About Me

Name: David A. Jared
Email: JaredLand@sbcglobal.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Merry Christmas

It's become "fashionable" in the United States to do away with the phrase "Merry Christmas."  One can only speculate why.  Still in all, it's a tragic commentary on the state of the nation that so many people are enthralled with the idea of political correctness to the point that this important part of our heritage is given such short shrift. 
 
This is a particularly poignant time of year for us.  Our daughter is struggling to find employment commensurate with her education (she has two degrees--one in Public Relations and one in Sociology--from Oklahoma University), our son and his family live in Allen, Texas, some 250 miles away, our foster grandson-in-law left this morning for a 6-month tour of duty with the USAF in Kuwait leaving his wife and son behind, and I've been on half-pay for over 4 months, having blown out a knee plus subsequent surgery.  I've been back at work now for about a week, but money will be tight and we won't be able to do for our kids like we usually have.  My parents are both gone now and my siblings live 750 miles away and aren't able to travel.  My wife's mother is in a nursing home and her father passed some years back.  Our best friends have sold their home locally and are planning on spending the holidays with their own children in Houston, Texas.  Still, all in all, we are uncommonly blessed.  I'm still able to work and earn a living, even though nearly 3 years past "usual" retirement age.  Our foster kids live nearby and will be having Christmas dinner with us, bringing their two girls and their grandson with them and we'll have my mother-in-law with us for the day, too, and our son and his family will be driving up from Allen late Christmas afternoon, so all in all we're looking forward to a nice Christmas with family and friends.  To me, that's one of the more important aspects of the holiday--next only to the REASON for it in the first place...the celebration of the birth of Christ 2010 years ago!
 
The gift-giving aspects of the holiday are mostly secondary.  Over the years, I've noticed that our kids (myself included) looked forward more towards what they RECEIVED than what they gave, and that's too bad.  I've learned that I receive MUCH more joy in seeing the reactions of those to whom I gave gifts than I EVER got from getting them.  Even so, that's not altogether satisfactorily in the true spirit of giving.  About 20 years ago, I started a little practice that you, the reader, might try.  Every Christmas, I buy a nice bicycle and donate it (along with the receipt in case something's wrong and it needs to be returned) to Toys For Tots, or some other collector for underprivileged kids.  I don't identify myself and I don't "write it off" on my income tax.  I've never seen a kid actually GET one of these bikes, so I don't even get to see their reaction, but somehow, I get more pleasure out of that simple act than just about anything else I do during the Christmas season.  I highly recommend it.  It'll make your Christmas MUCH more meaningful in the same spirit of the original St. Nicholas who found a poor family and dropped a bag of gold through an open window anonymously.  By the way, the first time he did it, the bag dropped into a stocking lying on the floor under the window---hence the tradition of hanging up stockings for Santa Claus to fill. 
 
Anyway, to anyone who reads this, may you enjoy a wonderful, family-filled Christmas, keeping in mind that the primary purpose of the holiday is to remember the birth of that miracle child those millinea ago who changed the world for the better for all of us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's Wrong With Profiling?

The answer is, of course, nothing whatsoever.  Profiling is a perfectly legitimate tool when trying to locate or stay alert for suspects or potential suspects.  What IS a "profile" after all.  It's merely a description, both physical and behavioral, of someone or some group.  If a police patrolman gets a call that 4 black men, dressed in hip-hop-style clothes, just robbed a bank and fled in a black Escalade, why on Earth would he start stopping and checking out white Toyotas occupied by two, blue-haired old white ladies?  If he did something that stupid, he should be fired forthwith.  THAT'S all "profiling" is.  Looking only at those who fit the description of known miscreants.
 
Every, single, major terrorist attack on the U.S. (except the anomaly that was the Murrah Building bombing in 1995) was committed by middle-eastern, Islamic men between the ages of 18 and 34.  Middle-eastern men tend to be dark haired, hirsute, of dark complexion, often sporting beards and moustaches.  Middle-eastern men also TREND towards having a noticable body odor (they spurn deodorants and perfumed colognes as being effeminate) and their footwear often has broken-down heels because of their need to remove their shoes five times per day for prayers, so they prefer shoes that are easily removed such as slippers or moccasins.  These are all typical, physical and behavioral characteristics of ALL of those who've launched terrorist attacks against Americans over the past 30 years.  So, how did OUR government respond after 9/11 when they finally acknowledged the need for increased security at airports?  They started RANDOMLY searching people passing through security gates and objects of such scrutiny are as likely to be 80-year-old, Nordic women as anyone else...not a single one of whom has ever been a terrorist.  The rationale for this stupidity was, "We don't want to be accused of 'profiling'," as if "profiling" is some awful sin. 
 
Admittedly, there IS one situation, loosely described as "profiling," which has a potential for abuse by law enforcement personnel who may be prone to racial prejudice.  That is the relatively rare practice of making traffic stops of vehicles occupied by people of color for no other reason than to see if they MIGHT be committing some violation.  It happens, and we'd be foolish to imagine otherwise.   However, that's certainly no reason to throw out the whole concept of profiling as a search tool in trying to find terrorists or potential terrorists...hopefully BEFORE they can kill a bunch of innocent people.  Plus, there IS statistical data which seems to support the practice, even so.  When nearly 47% of young black men under the age of 45 are either in prison or have at least one felony conviction on their records, that does support the idea that "checking them out" may yield some criminal violation.  At least the odds are favorable that one may.  Much depends, of course, on the location and other physical circumstances such as finding a carload of young black men "cruising" an area where drug activity is known to occur, but "profiling" per se is NOT always a bad idea.  
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Apparently, The EPA Is Full of Morons!

How much are you willing to pay the government "per breath?"  The hackneyed joke about the government taxing everything but air is now, officially, passe.  The Environmental Protection Agency, the formation of which is probably the WORST mistake of the Nixon administration, next to the abandonment of Vietnam, has decided that CO2, a product of respiration, is a "pollutant" and therefore subject to THEIR regulation.  What that essentially means is that every time you exhale, you're putting out "pollution" into the atmosphere--a ridiculous concept, at best, but typical of petty liberal bureaucrats and their penchant for "control." 
 
Worse yet, the whole concept is predicated on the now-discredited, pseudo-religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  I say "discredited" because of the leaked/hacked e-mails out of the principle "authority" on AGW recently made public in England.  These e-mails confirm what many of us have suspected for years now--that proponents who insist that AGW is "settled science" have been skewing the data to fit their preconceived theories, actually lying about the issue and engaging in a concerted campaign to try to discredit and ridicule any real scientist whose research refutes their proclamations about AGW.   As a consequence, AGW has taken on the trappings of a religion, the unschooled especially promoting the whole thing on the basis of faith alone. 
 
AGW is, of course, as bogus as the Piltdown Man scandal decades ago--coincidentally also by British "scientists."   Even in the face of the e-mail "scandal" there are those in our own government who are STILL touting the 9 years of this century, a "decade (sic) that's the warmest in history" when the actual temperatures worldwide have been in DECLINE since 1998.  These bug-witted morons "explain" that by saying that temperatures in Canada and the U.S. have gone down slightly, but have gone UP in the rest of the world!  What a bunch of BS!   They are relying on Americans (and, presumably, Canadians) being ignorant of the actual data outside the western hemisphere.  
 
The atmosphere is comprised of 70% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, 3% carbon dioxide, and the remaining 7% of minute parts of other gasses like hydrogen, argon, methane and others.  The atmosphere also is comprised of combinations of these gasses, some of which are considered to be "greenhouse" gasses because they're supposed to "sequester" heat, especially in the lowest levels of the troposphere near the surface.  By far, the most prevalent "greenhouse" gas is water vapor which comprises 97% of ALL "greenhouse" gasses in the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide accounts for another 1.5%, with methane, CFC's and other gasses accounting for the remaining 1.5%.  If "greenhouse gasses" were REALLY the problem they're touted to be, wouldn't it make more sense to attempt to reduce the 97% than the 1.5%?  The potential for having a measurable effect on "greenhouse" gas would, logically, be much greater, wouldn't it?  The truth is, carbon dioxide, water vapor, etc. do NOT produce a true "greenhouse effect" in the same sense as the air inside a real greenhouse does. That term was chosen intentionally because many people have experienced going into a real greenhouse and experienced the higher temperature and humidity inside.  The analogy fails, because the atmosphere is NOT an enclosed space and solar heat can and does readily escape (or is reflected back into space without ever reaching the surface by cloud albedo) and isn't "trapped" at the surface--even with heavy cloud cover.  Oh, there's a slight (and very temporary) sequestration of heat under clouds or in high humidity conditions.  That's the reason Florida citrus growers pray for cloud cover at night when temperatures near freezing, for example.  Without cloud cover, surface heat escapes into space much more readily and rapidly than with it--BUT in either case, the heat DOES escape into space eventually, hopefully (from the viewpoint of those citrus growers) not before sun up the next day, keeping their crops from freezing.   The real "greenhouse effect" is also why deserts can become surprisingly cold at night sometimes, there being no water vapor to "hold" surface heat near the surface after dark and surface heat rapidly "escapes" into space.  However, let's not forget that it's the SUN which is the controlling factor in heating the Earth (which, coincidentally, also makes Earth inhabitable.)
 
IF, carbon dioxide "pollution" was responsible for higher temperatures on Earth, why have the polar ice caps on Mars and upper-atmospheric temperatures on Saturn and Jupiter ALSO been rising over the past 50 years?  There's absolutely NO evidence of Martians, Saturnians or Jupiterites increasing their use of SUV's or coal-burning power plants after all.  The whole premise of AGW falls apart when you ask one of these "greenie" "scientists" to explain these measurable phonomena.  In fact, instead of trying to answer such questions, they'll invariably change the subject. 
 
Given the rapidly-emerging fact that carbon dioxide is NOT causing rising temperatures on this planet, even if CO2 levels ARE rising slightly, the Earth has very efficient carbon dioxide "sinks."  They're called PLANTS.  Green plants USE carbon dioxide as food and without it would die out, which would also kill off all animal life on the planet, by the way.  The more carbon dioxide, the more plants.  The more plants, the more oxygen (a by-product of photosynthesis) and the more food for animal life--including human beings.  I'm not talking just about grass and trees here, folks.  By far, the most numerous flora on the planet which use carbon dioxide are found in ocean PLANKTON.  Yes, SOME plankton is animal in nature, but most of it is comprised of microscopic plants--which feed everything from the plankton fauna to blue whales. 
 
Calling carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is maybe the stupidest proclamation ever to emerge from the bowels of the federal bureaucracies--the EPA, in particular.  It's absolutely ESSENTIAL to allowing and maintaining life on this planet since all life here is carbon-based.  Getting rid of this essential compound is, perhaps, the most moronic idea anyone has come up with yet and is ample proof that the REAL agenda at work here has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide "pollution" but is an excuse to further regulate our lives and reduce America's standard of living in socialism's never-ending quest to redistribute wealth to poorer nations at our expense.  Let's hope Americans have the good sense to send these redistributionist morons packing come next November and return us to sensible government at long last.
 
UPDATE:  Just today, it was reported that, when asked how damaging the e-mails out of East Anglia University, which were the source of confirmation of our suspicions, might be, Al Gore responded that, "The most recent of the e-mails are more than 10 years old, so are 'old hat' and meaningless to the issue."  In fact, the most recent of those e-mails was dated November, 2009!  The man would lie if the truth would serve him better.  {Sigh}
 
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on the AGW Scam

Recent revelations coming out of Great Britain are proof positive that what we, in what the mainstream media call "the denier community," have been saying all along is, in fact, correct.  Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), that is HUMAN-caused global warming, is nothing more than a scam, designed to extract money out of the industrialized West and redistribute it to both poorer countries and, more importantly, to climate researchers.   Unfortunately, so-called "scientists" discovered decades ago that the only way to extract government research grants from both Congress and the bureaucracies was to create the impression that some sort of "crisis" exists that MUST be "studied" and "solutions" found. 
 
Americans were beginning to get pretty tired of having their tax dollars finance "studies" of the sex lives of the black-spotted, web-footed ground beetle or how much methane is generated when termites fart.  Federal research dollars were therefore in danger of being reduced, meaning many "scientists" would have to look elsewhere for funding and most businesses and philanthropic organizations are loathe to finance research that has little or no chance of being of any practical use.  Thus, a crisis had to be invented.  There had already been research scams, of course.  Margaret Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa" was intended to convince people that Samoans were licentious and addicted to "free love" of all sorts.  It was accepted as "scholarly" anthropological "research" for years and was taught as factual...until, that is, someone discovered that it was based on lies and that Ms Mead herself was a free-love advocate, a bi-sexual who was looking for an excuse for her own proclivities and, not finding one, decided to "create" a society that "shared" them.
 
The now largely discredited "research" of the Kinseys at Indiana University is another example.  They limited their interviews to men and women in prison--who, with great glee, scammed the hell out of the researchers, who then published their "findings" as fact. 
 
Then, along came Rachael Carson and her "Silent Spring" scam that ultimately resulted in the banning of DDT, resulting in literally millions of human deaths from insect-borne diseases that HAD been somewhat controlled by the judicious application of the banned substance.  Add to these, the cyclamates scam, the nitrites idiocy (bacon, ham and other "smoked" products cause cancer.  Remember?), the moronic banning of movie theater popcorn made with coconut oil because coconut oil is high in cholesterol and other, various "crises" invented by the busy-bodies and meddlers among us who think that they know better than anyone else what's "good" for us.  Thirty years ago, we were being warned about the coming new ice age as the globe was rapidly "cooling," and told that something MUST be done to prevent it or we'd all be doomed.  Now (and for the last 20 years) we've been inundated with claims that the CO2 generated by hydrocarbon use as fuel--including those from cat-converted automobiles--was creating a "greenhouse" effect that was making the climate HOTTER!  Nonsense, of course, but only now is the scam being uncovered as the left-wing media fell right in line with the scam from the outset and never once really questioned the claims--despite empirical evidence that the climate had been actually COOLING since about 1998.  Politicians, including some so-called "Republicans," jumped on the AGW bandwagon, assured by those on the left that AGW was "settled science," even though it was anything but.  The Nobel committee even gave Al Gore their "prize" for his books and schlockumentary, "Inconvenient Truths" (sic) that were replete with UNtruths. 
 
As the whole scam unravels, thanks to revelations about the UNscience surrounding the whole issue, maybe the public will demand the truth for a change. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leonard Pitts is Mostly Correct

   Leonard Pitts wrote a column published August 14, 2009, with which I mostly agree--which is fairly unusual in and of itself.  He stated that we owe a debt of gratitude to the patriotic Muslims who've given the ultimate sacrifice in the ongoing, and other, wars, and must not judge all Muslims by the actions of the moronic Major Hassan who killed 13 and wounded 42 (12 of whom are still hospitalized) at Fort Hood a week or so ago.   I agree.  He compares the danger of judging a minority by the actions of a few to the Japanese-Americans interned during WW II because of Pearl Harbor.  Again, I agree.  There most assuredly have been Muslim-Americans who've served honorably, and even heroically, in the U.S. military services.  Of that there's no argument.
 
   Where Mr. Pitts goes wrong is in speculating that Hasan's motivations MAY have been akin to the psycopaths at Columbine, Virginia Tech or in the Murrah Building bombing in 1995 in Oklahoma City.  Not a single one of these criminals were admirers of jihadists, lectured others on how the U.S. military "deserves" to be attacked by all Muslims, communicated with known jihadists frequently, or shouted "Allahu akbar!" (God is Great!  The battle cry of jihadis) while shooting innocent, unarmed men and women at point-blank range without descrimination.   Hasan's behavior as much as a year ago gives ample explanation.  He was a radical, jihadist, anti-American who was also a life-long Muslim. 
 
   One thing Mr. Pitts did NOT do (to his credit) is to invent a non-existent psychological disorder (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by Proxy) as The New York Times and the rest of the so-called "mainstream media" did immediately following the shootings to find an "excuse" for them. 
 
   In my opinion, the REAL culprit here is the government's rush to political correctness in the name of "diversity."   One "general" even stupidly said that "loss of 'diversity' in the military would be a worse tragedy than the shootings!"  He should be asked to resign immediately.  Certainly so if he really believes that nonsense.  In the name of this idiotic concept of "diversity," the Army ignored clear signs that Hasan was a potentially serious danger and the ONLY reason was that they were afraid of being accused of bias towards Muslims.  Stupid doesn't begin to cover it.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ft. Hood Was NO "Tragedy."

   ...it was simply a horrendous crime against humanity.  A flood, hurricane or tornado that kills dozens is a "tragedy."  Premeditated murder is NOT and shouldn't be treated as one.  Also, Major Hassan should NOT be referred to as a "suspect" in the shootings.  I understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law, but we don't LIVE in "a court of law."  We live in the real world.  Besides, that legal concept SHOULD be, "Innocent FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CONDUCT OF A TRIAL until such time as one's guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt by the preponderance of competent evidence."  That's NOT the same thing as being actually "innocent."  The media seems, these days, to be so "sensitive" to the concept of pre-judging people like this guy that they've stooped to using language that confuses the issue.  The man was CAUGHT IN THE ACT of murdering people and shot down like the dog he is.  There is no question of his guilt and the trial will ultimately be a waste of time, money and effort.  The same could be said of ANY murderer, rapist, thief, robber or arsonist CAUGHT IN THE ACT.  I can understand the necessity of conducting trials for people caught up in circumstances in which it could APPEAR they were (or have been) commiting a crime prior to arrest.  However, in cases like this, where the perpetrator was CAUGHT IN THE ACT, with dozens of witnesses, we'd be better off just standing them against a wall somewhere close by.
 
Also, we've got to quit pretending that Islam is a "religion of peace."  Read the Q'uran sometime to determine for yourselves just how "peaceful" it is.  Secondly, IF it were really a "religion of peace," non-militant Muslims would not celebrate "successes" by militant factions, admire homicide bombers to the point of encouraging their own children to participate and tolerate the indoctrination their children are receiving in Islamic madrassas--even here in the United States.  Some Israeli once said, "Peace in the Middle East will never happen unless and until Palestinian parents learn to love their own children more than they hate Israeli children."
 
The piece of filth that shot all those strangely unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood last week is currently receiving the excellent medical care available from the government that he hates so virulently.  If I were in charge, he'd get a bandage slapped on his wounds to keep him from bleeding all over the floor...period.  I say "strangely unarmed" intentionally.  We have the best-trained military personnel in the world yet don't trust them to handle firearms on their own bases.  How idiotic is THAT, I ask you?  The policy was instigated in 1993 by President Clinton and was allowed to continue under President Bush.  Why?  I submit that the death-toll would have been MUCH lower (or maybe even reduced to one) had the Army not been subjected to such PC nonsense.  The idiocy of prohibiting qualified, licensed concealed-carry-holders from bearing arms on military bases is akin to the stupidity of banning such people from carrying on airliners--which would have PREVENTED 9/11.  It would have prevented THIS incident, too.
 
The only "tragedy" associated with the Fort Hood murders was the tragedy of our utter stupidity in allowing the anti-gun idiots to dictate policy.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Obama Lost Virginia and New Jersey

   As hard as it will undoubtedly be for him and his advisors to admit.  November 3rd's elections were a referendum on the Obama agenda for America, and that agenda was rejected roundly.  The mid-term elections next year are likely to be a further extension of that same rejection of an agenda predicated on more and bigger, more intrusive government, out-of-control spending of money we don't have and dithering on matters of national security. 
 
   My guess is that the hubris and arrogance of Washington Democrats will allow many (if not most) of them to rationalize those defeats, consoling themselves that they "saved" a safe Democrat seat in California and gained one in NY-23.  That's good, in one sense, because it will leave them basically unprepared for what's going to inevitably happen to them next November.  If they thought 1994 was a "disaster" they won't believe what's going to happen in 2010. 
 
   Democrats' single most obvious weakness is their inability to understand that the country doesn't share their far left ideas and philosophy and doesn't WANT to "change" our form of government to a virtual fascist state.  In part, that's because they limit themselves to social and "business" contacts that DO share their opinions and rarely even HEAR opposing voices and dismiss those they DO hear as manufactured by their concept of a "right-wing cabal" that's motivated by greed.  That's why the Democrats' "leadership" dismissed the tea partiers last summer as "astroturf" and not a "real" grassroots movement.  It's apparent that many of them actually BELIEVE that myopic vision of their opposition.
 
   This all reminds me of the newswoman who, in 1972 expressed disbelief that Richard Nixon had scored a landslide victory saying, "How can that be?  I don't know a single person who voted for him."  What's telling, of course, is that's probably a perfectly true statement.  She probably DOESN'T know a single person who voted for Nixon and more's the pity.  When you socialize and do business ONLY with those who think and believe as you do, you get a BADLY skewed idea about what the rest of the country believes and thinks.  That MAY be why so many Congress critters go there and suddenly become big-government advocates, even if they were conservatives to begin with.  Washington D.C. is awash with liberal tub-thumpers and they use up most of the oxygen there.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Show Me Where In The Constitution.....

....is a provision which gives The White House the authority to decide for itself what is and what is not a "news" organization.
 
....is a provision which gives Congress the authority to dictate how much ANYONE should be paid for their work in private businesses--including a "minimum wage law".
 
....it says that anyone has a "right" to commit infanticide which was the basis of the Roe vs Wade decision--and don't try to hand me that nonsense about "auras" or "penumbras".
 
....it limits the amount of political "speech" to which anyone is entitled.
 
....it permits spending money, except in dire emergencies, that the government doesn't yet have.
 
....there is a provision which exempts certain classes of citizens from the laws passed governing everyone else.
 
....it permits Congress to REQUIRE citizens to purchase ANYTHING just because Congress believes it's a good idea to do so, and allows Congress to fine anyone who chooses not to make such a purchase.
 
....there is a clause, phrase or even a SENTENCE which allows Congress OR the President to set aside "public lands" solely for the purpose of PREVENTING the resources such lands contain from being exploited. 
 
For that matter, show me where in the Constitution there exists a clause, phrase or sentence which allows Congress to dip into the national treasury to give (or even just loan) public money to any private business, individual or entity which finds itself in a financial bind.
 
Until someone can show me how any of these activities--all of which are currently being practiced by this Congress and administration--are constitutional, I'm forced to assume that NONE of them are and will do whatever I can do to kick out of office ANY politician, Republican OR Democrat, who supports any of these things.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Here's How the Left Wants it to Work!

   It's sometimes hard to understand, what with all the noise in the MSM about how "eeeeevil" Republicans are for not wanting a government-run health-care system.  In fact, the Democrats (ably aided and abetted by their friends in the MSM) keep insisting that nothing that the Democrats want even remotely resembles socialized medicine and that such accusations by those on the right are simply irrational, conspiracy theories.   I am NOT a "conspiratorialist."  I am not one who believes that the Rothchild Bankers are secretly manipulating our government or that one must be a member of the Trilaterals in order to get elected to Congress or to the Presidency.  I do not believe that LBJ had JFK killed or that George W. Bush encouraged 9/11 so he could exact revenge against Hussein for trying to assassinate his father.
 
   I DO believe, however, that we are afflicted with what amounts to a "shadow government," but it's been forming openly (more or less) and with our tacit approval.  It's the federal bureaucracies, largely unaccountable to the American people and safe in their little, civil-service-protected enclaves all over the country.  There are probably lots of government employees who went to work for the government for altruistic motives.  However, there are many more who went to work for the federal government for very different reasons--the work isn't overly demanding, the pay is pretty darned good and rises frequently regardless of merit, one can promote virtually ANYTHING one wants and be relatively in cognito in doing so and civil service rules make it VERY difficult to be fired for cause--if not impossible.   Those gravitating to such jobs are frequently left of center in political orientation, many now in positions of some authority originating from the "flower children" of the 60's who somehow got the idea that the world "owes" them a living. 
 
   That all said, let's get to the main point...the "Health Care" bills.  These are all premised on the totally phony idea that somehow "a crisis" exists in America's health care system.  The first claim is that there are 47 million Americans without health care.  Bushwah!  NO Americans are without health care...period.  There are some that are without health care INSURANCE, but that's certainly not the same thing--or even close.  About half of that 47 million are without health care insurance BY CHOICE.  They're either young and healthy and don't think they NEED such insurance or they're well-off enough that they pay for their health care out of their own pockets.  Another 12-15 million are illegal aliens who don't want to pay the premiums necessary out of their own pockets and certainly aren't ENTITLED to a single social service available to either citizens or LEGAL immigrants, even though they DO take advantage of them by utilizing the "free" services all publically-supported emergency rooms are REQUIRED by federal law to provide to the indigent, which means that you and I provide them with "free" medical care.  It's estimated, for example, that in Los Angeles public hospitals 85% of births are to illegal aliens--primarily from Mexico--almost ALL of which are paid for by taxpayers.
 
   Secondarily, the leftists in the government...including the Democrats in Congress...are trying to tell us that the "public option" is designed to "lower the costs of health care" by giving people "a choice" between the public option and private insurance.  What's not mentioned, of course, is that, not being required to show a profit, the per-participant, out of pocket costs of the "public option" are bound to be lower than premiums paid to private insurers.  Let's assume that you own a small business and have been providing health insurance for your employees.  Along comes "health care," public option insurance, funded by the government.  Even though all the bills under consideration assess a "penalty" on small businesses who don't provide health insurance for their employees, it's STILL less costly than the private insurance premiums the business has been paying so he cancels the private insurance and places his employees in the "public option" system.  If enough businesses take advantage of this system, eventually private insurance companies will go under and disappear, leaving ONLY the "public option" system which will become a socialized medicine, single-payer system, just like what exists in Canada and Great Britain today...which is PRECISELY what the left ultimately wants instituted in this country.    Obama himself has proclaimed that a government-funded, single-payer system is what he ultimately wants to see here, "although I realize that it may take 10 to 20 years down the road to come to fruition!"
 
Write your Congresscritters, regardless of their political leanings, and INSIST that they throw out ANY efforts to institute this so-called "public option" as part of their plans to revamp 1/6th of the national economy...a stupid idea, in and of itself.
 
  
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Wins the American League Cy Young Award!!!

  "Based on his single throw (which made it to the catcher in one hop) opening the current season, Obama has been deemed worthy of the American League's Cy Young Award for the 2009 season."  That scenario is just about as plausible as his being given the Nobel Peace Prize after less than 10 months in office...ten months during which he accomplished precisely NOTHING to promote "peace" anywhere on the planet.  It seems the Nobel selection committee has gone completely 'round the bend, awarding what used to be a prestigious prize to a completely empty suit...apparently solely on the strength of his willingness to trash his own country before foreign heads of state, which is, in reality, the only thing he's yet done on the international scene.
 
   To make the issue even worse, the actual voting which SELECTED Barrack Hussein Obama as this year's recipient took place before he'd spent 15 DAYS in office!  He was sworn in on January 20th and less than two weeks later he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize!!!   For what?  Admittedly, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke in recent years.  One previous winner spent the last 8 years "dreaming" of the assassination of George W. Bush!  A REALLY "peaceful" attitude, that!  Then it was awarded to Yassar Arafat, the murderer of thousands of Israelis both before and after the award was given.  Then it was later given to former President Jimmy Carter, whose only claim to "peace" was that he failed in his one attempt to free the Embassy Staff hostages from Iranian hands thus avoiding an actual shoot-out and, finally, the award was given to former VP Al Gore, primarily on the strength of his production of a film on phony "global warming" that was filled with lies, half-truths and made-up statistics.  I suppose they thought it was "peaceful" for him to make a hundred million dollars or so on the strength of this completely bogus concept instead of dealing arms, huh?
 
   In short, the Nobel committee has, once again, made utter fools of themselves and denigrated the entire concept of the Nobel Prize.  Alfred Nobel must be spinning in his grave!
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From Little ACORNS Monstrous Scandals Do Grow!

Let's not forget that Obama, early in his campaign, BRAGGED about his association with ACORN, what he characterized as a "community organizing" group.  Despite the denials on camera by liberals like Alan Colmes, he trained ACORN workers--likely straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  He represented ACORN as an attorney in the 90's when they sued to force Chicago banks to "relax the rules" and permit blacks to make home loans they were eventually unable to repay, contributing to the mortgage crisis.  During a meeting with ACORN people, he assured them that "they'd have a seat at the table when he got into the White House."  In short, his ties to this group are long and deep, despite his current denials.
 
What may be one of the most corrupt political action organizations in recent history is finally getting the public airing that it SHOULD have gotten at LEAST during the last election cycle--but which was largely ignored by the so-called "mainstream media," in large measure in order to protect Obama from the inevitable fallout from his close association with them.  ACORN was active all over the country for the past dozen years or so, but every time they got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar the MSM came to their rescue by spiking any stories about their corruption and trying to pass the stories off as being figments of conservative imaginations.  Of course, that didn't always work since 14 or 15 State Attorneys General had launched investigations into their corrupt practices in voter registrations....voters like Mickey Mouse and Julius Caesar, for example.  I even saw one for Cesare Borgia, for Pete's sake, indicating that THAT ACORN worker was at least marginally European history-literate!
 
If this scandal doesn't bring the MSM back into the fold of being HONEST journalists, probably nothing will.  Still, I'm not holding my breath. 
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bank of WHAT?

Last week, a young marine from Gaffney, South Carolina, was laid to rest there--the victim of a roadside IED in Afghanistan.  One of his neighbors, who'd known him all his life, set out small American flags along the route of the funeral procession to honor this fallen marine.  The branch manager of a local branch of the Bank of America pulled up all the flags and took them inside.  When the neighbor woman inquired, she was told that it was "corporate policy" of the Bank of America to not allow such displays on bank property, lest they "offend" some of their customers!
 
Remember now, this is a branch of the same Bank of America which was the recipient of some $47 BILLION in tax dollars to "bail out" the bank from its own ill-advised lending practices.  "Some of their customers might be OFFENDED by the display of American flags?"  What customers ARE those, anyway?  Osama bin Ladin?  Could this woman be THAT stupid and still keep her job as "branch manager?"  BOA "spokesmen" have been on Fox this morning trying to explain away this incident, but if one of their own branch managers "misunderstood" corporate policy to this extent, what does that say about their judgement?   The outrage in Gaffney has produced a virtual "run" on this bank branch as local residents remove their accounts and move them to other local banks, which is as it should be.  It should happen all over the country.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Morally Bankrupt Left

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and others of the Democrat majority have been virtually livid over the criticism they, and other Democrat Congresscritters, have been hearing at the few honest town hall meetings we've been seeing this past month.  Their immediate reaction was, at first, to denigrate those critics, referring to them as a "mob," "nazis," "brownshirts" and implying...no, STATING...that they were not REALLY representative of the American people, that the complaints weren't REALLY from a true grassroots movement, but were part of "an Astroturf movement."  In other words, a FAKE grassroots movement.  That is, of course, patent nonsense, but what's even MORE ironic about those claims is that they are being made by the "leadership" of the political party that INVENTED "Astroturf" shows at political rallies and events.  It's what Obama spent much of his early career doing, in point of fact.  That's what a Democrat "Community Organizer" DOES--gather together groups of people, well-trained in what to say, what signs to carry and how to appear "representative" of a specific constituency so their minions in the various media will think their support for a particular political position or bill is spontaneous"...and the majority position.  And, if one cannot get a majority of the people to support the left's position, the media will simply interview a hundred or so participants and then actually publicize only the three or four who espoused the left's point of view.   A former cameraman for ABC TV told the story of the networks' news people interviewing voters in Nicaragua when the people there threw out the Sandinistas.  He told of how the interviewers spoke to over 70 people as they left the polling places.  When the interviews were shown on American TV, the only interviews shown were of the four Sandinista supporters out of that 70!  Of course, Ortega and his bunch were sent packing, but if you'd watched ABC on election night, you'd have thought the Sandinistas had run away with the election.
 
There's nothing inherently wrong with "Astroturfing" except that the publicity Astroturfers receive from the leftist mainstream media gives the viewing or reading public the false impression that their position IS "the majority opinion" when it's anything but.   One of the reasons for the phenomenal growth of conservative talk radio was something that Rush Limbaugh discovered--that there was a HUGE audience out there who were conservative in philosophy, but whose views were virtually absent from the airways because of the leftward bent of the major broadcast media and entertainment industry.  He was able to exploit the fact that talk radio was NOT so dominated and realized that there was a huge hunger for someone to articulate the political philosophy of conservatives who had been thinking of themselves as isolated and "out of touch."  Rush was responsible for the still-growing realization that conservatives are actually in the MAJORITY in this country...though if you limit your "news" to the so-called "mainstream press" you'd never know that.
 
The Left is all about deception and in that sense it's morally bankrupt.  Besides the aforementioned "Astroturfing," the left campaigns one way and governs the opposite, yet are provided with "cover" by their media sycophants for such perfidy.  They NEVER tell you what they REALLY believe and want this country to become.  Otherwise they'd NEVER get elected because the American people simply, as a whole, do NOT believe that the government should be the answer to every problem--and the left most assuredly DO.  They (the left) are about power and control.  They'll TELL us that the "love America," but that's really "cover" for loving what THEY think America should be...and not what it IS.  To the left, nothing about America is admirable.  They focus on the sins of our past such as slavery and our admittedly-shabby treatment of the Indians instead of the simple fact that the entire World is better off for our having existed.  They ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of WHITE people died in order to end the institution of slavery and focus instead on some of the Founders' ownership of slaves.  They also ignore that slavery had existed throughout human history and in every culture and that people of ALL races were victimized by it...not just blacks.  Instead, they focus their attention and outrage on white slave-owners in the U.S., conveniently forgetting that there were black freemen who ALSO owned slaves prior to the Civil War and that the initial enslavement was usually done by black tribal "leaders" and, in general, passed through the hands of Arab slavers before the slaves ever saw a white man.
 
By teaching revisionist history in our schools, including such stupidity as "Black Studies" in our universities, the left is intentionally keeping our kids ignorant of their heritage and the principles upon which this nation was originally founded...even if we DID fall short of adhering to those principles from time to time.  Because we sometimes failed to adher to them does NOT mean they didn't exist and should be ignored and not incorporated into the cirricula of our schools. 
 
 
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Memorial For Kennedy at MY Expense!

Melissa Lafsky, writing on The Huffington Post blogs, recently opined that Mary Jo Kopechni "might think it was worth it"--presumably "it" being the fact that her death at the hands of Teddy Kennedy's poor judgement and lack of courage and character was the primary reason Teddy-boy never thereafter was considered a serious candidate for the Presidency, which kept him in the Senate for 47-odd years instead.  I realize that the left considers Edward Kennedy to be "The Lion of the Senate," whatever THAT means, but the fact is, he was pretty ineffectual as a senator and didn't accomplish much of anything except earning a reputation for being a hard drinker and womanizer.  His signature legacy will undoubtedly be that he successfully staved off efforts to build a wind-farm in his favorite playground off Cape Cod while DEMANDING that such things be built elsewhere--presumably where he and his millionaire buddies who live or vacation on Martha's Vinyard won't have to see them.
 
His stated "signature" issue has been "universal health care" for at least the last 30 years or so.  Thankfully, he was never able to make it happen--at least in part because he was never the "compromiser" he was reputed to be.  Like most liberal Democrats, to them "compromise" means, "Do it OUR way, or else!"  I've always wondered why the Republicans never seemed to get that.  It always seems that it's the conservative perspective that's compromised...never the liberal's.
 
Teddy Kennedy was an intellectual lightweight.  He may have been a "nice guy."  I never met him.  But based on his public and private behavior that we know about, he's not the sort of man with whom I'd care to spend time.   The citizens of Massachusetts have maintained some sort of pseudo-love affair with the Kennedy family.  Only they know why.  Possibly it's because these folks were adept at "bringing home the bacon"...that is, getting goodies for the State out of the federal coffers.  That, after all, is the principle reason former clansman, Robert Byrd of West Virginia has managed to stay in the Senate for such a long time.  Half the bridges, highways, post offices and other public buildings in that State are named for him, after all.
 
The very LAST thing we need is some sort of "memorial" erected to the memory of Sen. Kennedy...most especially, we do NOT need "universal health care" passed in his memory.   Not with MY nickel, anyway.  I have no desire to "lionize" this badly-flawed man with a trillion-dollar entitlement named after him.  I predict that if the Democrats succeed in passing Obamacare, riding on the maudlin coattails of Kennedy's passing, they'll pay a HUGE price for doing so in the next two election cycles...which, of course, wouldn't be a BAD thing, except that we'd have socialize medicine to live with until we can return some sanity to Washington D.C. at who knows WHAT cost in the meantime.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Anti-American "Presidency"

I never thought I'd see it happen in my lifetime, but it appears that we've elected our first "President" who's actually anti-American!  Obama has surrounded himself in the Executive Branch with some of the most radical, far-left, anti-American staffers in the country and is blithely transforming the federal bureaucracy (which was ALREADY pretty far left) into a hotbed of radical, communist-oriented anarchists.
 
His Attorney General recently announced that he intends to hire a "special prosecutor" to investigate whether or not the CIA was guilty of criminality when it interrogated those 5 or 6 terrorists using "enhanced techniques" in the wake of 9/11.  Nevermind that those interrogations garnered VERY valuable intelligence that we KNOW prevented several other planned attacks on the United States.  The left is scrambling all over itself trying to find something to use to discredit President Bush and those in his administration.  It still galls them to know that the only President impeached for criminal behavior was a Democrat and they're looking for "payback," even if it's bogus.
 
I can think of few things more calculated to weaken the United States than the destruction of our intelligence community, which THIS act is designed to do.   If the AG's decision does nothing else, it gives aid and comfort to our enemies...the Islamic Jihadists and others. 
 
Almost from the first day he was in office, Obama has traveled all over the world, giving speeches which essentially apologize for what and who we are as a nation.  Never once has he mentioned America's unbounded generosity..even to our enemies when they find themselves in trouble from natural disasters.  America is ALWAYS the first country on the scene with help, money, medical care, search and recovery teams and transport to safety...oftentimes quicker than the country affected's own, government-directed rescue efforts.   America has, historically, been the most generous, open-handed nation on the planet, but Obama did not see fit to point this out to anyone listening in on his apology tour--even when speaking to students who've probably have never HEARD of our generosity from their own indoctrination centers.  The President of the United States SHOULD be pro-American.  The last two Democrat Presidents...including THIS one...have not been, though Clinton was a bit more prone to talk favorably about our international efforts--particularly those instigated by HIS authority.   Even so, he never seemed to mention America's altruism...just his own.
 
Obama is doing much the same thing.  We SHOULD have seen this attitude coming a mile away.  After all, his own wife was never proud of her country until, apparently, it saw fit to elect her husband, and maybe not even then.  He may believe that trashing America makes him appear to be "urbane" or "sophisticated" in the international community.  To me, it makes me downright angry...probably because I don't claim to (nor aspire to) be an "urbane, continental sophisticate."  I aspire to be the best American I can be and raise my kids the same way.
 
 
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456Next »