To show obvious distain for those who recognize the poor choices in this election, yet do their very best to support what is definitely the lesser of evils, is to also show the pseudo-elitism and tastelessness of the writers. It would seem that to some of the writers, it is more important to maintain their so-called, two-faced intellectual integrity than to win an election honestly and forthrightly. How harping on the sins of the Republican candidates helps to win this election escapes me completely.
By attempting to prove their intellectual prowess through denigration of the "lesser souls" around them, and, of course, the candidates these poor souls know very well that they must champion, namely McCain/Palin, they diminish the efforts of many solid citizens unnecessarily in order to be able to claim and hold some sort of intellectual high ground. A sandcastle, I believe, designed by self-appointed elites for other elites of similar markings--and odor, sniff!
This likewise makes an uncalled-for opening for the conservative's opposite number, the true liberal, who sneers onto the scene with evil deeds in mind, always ready to tear down the conservative idea, and is very happy for the opportunity to point out the disarray in the Republican Party. While, of course, attempting to show a superior intellect and a better choice of candidates. Ugh!
by mannning
Labels: Conservatism, hypocrisy
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Where Was Obama Born?
Phillip Berg is suing Obama to force Obama to show his proper birth certificate and other records that prove he was native born. That Obama is fighting this with all of his means is very telling indeed. The link is to the The American Thinker site where a You Tube video featuring Berg can be viewed.
The suit is awating the judge's decision on a dismissal motion from Obama's lawyers. It is not clear whether this suit can be decided before the election, but it is potentially destructive of Obama's candidacy: an outcome devoutly to be wished. We do not want an unconstitutional president voted into office.
Labels: Honesty, hypocrisy, Integrity, Obama, Origins
Monday, September 22, 2008
Must read: The Drumbeat, by William Staneski
First of all, I agree with Staneski that liberals have thrust these attitudes onto the public: toleration, diversity, non-judgmental, egalitarianism, politically correct, multiculturalism, globalism, and collectivism.
Second, what I fear, and what Lawrence Auster has pointed out often, is that many so-called conservatives have bought into these same attitudes, to the peril of us all. True or traditionalist conservatives, however, forcefully reject these attitudes:
Toleration, when not reciprocal, becomes mere weakness.
Diversity, when referring to people or cultures, is only worthwhile when there is a solid and deep common ground, and shared values, to spring from. Diversity for its own sake is leveling.
Non-judgementalism is a copout to excuse the exercise of the above toleration and diversity. Good judgment is an attribute to be cultivated, not suppressed. One must exercise judgment for it to become a sharp tool.
Egalitarianism is meaningless: people are incommensurate in many dimensions, including mind, body, soul, culture, wealth, health, liberty, freedom, religious belief, energy, drive, i.e. every attribute I can think of, and they will remain so as they have for millennia. Equal opportunity is our heritage, but not equal outcomes.
Politically Correct: this is a curse born of over-toleration, extreme non-judgementalism, pervasive non-discrimination, and unreal egalitarianism. PC constraints inhibit clear thinking and clear debate.
Multiculturalism: we are in fact living in a multicultural nation, but its working vector should be towards assimilation, not maintenance of minority cultures for their own sake. Let the private minorities maintain their own cultures by themselves if they wish, but not to the detriment of our society, as Islam threatens daily, for example.
Globalist: after we have taken full care of our own nation, it is appropriate to lend a helping hand elsewhere.Charity begins at home, as does defense. The UN is not worth supporting further. There are global threats that must be met and vanquished in the name of self-defense--Islam, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation, to name a few. However, man-made climate change is not one of the threats: it is a man-made tempest designed to further seizure of power and promotion of global government.
Collectivist: In no political or economic sense does a true conservative ascribe to collectivism, but collective defense is an obvious truism.
Labels: Conservatism, hypocrisy, Liberalism
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Obama: Mired in Black Details
Obama the Analyst is Bottom-Up
No one is a completely “bottom up” or BU thinker or analyst, just as no one is a completely “top down” or TD analyst of our way of life, government, and our many problems. The TDer makes many little problems out of very large problems in a coherent manner in order to solve them incrementally, whereas the BUer is always busy identifying problems at the lower levels, and literally cannot see the woods for the trees much of the time.
I see Obama as an interesting combination of 5% visionary TD, and 95% pieces and parts BU.
To be a visionary TDer is relatively easy, since our local, national, and world ideals are standing there screaming to be recognized and worked on by all of us. Just pick a few: World peace; Third World development; economic stability in the US; the Middle East; Judeo-Christianity versus Islam… Oil…
A pieces and parts BU type, on the other hand, is cursed with the perception of hundreds and hundreds of problems, only some of which are sufficiently interrelated that common solutions can be teased out of the morass and championed.
What seems worse to me is that the BUer finds it very hard to build his analysis upwards to join with the TD analyst at some middle ground to arrive at holistic, common solutions when they are feasible. Of the many side conditions for such a systhesis, is the preservation of our freedom and liberty, which must rule out authoritarian governmental modifications and Constitutional changes.
The obvious example is Obama’s Hope, Change and Unity mantras which highlight just about as pure a Top Down approach as one can find, and just about as vacuous. Contrast this versus his wallowing around in a sea of other, lesser or tangential problems with only the dangerous channalizing of his leftist inclinations to guide him in a BU attempt. The focus on race, cleverly put in the guise of "post-racial" initiatives is certainly the clearest example of his BU mindset, and the thousand and one subproblems he is raising in the process, each requiring a solution, but still totally focused on the black race, and the black experience, is a whole bunch of trees with no forrest in sight.
The problem set that Obama begins with is not necessarily in the mainstream of our desires, and the implications for beginning with his set and his priorities are to distort severely what most of us perceive as the proper direction for our governance, our taxes, our freedoms, our economy and our foreign policies—in short, the future of the nation.
Labels: hypocrisy, Mental Confusion, Obama
Friday, August 08, 2008
“America is, uh, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, 'I don’t want that future for my children.'” --Barack Obama, 8/7/08, in response to the question of a 7-year old on why he was running for president.
And this man is running for President of the United States. No thank you.
Labels: hypocrisy, Mental Confusion, Obama
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Obama Resigns from Church
Here's a laugh! Obama and his wife have resigned from the Trinity church he was a member of for 20 years. Does anyone believe that this is an honest move?
I don't.
Labels: Honesty, hypocrisy, Obama
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Appeasement--No!
There is no sense in talking to the enemy without clear objectives laid out in advance by both sides. A negotiation newbie in this scenario would be eaten alive. Obama is not only a newbie, he is a fakir. That is, someone that is two-faced. Obama is a card-carrying Black Liberation Movement member, and worse, is enamored of Marxism, although he pines for "change". I wonder whose change he means: Democracy or Communism.
See: http://rightwingnuthouse.com/index.php for late-breaking skinny on Obama.
