I've received a number of comments in the last few days from "Anonymous". I don't have much regard for someone who lacks the courage to identify him- or herself. My profile is out there for anyone to see, so if you see fit to comment on my postings, please have the courage to put at least a pseudonym on your comments. I won't try to destroy you or say untrue things about you - I'm not a liberal!
I won't bother to address all of the comments; most of them were the usual criticisms of Republicans, big oil, etc. If Anonymous offered any alternative solutions, they were few and far between.
As Obama is fond of saying, let me be clear. I am in favor of all forms of alternative energy, including nuclear. The reality, however, is that we need oil and gas right now and the other sources of energy are not available for use today. Solar and wind energy won't run our cars, planes and other forms of transportation. There are literally hundreds of different products that are petroleum-based, from plastics to medical products. Are you willing to dispense with all of these modern (and sometimes life-saving) products?
Anonymous accused me of having no imagination and stealing the title of my blog from Jon Stewart. I don't watch Stewart and so was unaware until this morning that the name of his rally he's sponsoring is "Rally to Restore Sanity". My blog has been around a lot longer than Jon Stewart's plans for a rally; maybe he was inspired by the title of my blog!
I will freely admit that I listen to Fox News. I would bet that Anonymous and others who feel Fox News isn't trustworthy have never even watched a Fox newscast. Don't point to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as examples of bias. They are not newscasters; they're commentators and there's a difference. They are paid to give their opinions and, yes, Fox does lean to the right, sometimes heavily, in their commentators. I would challenge you to watch a Fox newscast - that would be Bret Baier and Shepard Smith - and see for yourself that they do indeed just report the news without a slant to influence opinion. They even report news that isn't favorable to conservatives, whereas CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC et. al often fail to report what doesn't favor Democrats. There's a reason that Fox News' ratings are so high.
One other point I'd like to make is that when one makes generalized comments about large groups of people, e.g., Republicans always do this, Democrats always do that, blacks are like this, whites are like that, you're automatically wrong. There is no group on earth that is completely homogeneous, so don't fall into the trap of claiming that we're all alike.
I don't fancy myself as a political commentator, nor do I have aspirations to such. I started this blog simply to blow off steam after the election of 2008 - writing makes me feel better. So, Anonymous, my suggestions are to quit attacking me personally, have the courage to identify yourself, offer some real alternative solutions if you don't like mine, and, oh, one final thing - learn to spell correctly!
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Mean Season
With the election nearing, the political ads and rhetoric are often over the top. In a recent debate, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas accused her Republican opponent, John Boozman, of having voted in Congress to allow a father who had raped his daughter to sue the doctor who performed an abortion on the daughter he had raped. The only problem is that Mr. Boozman had no idea what she was talking about and when challenged, she couldn't back up her ugly accusation.
The ad by Florida Democratic representative Alan Grayson is one of the most shameful, despicable things I've ever seen a politician do. This is the ad that takes a quotation from his opponent, Daniel Webster, completely out of context, which makes it seem totally different from the original quotation in its entirety. He then compares Mr. Webster to the Taliban! No, nothing over the top about that. Mr. Grayson should be ashamed, but he seems to have no sense of shame at all and I can't imagine why anyone would consider voting for someone so devoid of character.
The Democrats can't really run on their legislative "accomplishments". They managed to pass a lot of new laws, but the only problem is that the majority of Americans didn't want those laws. They now can do nothing but resort to name-calling and outright lies to divert attention from the damage they're doing to the economy and the country as a whole.
The ad by Florida Democratic representative Alan Grayson is one of the most shameful, despicable things I've ever seen a politician do. This is the ad that takes a quotation from his opponent, Daniel Webster, completely out of context, which makes it seem totally different from the original quotation in its entirety. He then compares Mr. Webster to the Taliban! No, nothing over the top about that. Mr. Grayson should be ashamed, but he seems to have no sense of shame at all and I can't imagine why anyone would consider voting for someone so devoid of character.
The Democrats can't really run on their legislative "accomplishments". They managed to pass a lot of new laws, but the only problem is that the majority of Americans didn't want those laws. They now can do nothing but resort to name-calling and outright lies to divert attention from the damage they're doing to the economy and the country as a whole.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Don't Do the Democrats' Job for Them!
I've never been a fan of Karl Rove, but he's really showing his petty side right now in his harsh words about Christine O'Donnell. What I'd like to hear is something along the lines of "Well, she's not my first choice for a Republican candidate, but she won the primary and of course I'll fully support her."
Instead, what we're hearing from Rove and other members of the Republican establishment is what I'd expect from a Democrat: pointing out O'Donnell's baggage, questioning her ethics and, most egregiously, self-defeating talk about how Republicans have no chance of winning that seat now. What's up? Are the Republican leaders simply misunderstanding the public mood or do they fear losing their own power?
The people of Delaware spoke, Mr. Rove. Republicans would do well to heed their message. I believe voters are sick and tired of wishy-washy Republican candidates who might as well be Democrats when you look at their voting record. What choice did the voters of Delaware have? Mike Castle voted for cap and tax, for heaven's sake! How does it help us stop the Obama agenda if we elect Republicans who don't have the courage to stand up and try to save the country from this left-wing lunacy?
As a Texan, it's anathema to me to wave the white flag without a fight. We may indeed lose the Delaware seat to a Democrat, but let's make sure we don't hand it to them on a silver platter. If the National Republican Senatorial Committee won't allocate funds to help O'Donnell, then we, the people, should send her campaign whatever we can afford. Fight with all you have - the stakes are too high to declare defeat before the fight has even begun!
Instead, what we're hearing from Rove and other members of the Republican establishment is what I'd expect from a Democrat: pointing out O'Donnell's baggage, questioning her ethics and, most egregiously, self-defeating talk about how Republicans have no chance of winning that seat now. What's up? Are the Republican leaders simply misunderstanding the public mood or do they fear losing their own power?
The people of Delaware spoke, Mr. Rove. Republicans would do well to heed their message. I believe voters are sick and tired of wishy-washy Republican candidates who might as well be Democrats when you look at their voting record. What choice did the voters of Delaware have? Mike Castle voted for cap and tax, for heaven's sake! How does it help us stop the Obama agenda if we elect Republicans who don't have the courage to stand up and try to save the country from this left-wing lunacy?
As a Texan, it's anathema to me to wave the white flag without a fight. We may indeed lose the Delaware seat to a Democrat, but let's make sure we don't hand it to them on a silver platter. If the National Republican Senatorial Committee won't allocate funds to help O'Donnell, then we, the people, should send her campaign whatever we can afford. Fight with all you have - the stakes are too high to declare defeat before the fight has even begun!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
How Can a Hispanic Be a Republican?
Harry Reid, the illustrious Senate Majority Leader, has made yet another inane statement. He questions how anyone of Hispanic heritage could possibly be Republican.
Allow me to enlighten you, Harry. The Hispanics I know are socially conservative. Families are a priority for them, they are pro-life, believe in traditional marriage, i.e., between a man and a woman and attend church regularly. That's why knowledgable and informed Hispanics vote Republican!
Allow me to enlighten you, Harry. The Hispanics I know are socially conservative. Families are a priority for them, they are pro-life, believe in traditional marriage, i.e., between a man and a woman and attend church regularly. That's why knowledgable and informed Hispanics vote Republican!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Tolerance: When Do You Draw a Line?
The self-righteousness of the political class is wearing very thin with me. This business of the mosque that is to be built just a few blocks from ground zero is such an insult.
Mayor Bloomberg stands before a microphone and talks of religious tolerance. Spare me the sermon; tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street. Why must we always be the ones who tolerate the jabs and insults of radical Muslims? Why, for once, can't they demonstrate respect for our sensitivities and build their mosque somewhere else?
I don't believe this locale was picked by accident. Nor do I believe that it's an attempt to reach out and soothe relations between Muslims and others. It's a poke in the eye and I'd be willing to bet my house that it's being funded by Saudi Arabia.
Carmen bin Laden, former sister-in-law of Osama, has said that Americans think tolerance is a virtue. Muslims believe it is a weakness and they will exploit our tolerance and use it against us. When will our officials ever learn this lesson?
Mayor Bloomberg stands before a microphone and talks of religious tolerance. Spare me the sermon; tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street. Why must we always be the ones who tolerate the jabs and insults of radical Muslims? Why, for once, can't they demonstrate respect for our sensitivities and build their mosque somewhere else?
I don't believe this locale was picked by accident. Nor do I believe that it's an attempt to reach out and soothe relations between Muslims and others. It's a poke in the eye and I'd be willing to bet my house that it's being funded by Saudi Arabia.
Carmen bin Laden, former sister-in-law of Osama, has said that Americans think tolerance is a virtue. Muslims believe it is a weakness and they will exploit our tolerance and use it against us. When will our officials ever learn this lesson?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
National Enquirer - More Reliable Than New York Times?
The field of journalism is on life support. Whatever happened to objective reporting of the news? The "journalists" of today, as well as many of the people who pay attention to them, seem unable to tell the difference between reporting - delivering facts and information - and commentary, which is the expression of opinion.
The bottom line is that if the "New York Times", "Washington Post", "Los Angeles Times", ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC et al. are your media of choice, it's likely you don't know what's going on in this country. Stories of importance that reflect badly on Obama or refute the liberal agenda simply don't get reported at all on the above sources.
Fox News Channel has broken several stories recently that the other media wouldn't touch. Alarmingly, there are some liberal "journalists" and law professors who have called on the government to shut down Fox. It's obvious that these lunatics care nothing about our Constitution (remember the First Amendment?) or rule of law. I find it frightening that this would even be seriously suggested by anyone in this country.
It's a sad day for journalism when "The National Enquirer" turns out to be a more reliable news source than "The New York Times" or "The Washington Post".
The bottom line is that if the "New York Times", "Washington Post", "Los Angeles Times", ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC et al. are your media of choice, it's likely you don't know what's going on in this country. Stories of importance that reflect badly on Obama or refute the liberal agenda simply don't get reported at all on the above sources.
Fox News Channel has broken several stories recently that the other media wouldn't touch. Alarmingly, there are some liberal "journalists" and law professors who have called on the government to shut down Fox. It's obvious that these lunatics care nothing about our Constitution (remember the First Amendment?) or rule of law. I find it frightening that this would even be seriously suggested by anyone in this country.
It's a sad day for journalism when "The National Enquirer" turns out to be a more reliable news source than "The New York Times" or "The Washington Post".
Friday, July 16, 2010
Coming to Your Neighborhood: 'Obesity Rating for Every American'
According to CNSNews, every American is to have electronic medical records by 2014 and new regulations mandate that those records must include BMI (body mass index). BMI is a comparison of height to weight and will be used to rate whether a person is obese.
Having worked in the health/fitness field for 16 years, I feel qualified to comment on this. First, BMI is absolutely useless for certain categories of people, e.g., athletes and those who are muscular. Body composition (the percentage of a person's weight that is fat) is a much more meaningful tool. I've performed fitness testing on people whose BMI indicates they're obese, even though they're lean and fit. Similarly, I've seen people whose BMI falls within the normal range, yet their body composition indicates they're too fat simply because they don't have much muscle in comparison to their body fat. My colleagues and I called them "skinny fat people".
This leads me to wonder: will the current surgeon general be classified as 'obese'? Will the "leaders" in Washington point to Barney Frank's magnificent body as one to emulate? Will Michelle Obama's sizable buttocks and hips push her into the dreaded 'obese' category? Will I lose sleep at night worrying about this (NO!)?
The biggest problem here is that the government is intruding more and more into our personal lives. With the advent of Obamacare, is it any wonder that the government feels it has a right to do so? Will they next be telling us what we must eat, what we cannot eat, and how much we have to exercise?
We're reaching a tipping point where the American people simply won't tolerate any more governmental regulation and intrusion. Where will we draw the line?
Having worked in the health/fitness field for 16 years, I feel qualified to comment on this. First, BMI is absolutely useless for certain categories of people, e.g., athletes and those who are muscular. Body composition (the percentage of a person's weight that is fat) is a much more meaningful tool. I've performed fitness testing on people whose BMI indicates they're obese, even though they're lean and fit. Similarly, I've seen people whose BMI falls within the normal range, yet their body composition indicates they're too fat simply because they don't have much muscle in comparison to their body fat. My colleagues and I called them "skinny fat people".
This leads me to wonder: will the current surgeon general be classified as 'obese'? Will the "leaders" in Washington point to Barney Frank's magnificent body as one to emulate? Will Michelle Obama's sizable buttocks and hips push her into the dreaded 'obese' category? Will I lose sleep at night worrying about this (NO!)?
The biggest problem here is that the government is intruding more and more into our personal lives. With the advent of Obamacare, is it any wonder that the government feels it has a right to do so? Will they next be telling us what we must eat, what we cannot eat, and how much we have to exercise?
We're reaching a tipping point where the American people simply won't tolerate any more governmental regulation and intrusion. Where will we draw the line?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Answering Oprah Winfrey
I saw a portion of an interview with Oprah Winfrey a couple of days ago. She asked the question: "What do people want him to do?", referring to Obama and the oil spill.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'd like to take a minute to answer Winfrey's question. Here are the things I'd like (but don't expect) Obama to do:
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'd like to take a minute to answer Winfrey's question. Here are the things I'd like (but don't expect) Obama to do:
- Learn to prioritize. Dragging BP CEO Tony Hayward before Congress was premature. First priority should be plugging the gusher and cleaning up the Gulf Coast. He should have reached out a hand to BP to offer governmental resources to help and then stepped out of the way. After that's accomplished, then we can focus on what caused the explosion and how to ensure that BP pays its dues.
- Put political ideology aside and do what's best for the country. Everything this president does seems to be a political calculation. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't what's best for a president politically.
- Someone should remind Obama that he is the president of the entire country, not just the states that voted for him. His slow response to the oil spill and his total failure to offer help to the victims of the flood in Tennessee were due in part, I believe, to the fact that these are more conservative states where he's not popular.
- Grow a thicker skin. Obama has an extraordinarily thin skin, unable to tolerate criticism without pushing back. He seems to waste a lot of time and energy bashing those who disagree with him instead of recognizing that people do have a right not to agree with him.
- Grow up. This is the most immature administration in my lifetime. It's comprised of a bunch of vindictive crybabies. Obama should make clear through his own example that this is not professional behavior worthy of respect. I won't hold my breath on this, though.
- Drop the pretense of objectivity when it's clear that Obama's decisions are politically driven. A good example is this commission of "experts" he has assembled to take a look at what caused the BP explosion and how to make offshore drilling safe. This is a total sham. None of the people on the commission has any experience or expertise in the oil business or in offshore drilling. The "experts" are really a panel of environmentalists who are opposed to offshore drilling and who want to see us use only "green" energy sources.
- Don't rely so much on academic "experts". When help is needed, reach out to people who have real-life experience with the problem to be solved. Obama simply has too much confidence in the ability of government and academia to solve problems. Most of the booms that have been laid to hold off oil in the Gulf were laid by shrimpers!
- Face reality and start living in the real world. Obama's pie-in-the-sky dreams of green energy may be a worthwhile goal for the future, but the reality is that we are dependent on oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Face that fact and free up the oil companies to access the plentiful oil reserves we have available, both onshore and offshore.
Monday, June 21, 2010
I'm Not Mad at Him
Call me weird, but I'm not mad at Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP. The CEO of a company doesn't make decisions on drilling rigs. The person who should be grilled is the one who was on the rig and made decisions that probably led to this disaster. The BP personnel on the rig argued with Transocean personnel about drilling decisions and rejected Halliburton's advice about placing centering devices before cementing the pipe in place.
But, the guy on the rig who made the calls most likely didn't have the final word. I'd bet he answers to someone in the Houston BP office who told him to save time and money and cut some corners. I have no proof of this, but it's a strong suspicion. This is who should be the target of our wrath, not some CEO sitting in his office in London. If Congress were interested in a real inquiry, this is whom they be grilling, not Tony Hayward.
But, the guy on the rig who made the calls most likely didn't have the final word. I'd bet he answers to someone in the Houston BP office who told him to save time and money and cut some corners. I have no proof of this, but it's a strong suspicion. This is who should be the target of our wrath, not some CEO sitting in his office in London. If Congress were interested in a real inquiry, this is whom they be grilling, not Tony Hayward.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Blame Time - Yet Again
Will Obama ever stop blaming Republicans for "obstructing" progress? Now he's saying that Republicans are hurting the unemployed by their filibuster of a broad economic bill that would bloat the deficit even more.
Someone should point out to the president that Democrats currently enjoy a majority in the Senate and House, so the "obstruction" is not coming from Republicans alone. Perhaps if Obama were more skillful in negotiating with the opposition, he could get more things done. There have been many presidents who worked with a Congress dominated by the opposite party, yet they managed to negotiate and compromise to make progress in solving problems. This president seems to lack the flexibility and/or the "know-how" to do this.
Obama's devotion to his political ideology and his habit of falling into the same pattern over and over are hurting him politically. Is he smart? I don't think so, but one thing is certain: wise he is not.
Someone should point out to the president that Democrats currently enjoy a majority in the Senate and House, so the "obstruction" is not coming from Republicans alone. Perhaps if Obama were more skillful in negotiating with the opposition, he could get more things done. There have been many presidents who worked with a Congress dominated by the opposite party, yet they managed to negotiate and compromise to make progress in solving problems. This president seems to lack the flexibility and/or the "know-how" to do this.
Obama's devotion to his political ideology and his habit of falling into the same pattern over and over are hurting him politically. Is he smart? I don't think so, but one thing is certain: wise he is not.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Does Obama Want the Oil Spill Cleaned Up?
I'm hearing that the Dutch government offered help in cleaning up the oil spill and various American entrepreneurs have invented products that show great promise in the clean up of oil spills. Yet, our government declined the Dutch help and has resisted using the new inventions because they "don't meet EPA standards"!
What's really going on here? If I were president, I'd welcome suggestions and help from any reasonable quarter. Yet, Obama declines to try these products or let anyone from a foreign government help us.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama doesn't want to clean up this mess anytime soon. And because everything this president does is a political calculation, he must have ulterior motives for dragging his feet.
What could it be? Does he want to punish BP to make himself seem strong? If so, he's failing miserably at this. He comes across as Barney Fife, talking big, but everyone knows he's inept, weak and cowardly.
I think a more likely explanation is that he wants to use this crisis as a way to stop oil drilling, especially offshore, and also to push through "cap and tax" legislation to allegedly "protect" the environment and stop so-called climate change.
If I'm right, this is the most despicable motivation I can imagine. Obama seems to be a man devoid of empathy and uninterested in the welfare of this country. I only can hope and pray that he leaves office before he causes permanent damage to the country.
What's really going on here? If I were president, I'd welcome suggestions and help from any reasonable quarter. Yet, Obama declines to try these products or let anyone from a foreign government help us.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama doesn't want to clean up this mess anytime soon. And because everything this president does is a political calculation, he must have ulterior motives for dragging his feet.
What could it be? Does he want to punish BP to make himself seem strong? If so, he's failing miserably at this. He comes across as Barney Fife, talking big, but everyone knows he's inept, weak and cowardly.
I think a more likely explanation is that he wants to use this crisis as a way to stop oil drilling, especially offshore, and also to push through "cap and tax" legislation to allegedly "protect" the environment and stop so-called climate change.
If I'm right, this is the most despicable motivation I can imagine. Obama seems to be a man devoid of empathy and uninterested in the welfare of this country. I only can hope and pray that he leaves office before he causes permanent damage to the country.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Calderon's Hypocrisy
Wolf Blitzer's interview of Mexican president Calderon revealed some uncomfortable truths. It seems that while Calderon is criticizing Arizona for its new anti-illegal immigration law, Mexico is rather intolerant of those who enter their country via the southern border.
The video below exposes the double standard here. It gets very interesting about 5 minutes into the video.
Just as an aside, Mexican (Latino, Hispanic, whatever you want to call it) is not a race - it's an ethnicity.
The video below exposes the double standard here. It gets very interesting about 5 minutes into the video.
Just as an aside, Mexican (Latino, Hispanic, whatever you want to call it) is not a race - it's an ethnicity.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Is This the Would-Be Bomber?
Disaster was averted this weekend in Times Square when a homemade bomb in an SUV failed to detonate. I've been hearing reports all morning about a "person of interest" who was behaving "furtively" at the scene. The reporters have been careful to point out that he's a white man.
I saw the ABC footage of the man and it seems to me that his behavior is not at all "furtive". He's out in plain sight, taking off a long-sleeved shirt (maybe he was too warm?) and putting it in a bag. If he were trying to hide something, would he be doing this in the midst of all this foot traffic?
Maybe he is guilty, but I can't see how the behavior shown on this video demonstrates furtiveness. Could the authorities be focusing on this man because he doesn't look like an Arab and the Obama administration desperately wants this to NOT be a Muslim terrorist act? Take a look at the video and make up your own mind.
I saw the ABC footage of the man and it seems to me that his behavior is not at all "furtive". He's out in plain sight, taking off a long-sleeved shirt (maybe he was too warm?) and putting it in a bag. If he were trying to hide something, would he be doing this in the midst of all this foot traffic?
Maybe he is guilty, but I can't see how the behavior shown on this video demonstrates furtiveness. Could the authorities be focusing on this man because he doesn't look like an Arab and the Obama administration desperately wants this to NOT be a Muslim terrorist act? Take a look at the video and make up your own mind.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Better for Republicans Not to Win the House in November?
Republicans are expected to make significant gains in the House and Senate in November. Is it possible that it would be better for the Republicans if they don't take over the House after the election?
I admit that this is something I hadn't considered. However, I read a rather provocative article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by columnist Gerald F. Seib. As put forth by Mr. Seib, it would very likely benefit the Republicans not to take over the House after the election, especially since it's unlikely that they will take over the Senate as well. He argues that even if they win control of the House, it will be by such a small margin that they won't be able to control anything. But being the majority party in the House would put them in the forefront and force them to absorb blame for much of what goes wrong in Washington. On the other hand, one must take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.
In addition, Mr. Seib argues that if the Republicans take over the House, this will give Obama an excuse to move to the political middle, which is where he probably needs to be in order to win re-election in 2012.
I do have a problem with his second argument, however. Mr. Seib notes that Bill Clinton moved to the political center after Democrats lost the house in 1994. There are a couple of important differences between Clinton and Obama though. Bill Clinton is a liberal, but not an ideologue, and he is capable of moderation in some matters. Obama, however, is a dedicated ideologue, even though he argues that he's not. He can say "I'm not an ideologue" until the cows come home, but the fact is that he behaves like an ideologue. He has shown us his true colors and he has no credibility as a centrist (I admit he has no credibility with me in any realm). If he attempts to maneuver to the political center, it will be obvious to everyone that this is nothing more than a cynical ploy. I rather doubt that Obama would do this. I suspect he would rather move his agenda forward and be a one term president than be a two-termer with a watered-down agenda.
I admit that this is something I hadn't considered. However, I read a rather provocative article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by columnist Gerald F. Seib. As put forth by Mr. Seib, it would very likely benefit the Republicans not to take over the House after the election, especially since it's unlikely that they will take over the Senate as well. He argues that even if they win control of the House, it will be by such a small margin that they won't be able to control anything. But being the majority party in the House would put them in the forefront and force them to absorb blame for much of what goes wrong in Washington. On the other hand, one must take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.
In addition, Mr. Seib argues that if the Republicans take over the House, this will give Obama an excuse to move to the political middle, which is where he probably needs to be in order to win re-election in 2012.
I do have a problem with his second argument, however. Mr. Seib notes that Bill Clinton moved to the political center after Democrats lost the house in 1994. There are a couple of important differences between Clinton and Obama though. Bill Clinton is a liberal, but not an ideologue, and he is capable of moderation in some matters. Obama, however, is a dedicated ideologue, even though he argues that he's not. He can say "I'm not an ideologue" until the cows come home, but the fact is that he behaves like an ideologue. He has shown us his true colors and he has no credibility as a centrist (I admit he has no credibility with me in any realm). If he attempts to maneuver to the political center, it will be obvious to everyone that this is nothing more than a cynical ploy. I rather doubt that Obama would do this. I suspect he would rather move his agenda forward and be a one term president than be a two-termer with a watered-down agenda.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Voter Suppression
Let the voting season begin. Democrats, facing potentially catastrophic losses in the November elections, are already ramping up charges that Republicans have in the past, and will in the future, attempt to suppress voting among minorities.
This is very tired rhetoric. I challenge Democrats to put forth concrete examples of voter suppression and/or intimidation aimed at minorities. Come on - you've made the accusation; back it up with facts. If you can't, then please at least come up with some new lines. I'm sick of the old ones.
The only example I can remember in recent history of a naked attempt to intimidate voters was the "security" posted at polling places in Philadelphia in 2008 by the New Black Panthers. That was a not so subtle attempt to intimidate white voters, but I guess that's OK with Dems. What a bunch of lying hypocrites!
This is very tired rhetoric. I challenge Democrats to put forth concrete examples of voter suppression and/or intimidation aimed at minorities. Come on - you've made the accusation; back it up with facts. If you can't, then please at least come up with some new lines. I'm sick of the old ones.
The only example I can remember in recent history of a naked attempt to intimidate voters was the "security" posted at polling places in Philadelphia in 2008 by the New Black Panthers. That was a not so subtle attempt to intimidate white voters, but I guess that's OK with Dems. What a bunch of lying hypocrites!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A Precarious Position
Liberals like to think that they are the only compassionate people around and that conservatives care only about the wealthy. There is plenty of evidence to refute that, which I won't go into now, but the Republicans have not, in my opinion, effectively dispelled that notion. This could possibly have repercussions for the upcoming elections.
It's obvious to anyone who has even half a brain that we cannot continue on the current spending spree if we want to survive as a prosperous nation. Cuts, some of them painful, are going to have to be made, if politicians can find their spines. Of course, the Democrats will cry foul and make it sound as if Republicans are cruel and cold. How can Republicans counteract this?
It's human nature to want to get something for nothing. Those of us in touch with reality know that happens very seldom. It's comforting to think that someone will take care of you too, but what's the downside of all this?
Aside from the obvious economic implications of a welfare state, people who are dependent on others for their care and upkeep are in a vulnerable position. I believe that Democrats have a vested interest in keeping more and more people poor and dependent on the government because, after all, they count on their votes to keep them in office. What's a Republican to do?
Let me say clearly and unequivocally that I recognize there are people who truly are unable to take care of themselves because of physical or mental limitations. As a Christian, I feel a moral obligation to help people in need. I have no problem with that. However there are too many families in our society that have been on welfare for generations and way too many people who think the country owes them something. I definitely do have a problem with my tax dollars being used to promote learned helplessness and/or laziness.
This brings me back to my original question: what can Republicans do to counteract this trend? Well, it's time that we had some politicians who talk to us like adults. First, they should outline in a clear and concise fashion how being dependent on the government makes you vulnerable so people understand that having the government take care of you is not a free ride. It actually decreases personal freedom; the dependency makes the government feel as it it has the right to make certain demands.
Second, Republicans should make it very clear that the more people we have in this society of all races and ethnicities who are educated and self-sufficient, the better off our society will be for everyone. If a person receives welfare, then perhaps we should put a limit on how long they may receive it and make it contingent on their getting educated or trained so they can get a good job (assuming they're able-bodied, of course).
Republicans should explain that being independent and self-sufficient produces a variety of benefits. By facing challenges and mastering them we discover true self-esteem and confidence and are free to enjoy the satisfaction that comes with a job well done.
It's obvious to anyone who has even half a brain that we cannot continue on the current spending spree if we want to survive as a prosperous nation. Cuts, some of them painful, are going to have to be made, if politicians can find their spines. Of course, the Democrats will cry foul and make it sound as if Republicans are cruel and cold. How can Republicans counteract this?
It's human nature to want to get something for nothing. Those of us in touch with reality know that happens very seldom. It's comforting to think that someone will take care of you too, but what's the downside of all this?
Aside from the obvious economic implications of a welfare state, people who are dependent on others for their care and upkeep are in a vulnerable position. I believe that Democrats have a vested interest in keeping more and more people poor and dependent on the government because, after all, they count on their votes to keep them in office. What's a Republican to do?
Let me say clearly and unequivocally that I recognize there are people who truly are unable to take care of themselves because of physical or mental limitations. As a Christian, I feel a moral obligation to help people in need. I have no problem with that. However there are too many families in our society that have been on welfare for generations and way too many people who think the country owes them something. I definitely do have a problem with my tax dollars being used to promote learned helplessness and/or laziness.
This brings me back to my original question: what can Republicans do to counteract this trend? Well, it's time that we had some politicians who talk to us like adults. First, they should outline in a clear and concise fashion how being dependent on the government makes you vulnerable so people understand that having the government take care of you is not a free ride. It actually decreases personal freedom; the dependency makes the government feel as it it has the right to make certain demands.
Second, Republicans should make it very clear that the more people we have in this society of all races and ethnicities who are educated and self-sufficient, the better off our society will be for everyone. If a person receives welfare, then perhaps we should put a limit on how long they may receive it and make it contingent on their getting educated or trained so they can get a good job (assuming they're able-bodied, of course).
Republicans should explain that being independent and self-sufficient produces a variety of benefits. By facing challenges and mastering them we discover true self-esteem and confidence and are free to enjoy the satisfaction that comes with a job well done.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
What Are You Sick Of?
Admittedly, I'm rather exhausted by things today. I'm just sick and tired of some of the insanity that's rampant today and I need a breather in fighting it.
What are some of the things that comprise this insanity we're seeing? The things that I am most fed up with include, but are not limited to:
What are some of the things that bother you most?
What are some of the things that comprise this insanity we're seeing? The things that I am most fed up with include, but are not limited to:
- A president who seems hell-bent on growing the government and extending its reach into our lives, all the while denying that that's what he wants to do
- Violence on both sides of the political spectrum. While I understand the impulse, the lack of self-control is appalling (and just for the record, I believe the violence is more prevalent on the left).
- The double standard that exists among Democrats; they accuse Republicans of actions that they themselves indulge in regularly.
- The corruption in the "sideline" media (can't really call them mainstream anymore). Note to the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, et al.: you're supposed to be the watchdog of government, not the lap dog, and that includes reporting Democrat scandals and misdeeds.
- Demonizing Tea Party attendees. For these reporters calling us extremists, you might have a little more credibility if you'd actually attend a tea party or two and talk to some of the people there.
- An administration that is grossly immature, thin-skinned, and arrogant
- A president who bows and scrapes to our enemies and insults and alienates our allies and friends
What are some of the things that bother you most?
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Set-Up for November
"If Congress decides we're not going to do it . . . then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that's how democracy works, with the elections coming up. " - Barack Obama
With that statement, Obama is setting the stage for shifting the blame away from himself for the health-care debacle. First, note that he's putting the onus on Congress, not himself or his lack of leadership. Second, he undoubtedly knows the Democrats are going to suffer losses, possibly of catastrophic dimensions, in the November elections. It should be obvious to everyone, with the exception of those who still blindly hang on to the delusion that Obama is doing a great job, that after November, BO is going to say that the Dems lost votes because they failed to pass health-care reform.
Will anyone believe that? Some hardcore lefties probably will; the rest of America, not so much. What many on the left will never understand is that Democrats will be voted out of office not because they failed to pass health-care reform, but because they attempted a governmental take-over of health-care, all the while ignoring our protests.
With that statement, Obama is setting the stage for shifting the blame away from himself for the health-care debacle. First, note that he's putting the onus on Congress, not himself or his lack of leadership. Second, he undoubtedly knows the Democrats are going to suffer losses, possibly of catastrophic dimensions, in the November elections. It should be obvious to everyone, with the exception of those who still blindly hang on to the delusion that Obama is doing a great job, that after November, BO is going to say that the Dems lost votes because they failed to pass health-care reform.
Will anyone believe that? Some hardcore lefties probably will; the rest of America, not so much. What many on the left will never understand is that Democrats will be voted out of office not because they failed to pass health-care reform, but because they attempted a governmental take-over of health-care, all the while ignoring our protests.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Impulse Control Deficit
The Obama administration is becoming famous for making pronouncements that seem to be totally devoid of thought:
Do any of these people ever bother to engage their brains before operating their tongues? These incidents are deeply troubling on several levels. They demonstrate a lack of forethought, an inability to foresee consequences, poor impulse control and a profound lack of maturity and wisdom. I believe many of these people are simply incompetent, not real bright and some of them deserve to be fired. Add to that a profound lack of seriousness and you have a disaster in the making.
- Obama declares that he will close Guantanamo; never mind that he has absolutely no plan about what he'll do with those detainees after Gitmo closes
- Rahm Emmanuel calls the ideas of his fellow Democrats f....ing retarded, offending Sarah Palin and untold others who have children with special needs
- Janet Napolitano declares that "the system worked" after terrorist wannabe Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab almost succeeds in blowing up a Northwest Airlines jet over Detroit
- Attorney General Eric Holder decides to mirandize Abdulmutallub after just 50 minutes of interrogation by the FBI, causing the talkative terrorist to suddenly clam up
- Eric Holder announces plans to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, in New York City. This in turn causes an uproar among the public and in Congress, which is forcing the administration to find a new venue for the trial
- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood issues a statement that Toyota owners should "quit driving" their cars, then has to backpedal and says he "misspoke"
Do any of these people ever bother to engage their brains before operating their tongues? These incidents are deeply troubling on several levels. They demonstrate a lack of forethought, an inability to foresee consequences, poor impulse control and a profound lack of maturity and wisdom. I believe many of these people are simply incompetent, not real bright and some of them deserve to be fired. Add to that a profound lack of seriousness and you have a disaster in the making.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Down to the Wire
We're in the home stretch for the special election in Massachuetts to fill the vacated seat that Ted Kennedy held for decades. Suddenly, the Democrats have awakened to the very real possibility that the voters may elect a Republican - horror of horrors!
The people of Massachusetts should be outraged that the Democrats have taken them for granted for so long. Coakley apparently didn't even think she had to campaign much, believing that the voters would automatically elect a Democrat to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Life has a way of throwing us curveballs, doesn't it?
Whatever the outcome, this election has been intriguing to observe. Americans have been alarmed and energized by our leftist president and his Congressional cohorts. Apathetically sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option for voters who fear for the future of this country. Watching the Dems scrambling in this bluest of states has been fun and may well be a harbinger of things to come in November.
The people of Massachusetts should be outraged that the Democrats have taken them for granted for so long. Coakley apparently didn't even think she had to campaign much, believing that the voters would automatically elect a Democrat to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Life has a way of throwing us curveballs, doesn't it?
Whatever the outcome, this election has been intriguing to observe. Americans have been alarmed and energized by our leftist president and his Congressional cohorts. Apathetically sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option for voters who fear for the future of this country. Watching the Dems scrambling in this bluest of states has been fun and may well be a harbinger of things to come in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
