…are condemned to repeat it.” No truer words have ever been uttered.
In researching the situation with Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I came across a little footnote in American history about which I was previously ignorant, and that I found astonishing and alarming. If you do not know the history behind the phrase “The switch in time that saved nine”, you might want to read this article.
It should be obvious to any thinking individual that History does not truly “repeat” itself, not exactly. But like musical phrases from a symphony, certain themes do reappear and build upon themselves. Our current economic crisis, coming at the end of a roaring period of growth in the 1990’s and 2000’s, is reminiscent of what historians now call the “Roaring Twenties”. America at that time was truly entering modernity. Our “manifest destiny” was being realized, our nation was beginning to jell. We no longer had a “Wild West” suffering frequent Indian wars, industrialization was at its peak, we had recovered from the expensive (both socially and economically) disaster of the Civil War, and our participation in World War I had resulted in America sitting as the preeminent and wealthiest nation on Earth. Deep ethnic divisions were festering and would eventually result in the explosive Civil Rights Movement which, gratefully, would be resolved “peacefully” thanks to the wise Christian leadership of Martin Luther King forty years later.
But in the meantime, the bloodiness of WWI mixed with a heady sense of relief, pride, optimism, and a healthy dose of disenchantment: after all, millions had died during the war, and intellectuals began to question the traditional values that had led the world to that “war to end all wars”. The cynicism felt by many found expression in the nihilist art form known as “Dada,” which was “anti-art” (if Art had the intention of appealing to the sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend them. Simultaneously, the relief of the end of the war resulted in an exuberance that created the “Flapper” movement, redefining the woman’s role in society, and openly disdained popular perception of what was “proper” behavior for women. The Jazz Age was born, and it should be noted that at that time Jazz was looked upon with the same disdain that Rap is now: it was hedonistic party music associated with drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, and open sexuality.
So, while Europe was rebuilding after the war, America was prospering, and “experimenting” with new and “progressive” ideals. This hedonistic attitude would eventually spread to Europe and alter their cultures as well.
But it was not all “wine and roses”: the end of the war meant an end to government spending and a deep recession, perhaps even a depression. Unemployment reached 20%. Runaway inflation was destroying the economy. Three consecutive Republican Presidents combated this trend with debt reduction, tax cuts, reduced spending, and a close relationship between government and industry. “Consumerism” was born, and while some benefitted, large portions of the population saw no real increase in their overall wealth. To use today’s Progressive jargon: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Or remained equally poor, to be fair. The normalcy of the economic boom in the 1920s resulted in an explosive growth of government and spending that would eventually come to haunt the country. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover, real per capita federal spending increased by 88%.
The Republican policies worked. For most of the decade, the economy not only recovered, but also began to boom. Overconfidence resulted in a speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The Republicans tried to maintain a government role as “arbiter” and avoid direct intervention.
But when the stock markets crashed, and banks collapsed, the mood in the country understandably shifted, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs (there were actually two) are the historic inspiration for President Obama’s contemporary Reinvestment Act. The first New Deal was aimed at helping the Banks and the railroads, the key industry at that time. He abandoned the gold standard, and enacted “work relief” programs, in which the government would provide jobs to millions of Americans. The second act included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid the agricultural sector, particularly tenant farmers and migrant workers.
Take a moment to reflect upon that history, comparing what you know about the period in US history from WWII, through Viet Nam, to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the sweeping reforms he enacted, to the two decades of prosperity of the ‘90s through 2007. An historical theme runs through both periods, to be punctuated poignantly by the current economic collapse and election of President Obama. From exuberance and economic glory, to excess, moral decline, a willingness to redefine the nation's values based upon whimsical fancy, to the heady and uncontrolled expanse of government, while the investors drunkenly and greedily set aside better judgement for a quick profit.
Returning to the New Deal; Roosevelt’s plans ran afoul of the Supreme Court. That court repeatedly shot down Roosevelt’s plans for perceived constitutional violations, because the reach of government was expanding far beyond the limitations to Federal Government powers stated within the constitution.
Infuriated, Roosevelt devised a plan. The US Constitution does not expressly limit the number of justices on the court to nine justices. So Roosevelt created the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known popularly as “The Court-Packing Plan.” He would expand the court to 15 judges and appoint six new, liberal judges to swing the court in his favor and allow him control the Supreme Court.
About the time the Court-Packing Plan was about to be enacted, Justice Owen Roberts, who had consistently voted against most of the New Deal provisions, changed his votes and started approving the plans. This is the source of the phrase, “a switch in time saved nine”: by changing his vote, acquiescing to the dominating mood at the time, Roberts avoided a major overhaul of the Supreme Court.
The implications for today’s America are not trivial. The level of disenchantment caused by the economic collapse following on two decades of economic prosperity is deep and radical. The common mantra that “we must act to avoid disaster” has allowed politicians to leverage off the people’s fears, and guide the nation onto an unprecedented path. The Obama administration, enjoying an almost cult-like following, has been given free rein to spend more money in less than 100 days than previous administrations combined. The government has interfered with the contract obligations of investors and given unwarranted ownership to unions in today’s auto-making industry.
But the Obama administrations goals are far grander than this. The Progressives want to force the nation to redefine marriage, remove limits on even the most reprehensible forms of abortion, radically alter the medical industry, and force through “transformational” policies based upon hysterical fears about global catastrophe that would fundamentally alter American society in every respect. They have repeatedly suggested their interest in controlling access to guns, and nominated as a Supreme Court Justice a woman who believes that gun ownership is not a “Fundamental Right”. They want to grant amnesty to tens of millions of people who entered the country illegally and oppose local and state police forces from working with the federal government to enforce immigration policy.
Annoyed that Americans would dare to defy them and instead rally around popular media spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, they float the idea of imposing a “Fairness Doctrine” that would force radio stations to essentially subsidize unpopular beliefs and create “popular commissions” to monitor and report on compliance. And at a time in which our national security is threatened by a cabal of rogue states and radical terrorist organizations, they are gutting the national defense, hamstringing our intelligence organizations, and persecute the previous administration’s officials for the tactics they used to keep us safe.
So, if the wheels continue to come off the cart, what’s to say that the proposals will not become increasingly radical? This administration has already admitted that their philosophy is to use “crisis” as an “opportunity”. As the Obama administration looks back at the radically populist policies of the Roosevelt administration, who is to say that Obama could not “resuscitate” the Court-Packing Plan in order to lock in control over the Supreme Court?
When the effects of Obama’s massive spending results in inflation, when the dollar has collapsed due to their uncontrolled printing of worthless money, as fuel prices rise and the cost of basic necessities such as food, energy, and transportation necessarily rise and result in greater unemployment, hunger, desperation, a natural outcome will be for the administration to use the next crisis as an opportunity to enact even more desperate “temporary” measures.
Everything I’m describing is exactly what happened in Venezuela over the past ten years. Step by step, President Chavez took control of the Congress, then declared a crisis and took control of the court, then expanded the court from nine to thirteen judges. He decreed price controls that forced private industries to deliver “basic goods” at below cost. When they could not do that, he nationalized them, giving them to his friends and supportive interest groups, such as unions. He closed down the largest opposition television network by refusing to renew their “broadcast concession,” and has now threatened the last major free network with the same. He funded community activist groups that performed acts intimidation, as well as electoral fraud. All the while, he maintained popular support by saying that he was doing this in the interests of the poor, the unemployed, the ethnic minority victims of capitalism, even “to save the world” because capitalism is destroying the environment. His next step was to attempt to alter the constitution to give himself perpetual re-election.
So, tell me: is what I described about Chavez, and Roosevelt, all that different from what we know about Obama?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom
Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom
Forces within our nation appear to be on two simultaneous and radically divergent paths. On the one hand, a number of states are passing laws that expand citizen gun-ownership and carry rights, such as the one in Texas that gives the go-ahead for concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons on colleges. Similarly, on the national level, a recent Senate measure would allow loaded guns in national parks. On the other hand, “progressives” continue to push to limit gun-ownership and increase the difficulty of the average law-abiding citizen to own guns.
In my previous articles I have discussed the illogical opinions and laws about assault weapons bans, and the second amendment rights that afford all (non-criminal) citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I continue to be interested in this topic and educate myself because the “Progressives” continue to try to find ways to end-run around the constitution. I believe the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is yet another covert attempt to accomplish that goal.
So I decided to take on the Progressives’ primary excuse why guns should be banned: Civilized societies that ban guns experience fewer homicides, less violence and enjoy a lower crime rate.
But is that true?
I found a fascinating and enlightening study published by bepress Legal Series, entitled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” by Gary Mauser and Don B. Kates.
In this 117 page, highly researched and cited article, the two authors undertook the exact analysis I had wanted to perform and their findings cut the Progressives off at the knees.
For example, Progressive often cite the low crime rate in England and praise the strict gun bans in place in that country. Kates and Mauser document that this is not the case at all.
“The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws.
When it had no firearms restrictions [19th and early 20th Century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.... Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.”
They continue:
“In the late 1990s England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands were confiscated from owners law abiding enough to turn them in. Without suggesting this caused violence, the bans' ineffectiveness was such that by year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England had the developed world’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the U.S.”
Let that soak in a moment: Despite the strict gun bans in England, the violent crime rate in England actually surpassed that of the United States in 2000!
The authors extended their research to cover thirty six countries and found that, in the countries with the strictest gun ban laws, violence did not decrease. To the contrary, violent crimes were lowest in countries where gun ownership was highest.
“Nations with higher gun ownership rates do not have higher murder (or suicide) rates than do those with lower gun ownership…Consider the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates. (Actually, those nations with least gun ownership generally seem to have the highest murder rates.)”
“The non-correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of
statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of ‘homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990- 1995’ to gun ownership levels showed ‘no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate.’ Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which ‘no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.’…Thus it is not just the murder rate in gun-less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American.”
Instead, they came to the conclusion that violence is determined by a number of social factors, and that a society that is prone to violent expression will have higher rates of violent crimes, and that tools—or weapons—chosen by the criminal are irrelevant. “As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill.”
They then come to the conclusion that “one reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals, (and this is especially true of murderers) ‘almost always have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.’ So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob or murder. By the same token violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”
If you cannot stomach the opinions of these two American lawyers, consider the opinion of a retired English Police Officer who helped pen one of the premier studies of English gun control. “Done by a senior English police official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the early 1970s): Half a century of strict controls has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than ever before. No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.”
Here in America, the bias of opinion by primarily liberal journalists and editors results in a bias in published articles. Gun crime receives inordinate attention by the media, while violent crime committed by other means is often overlooked. But the headlines are everywhere, if we choose to look: Man murders wife and kids with Bush-Axe. Woman suffocates her own son. Spider Man 3 actress hangs herself. Parents of 9 year old boy stabbed to death in front of him.
In a more recent article published in 2009, Mr. Kates writes that “Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes.” Kates reviews the March 21st murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon. Mixon was “a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation”, who “epitomizes the futility of ‘gun control,’ or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults.” Kates points out that, while Progressive organizations such as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns allege that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens,” the Mixon murders were “not an anomaly.”
To the contrary, “felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced.” Restricting the access to guns for law-abiding citizens will not significantly reduce crime. As Kates illustrates, “the United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. ‘Gun control,’ therefore, only ‘controls’ those who have done nothing to merit such regulations. Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods—but with no supporting references. For there are none.”
It is important to spread this information at this time, as President Obama attempts to get Judge Sotomayor confirmed for the supreme court, because while she was on the Second Circuit Appeals Court—and she has publicly admitted to thinking that appeals courts are “where policy is made”—she opined that the Second Amendment is not a “Fundamental Right”, and therefore “does not apply to the states”. In other words, in keeping with Obama’s support of gun control laws, states can individually restrict gun ownership.
This same judge was also recorded stating that, as a Latina woman, she would probably have greater wisdom than her white, male counterparts. Overlooking the overt racist content of that statement, we find that her activist interpretation of the constitution puts in question that presumed “wisdom”. As was pointed out in a Washington Times article about Sotomayer’s opinions, The ‘Empathy’ Nominee; “The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the ‘richness’ of her experience comes to believe it should be.”
We are able to turn the tables on Judge Sotomayor in this particular instance. Being the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to the country, perhaps she is not fully steeped in the history of our nation. It may be important to note that she is also a member of the "radical" political group called La Raza, which has connections with groups advocating for the separation of several South Western states from the United States. It's difficult to see how membership to that organization could be considered "wise".
Maybe she lacks a deep understanding of the reasoning behind the second amendment, and dismisses the wisdom of our white male founding fathers. These same intellectual giants, who clearly enumerated the Second Amendment to protect our individual right to keep and bear arms, feared that in the distant future, activist judges might interpret the existence of a list of “Fundamental Rights” enumerated in the Bill of Rights to mean that any “rights” not contained therein could be considered to be something other than “Fundamental”, and thus to be abridged.
For this reason, they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words, Judge:
The Second Amendment is not up for dispute, cannot be abridged or limited, and your arrogant presumption that you were gifted extraordinary wisdom based upon your color and anatomy is false.
Forces within our nation appear to be on two simultaneous and radically divergent paths. On the one hand, a number of states are passing laws that expand citizen gun-ownership and carry rights, such as the one in Texas that gives the go-ahead for concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons on colleges. Similarly, on the national level, a recent Senate measure would allow loaded guns in national parks. On the other hand, “progressives” continue to push to limit gun-ownership and increase the difficulty of the average law-abiding citizen to own guns.
In my previous articles I have discussed the illogical opinions and laws about assault weapons bans, and the second amendment rights that afford all (non-criminal) citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I continue to be interested in this topic and educate myself because the “Progressives” continue to try to find ways to end-run around the constitution. I believe the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is yet another covert attempt to accomplish that goal.
So I decided to take on the Progressives’ primary excuse why guns should be banned: Civilized societies that ban guns experience fewer homicides, less violence and enjoy a lower crime rate.
But is that true?
I found a fascinating and enlightening study published by bepress Legal Series, entitled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” by Gary Mauser and Don B. Kates.
In this 117 page, highly researched and cited article, the two authors undertook the exact analysis I had wanted to perform and their findings cut the Progressives off at the knees.
For example, Progressive often cite the low crime rate in England and praise the strict gun bans in place in that country. Kates and Mauser document that this is not the case at all.
“The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws.
When it had no firearms restrictions [19th and early 20th Century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.... Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.”
They continue:
“In the late 1990s England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands were confiscated from owners law abiding enough to turn them in. Without suggesting this caused violence, the bans' ineffectiveness was such that by year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England had the developed world’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the U.S.”
Let that soak in a moment: Despite the strict gun bans in England, the violent crime rate in England actually surpassed that of the United States in 2000!
The authors extended their research to cover thirty six countries and found that, in the countries with the strictest gun ban laws, violence did not decrease. To the contrary, violent crimes were lowest in countries where gun ownership was highest.
“Nations with higher gun ownership rates do not have higher murder (or suicide) rates than do those with lower gun ownership…Consider the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates. (Actually, those nations with least gun ownership generally seem to have the highest murder rates.)”
“The non-correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of
statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of ‘homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990- 1995’ to gun ownership levels showed ‘no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate.’ Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which ‘no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.’…Thus it is not just the murder rate in gun-less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American.”
Instead, they came to the conclusion that violence is determined by a number of social factors, and that a society that is prone to violent expression will have higher rates of violent crimes, and that tools—or weapons—chosen by the criminal are irrelevant. “As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill.”
They then come to the conclusion that “one reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals, (and this is especially true of murderers) ‘almost always have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.’ So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob or murder. By the same token violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”
If you cannot stomach the opinions of these two American lawyers, consider the opinion of a retired English Police Officer who helped pen one of the premier studies of English gun control. “Done by a senior English police official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the early 1970s): Half a century of strict controls has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than ever before. No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.”
Here in America, the bias of opinion by primarily liberal journalists and editors results in a bias in published articles. Gun crime receives inordinate attention by the media, while violent crime committed by other means is often overlooked. But the headlines are everywhere, if we choose to look: Man murders wife and kids with Bush-Axe. Woman suffocates her own son. Spider Man 3 actress hangs herself. Parents of 9 year old boy stabbed to death in front of him.
In a more recent article published in 2009, Mr. Kates writes that “Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes.” Kates reviews the March 21st murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon. Mixon was “a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation”, who “epitomizes the futility of ‘gun control,’ or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults.” Kates points out that, while Progressive organizations such as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns allege that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens,” the Mixon murders were “not an anomaly.”
To the contrary, “felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced.” Restricting the access to guns for law-abiding citizens will not significantly reduce crime. As Kates illustrates, “the United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. ‘Gun control,’ therefore, only ‘controls’ those who have done nothing to merit such regulations. Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods—but with no supporting references. For there are none.”
It is important to spread this information at this time, as President Obama attempts to get Judge Sotomayor confirmed for the supreme court, because while she was on the Second Circuit Appeals Court—and she has publicly admitted to thinking that appeals courts are “where policy is made”—she opined that the Second Amendment is not a “Fundamental Right”, and therefore “does not apply to the states”. In other words, in keeping with Obama’s support of gun control laws, states can individually restrict gun ownership.
This same judge was also recorded stating that, as a Latina woman, she would probably have greater wisdom than her white, male counterparts. Overlooking the overt racist content of that statement, we find that her activist interpretation of the constitution puts in question that presumed “wisdom”. As was pointed out in a Washington Times article about Sotomayer’s opinions, The ‘Empathy’ Nominee; “The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the ‘richness’ of her experience comes to believe it should be.”
We are able to turn the tables on Judge Sotomayor in this particular instance. Being the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to the country, perhaps she is not fully steeped in the history of our nation. It may be important to note that she is also a member of the "radical" political group called La Raza, which has connections with groups advocating for the separation of several South Western states from the United States. It's difficult to see how membership to that organization could be considered "wise".
Maybe she lacks a deep understanding of the reasoning behind the second amendment, and dismisses the wisdom of our white male founding fathers. These same intellectual giants, who clearly enumerated the Second Amendment to protect our individual right to keep and bear arms, feared that in the distant future, activist judges might interpret the existence of a list of “Fundamental Rights” enumerated in the Bill of Rights to mean that any “rights” not contained therein could be considered to be something other than “Fundamental”, and thus to be abridged.
For this reason, they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words, Judge:
The Second Amendment is not up for dispute, cannot be abridged or limited, and your arrogant presumption that you were gifted extraordinary wisdom based upon your color and anatomy is false.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
A wonderful comment from "rto"
I was reading a story about the behavior of the Whitehouse press corp who apparently refused to turn off their cellphones and repeatedly interrupted the buffoon Whitehouse press secretary known as Robert Gibbs. The article itself was interesting and amusing. But within the readers' comments was a little nugget from "rto", no more detail provided. I liked it, and thought I'd post it so it might be read more widely. Kudos to the mysterious "rto".
Barack Obama:
A “reverend and mentor” who GD’s America...
A wife who has never been “proud” of America...
A man who runs on transparency – then seals his college records to prove it...
A man who claims citizenship – then hires a team of lawyers to secure it...
A man who would attempt to destroy another life – simply for asking a question he should have answered...
A man who campaigns on eight years of runaway spending and a deficit – then quadruples it in less than 100 days...
A man who bans lobbyist – then attempts to hire one...
A man who condemns cheats and dishonesty – then appoints one to run the treasury...
A man who vows to find all of the tax cheats in this country – but fails to turn around and confront one...
A man who has never held a job – but the most important one in the world...
A man who feels hard work should pay – for those who choose not to work…
A man who’s ability to speak – is dictated by his ability to read….
A man who feels government can solve the problems it faces – while addressing everything but the problems it created…
A man who signs a contract – but does not read it....
A man who runs a government – the opposite way he runs his home…
A man who preaches “equality for all” – then targets 5% unequally...
A man who pledges to reduce the tax for 95% then raises them for 100%...
A man who feels all have the right to own a home – even if they cannot pay for it….
A man who speaks of responsible behavior – then throws a party every Wednesday night....
A man who tells me to show fiscal responsibility – then borrows and spends money he doesn’t have....
A man who loans my money to a bank – then refuses to allow that bank to repay me my money....
A man who loans my money to a car company – then gives majority ownership to the autoworkers union who bankrupted it...
A man who supports failure “in” this country – while promoting failure “of” this country...
A man who speaks of practical solutions – using impractical methods…
A man who shows me nothing for my money that he spent – and tells me it’s “my patriotic duty” to give him more...
A man who has never run a business – but would like to tell me how to run mine...
A man who would operate the highest office in the land – similar to the way the mafia operates the lowest...
A man who pledges allegiance to the constitution – then nullifies and voids a perfectly legal contract protected by it...
A man who follows the belief that upholding the immigration laws of America – is unpatriotic and unAmerican...
A man who turns his back on this countries friends – while embracing this countries sworn enemies...
A man who is willing to provided for those who attacked this country – while degrading those trying to defend it...
A man who would even think of not providing for this countries fallen – after his order fell them...
A man who “voices” free choice – then systematically seeks to silence the voiceless...
A man who pleads for God’s blessing of America – then destroys the greatest gift ever given to it....
Barack Obama:
A “reverend and mentor” who GD’s America...
A wife who has never been “proud” of America...
A man who runs on transparency – then seals his college records to prove it...
A man who claims citizenship – then hires a team of lawyers to secure it...
A man who would attempt to destroy another life – simply for asking a question he should have answered...
A man who campaigns on eight years of runaway spending and a deficit – then quadruples it in less than 100 days...
A man who bans lobbyist – then attempts to hire one...
A man who condemns cheats and dishonesty – then appoints one to run the treasury...
A man who vows to find all of the tax cheats in this country – but fails to turn around and confront one...
A man who has never held a job – but the most important one in the world...
A man who feels hard work should pay – for those who choose not to work…
A man who’s ability to speak – is dictated by his ability to read….
A man who feels government can solve the problems it faces – while addressing everything but the problems it created…
A man who signs a contract – but does not read it....
A man who runs a government – the opposite way he runs his home…
A man who preaches “equality for all” – then targets 5% unequally...
A man who pledges to reduce the tax for 95% then raises them for 100%...
A man who feels all have the right to own a home – even if they cannot pay for it….
A man who speaks of responsible behavior – then throws a party every Wednesday night....
A man who tells me to show fiscal responsibility – then borrows and spends money he doesn’t have....
A man who loans my money to a bank – then refuses to allow that bank to repay me my money....
A man who loans my money to a car company – then gives majority ownership to the autoworkers union who bankrupted it...
A man who supports failure “in” this country – while promoting failure “of” this country...
A man who speaks of practical solutions – using impractical methods…
A man who shows me nothing for my money that he spent – and tells me it’s “my patriotic duty” to give him more...
A man who has never run a business – but would like to tell me how to run mine...
A man who would operate the highest office in the land – similar to the way the mafia operates the lowest...
A man who pledges allegiance to the constitution – then nullifies and voids a perfectly legal contract protected by it...
A man who follows the belief that upholding the immigration laws of America – is unpatriotic and unAmerican...
A man who turns his back on this countries friends – while embracing this countries sworn enemies...
A man who is willing to provided for those who attacked this country – while degrading those trying to defend it...
A man who would even think of not providing for this countries fallen – after his order fell them...
A man who “voices” free choice – then systematically seeks to silence the voiceless...
A man who pleads for God’s blessing of America – then destroys the greatest gift ever given to it....
When government owns the press
Life is full of ironies.
I remember the grand days of the GOP, when Reagan stated so astutely that “Government is not the solution to our problems; Government is the problem.” For a wonderful period of time afterward, the fashion was to reduce government, and by the end of the Clinton era, the Democrat President and the Republican Congress and Senate had reduced government enough that we actually had a budget surplus.
After the September 11th attack, however, the Republicans suddenly forgot their roots and decided that we needed new bureaucracies to “keep us safe”. That was the first irony. The pendulum began to swing in the opposite direction, heralding a return to the era of big government. The ultra-liberal Obama administration is taking this to its orgiastic conclusion, and we now see a promise of massive, intrusive government, massive spending, and massive debts. Oh, and of course, massive taxes to pay for it all.
We’re informed that “It’s patriotic to pay taxes.”
Then we are told that “higher taxes will stimulate the economy because the government won’t have to borrow so much, there will be more private capital available for investment, so interest rates will go down.”
“All this government spending will stimulate the economy and we will see record growth,” they promise.
“We have no intention of running the automobile industry,” said the Obama administration, as they “rescued” the company, declared that they owned it, fired the executives, cut their advertizing budgets in half, gave majority stake to the Unions that did not own sufficient stock to warrant this gift, and violated the constitutional protections of the shareholders by bullying them in the bankruptcy negotiations.
“We don’t want to nationalize the banks,” they soothed, while gobbling up one after another, controlling their boards, refusing to allow the banks to repay the money, and tinkering in their internal policies.
But now we have some great news to celebrate. Washington State has approved a bailout of its newspapers! Yes, it’s true. And isn’t it glorious?
No, they won’t be actually giving the papers money. You see, in these challenging times, the Seattle Times can’t compete with online news sources. They are going to collapse, just like the Rocky Mountain News and others before them. Sound the bugles, the liberals have come riding over the hills with—irony number two—a 40% tax cut.
Wait a minute. Aren’t tax cuts the hallmark of Republican policies?
Well, why stop there? As Conservatives have been saying, if you want to stimulate the economy, cut corporate taxes! Don’t stop with the newspapers, cut the taxes on the auto industry! Cut taxes on the medical industry! Reduce the costs of doing business and watch how they grow.
The flip side of the tax cut for the newspapers is something that should alarm us all. I heard a radio commentator state that the newspapers should never be given “government money”. In reality, they are not being given “government money”, but rather are being allowed to keep a greater share of their own money. But the perspective is clear: they are being given “government money”.
If a newspaper receives money from the government, how can it possibly continue to be an independent watchdog of those same politicians that gave them the funds?
I’m sure we will be calmed with promises that “we have no intention of owning the newspapers, controlling their content, or restricting their editorials.”
And we would believe them because they have already demonstrated their noble intentions with the auto and banking industries.
If anything, we already were witness to the voluntary prostration of the news media to the socialist agenda during the 2008 elections. We are witness to their continued unwillingness to ask tough questions of Dear Leader Obama. We see how they verbally berate, assault, insult, and malign conservatives, invoking accusations of treachery, vulgar references to oral sex, and misogynist denigrations of innocent women who dare to express their values.
So why should we be concerned that these same papers are now accepting bailout bucks from the socialists?
Go back to sleep, people. There is nothing to see. Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez has already closed down opposition channel RCTV, forcing them to broadcast from Colombia, and now promises a “little surprise” as he prepares to shut down the last free television network, Globovision.
But that would never happen here. This is America. OK, sure, Chavez is a socialist, and Obama is a socialist, but Obama is a nice guy. We can trust Dear Leader with our freedoms.
I remember the grand days of the GOP, when Reagan stated so astutely that “Government is not the solution to our problems; Government is the problem.” For a wonderful period of time afterward, the fashion was to reduce government, and by the end of the Clinton era, the Democrat President and the Republican Congress and Senate had reduced government enough that we actually had a budget surplus.
After the September 11th attack, however, the Republicans suddenly forgot their roots and decided that we needed new bureaucracies to “keep us safe”. That was the first irony. The pendulum began to swing in the opposite direction, heralding a return to the era of big government. The ultra-liberal Obama administration is taking this to its orgiastic conclusion, and we now see a promise of massive, intrusive government, massive spending, and massive debts. Oh, and of course, massive taxes to pay for it all.
We’re informed that “It’s patriotic to pay taxes.”
Then we are told that “higher taxes will stimulate the economy because the government won’t have to borrow so much, there will be more private capital available for investment, so interest rates will go down.”
“All this government spending will stimulate the economy and we will see record growth,” they promise.
“We have no intention of running the automobile industry,” said the Obama administration, as they “rescued” the company, declared that they owned it, fired the executives, cut their advertizing budgets in half, gave majority stake to the Unions that did not own sufficient stock to warrant this gift, and violated the constitutional protections of the shareholders by bullying them in the bankruptcy negotiations.
“We don’t want to nationalize the banks,” they soothed, while gobbling up one after another, controlling their boards, refusing to allow the banks to repay the money, and tinkering in their internal policies.
But now we have some great news to celebrate. Washington State has approved a bailout of its newspapers! Yes, it’s true. And isn’t it glorious?
No, they won’t be actually giving the papers money. You see, in these challenging times, the Seattle Times can’t compete with online news sources. They are going to collapse, just like the Rocky Mountain News and others before them. Sound the bugles, the liberals have come riding over the hills with—irony number two—a 40% tax cut.
Wait a minute. Aren’t tax cuts the hallmark of Republican policies?
Well, why stop there? As Conservatives have been saying, if you want to stimulate the economy, cut corporate taxes! Don’t stop with the newspapers, cut the taxes on the auto industry! Cut taxes on the medical industry! Reduce the costs of doing business and watch how they grow.
The flip side of the tax cut for the newspapers is something that should alarm us all. I heard a radio commentator state that the newspapers should never be given “government money”. In reality, they are not being given “government money”, but rather are being allowed to keep a greater share of their own money. But the perspective is clear: they are being given “government money”.
If a newspaper receives money from the government, how can it possibly continue to be an independent watchdog of those same politicians that gave them the funds?
I’m sure we will be calmed with promises that “we have no intention of owning the newspapers, controlling their content, or restricting their editorials.”
And we would believe them because they have already demonstrated their noble intentions with the auto and banking industries.
If anything, we already were witness to the voluntary prostration of the news media to the socialist agenda during the 2008 elections. We are witness to their continued unwillingness to ask tough questions of Dear Leader Obama. We see how they verbally berate, assault, insult, and malign conservatives, invoking accusations of treachery, vulgar references to oral sex, and misogynist denigrations of innocent women who dare to express their values.
So why should we be concerned that these same papers are now accepting bailout bucks from the socialists?
Go back to sleep, people. There is nothing to see. Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez has already closed down opposition channel RCTV, forcing them to broadcast from Colombia, and now promises a “little surprise” as he prepares to shut down the last free television network, Globovision.
But that would never happen here. This is America. OK, sure, Chavez is a socialist, and Obama is a socialist, but Obama is a nice guy. We can trust Dear Leader with our freedoms.
Miss America, or Miss Gay America?
Carrie Prejean won the battle. She can keep her title as Miss California USA, and remain the runner up for Miss America. Too bad, Perez Hilton! Your vulgar tirades and obscene insults not only did not prevail, but they left you (and your gay cohorts) with a black eye.
It sounds like it’s just too much to handle for Shanna Moakler, the Miss USA Director who had been campaigning behind the scenes to have Donald Trump kick Prejean out. Why would she do that?
It turns out that Moakler didn’t approve of Prejean’s traditional view of marriage, and the fact that the scandal provoked by Perez Hilton’s bigoted attacks on Prejean turned Miss California into the de facto poster child for traditional marriage. Moakler rankled at the fact that Prejean began speaking at events that opposed gay marriage, a cause for which Moakler is a champion.
Moakler resigned today, saying:
"Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization…I cannot with a clear conscience move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth."
A description of the role of Miss America (from the Miss America website), reads:
“Today, Miss America travels approximately 20,000 miles a month, changing her location every 24 to 48 hours. She tours the nation reaching out to support her ideals, committed to helping others. Miss America is more than just a title. She is a woman who reflects a tradition of style, sophistication and service.”
Note that Miss America reaches out to support her ideals—not some prescribed set of ideals that are imposed upon her. If the newly crowned Miss America, Katie Stam, were incapable of fulfilling her duties, then Miss Prejean would step in to replace her. And in that case, she would be free to promote her ideals, which obviously include promoting a traditional definition of marriage.
So Moakler’s resignation is a clear protest that, unless Miss America represents her personal ideals, she refuses to support it, and is removing herself like the narcissistic brat she is. In her myopic view, which she shares with the gay rights fanatics, there is only one right way of viewing this topic, and it’s her view. Her opinion is the right opinion, she presumes to have the moral high ground, and cannot associate herself with any heretics who disagree with her. Miss Prejean must appear to her to be as offensive as a White-Supremacist or a Neo-Nazi.
This arrogance cannot be disregarded as unique: it is emblematic of the intolerance of the entire gay-rights movement, because it is so closely aligned with the actions and offensively stated beliefs of Perez Hilton.
The great irony is that Hilton has been allowed to remain, and was even encouraged by Trump to return in the future. A few semi-topless images of Miss Prejean warranted a full investigation into her worthiness as a “Miss America” representative, and yet Hilton’s disparagement of Miss California as a “dumb bitch” does not draw even the slightest criticism?
In short, the message is clear: men who like sex with women but who disrespect women are disgusting misogynists, but men who like sex with other men and disrespect women are—as Keith Olbermann put it—“intellectual titans”. And only women who approve of men who like men are worthy of the crown.
Perhaps we should rename the contest: The Miss Gay America Pageant.
It sounds like it’s just too much to handle for Shanna Moakler, the Miss USA Director who had been campaigning behind the scenes to have Donald Trump kick Prejean out. Why would she do that?
It turns out that Moakler didn’t approve of Prejean’s traditional view of marriage, and the fact that the scandal provoked by Perez Hilton’s bigoted attacks on Prejean turned Miss California into the de facto poster child for traditional marriage. Moakler rankled at the fact that Prejean began speaking at events that opposed gay marriage, a cause for which Moakler is a champion.
Moakler resigned today, saying:
"Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization…I cannot with a clear conscience move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth."
A description of the role of Miss America (from the Miss America website), reads:
“Today, Miss America travels approximately 20,000 miles a month, changing her location every 24 to 48 hours. She tours the nation reaching out to support her ideals, committed to helping others. Miss America is more than just a title. She is a woman who reflects a tradition of style, sophistication and service.”
Note that Miss America reaches out to support her ideals—not some prescribed set of ideals that are imposed upon her. If the newly crowned Miss America, Katie Stam, were incapable of fulfilling her duties, then Miss Prejean would step in to replace her. And in that case, she would be free to promote her ideals, which obviously include promoting a traditional definition of marriage.
So Moakler’s resignation is a clear protest that, unless Miss America represents her personal ideals, she refuses to support it, and is removing herself like the narcissistic brat she is. In her myopic view, which she shares with the gay rights fanatics, there is only one right way of viewing this topic, and it’s her view. Her opinion is the right opinion, she presumes to have the moral high ground, and cannot associate herself with any heretics who disagree with her. Miss Prejean must appear to her to be as offensive as a White-Supremacist or a Neo-Nazi.
This arrogance cannot be disregarded as unique: it is emblematic of the intolerance of the entire gay-rights movement, because it is so closely aligned with the actions and offensively stated beliefs of Perez Hilton.
The great irony is that Hilton has been allowed to remain, and was even encouraged by Trump to return in the future. A few semi-topless images of Miss Prejean warranted a full investigation into her worthiness as a “Miss America” representative, and yet Hilton’s disparagement of Miss California as a “dumb bitch” does not draw even the slightest criticism?
In short, the message is clear: men who like sex with women but who disrespect women are disgusting misogynists, but men who like sex with other men and disrespect women are—as Keith Olbermann put it—“intellectual titans”. And only women who approve of men who like men are worthy of the crown.
Perhaps we should rename the contest: The Miss Gay America Pageant.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Not even queers should be allowed to denigrate women
In my previous blog, Hate Speech and Secret Agendas, I exposed the Left’s contradictory “values” that have been on display as they regularly complain about the “insulting” or “degrading” comments made by some members of the Right, while looking the other way as their own leaders and icons make similarly insulting comments.
Since the writing of that article, yet another incident has occurred to prove my point.
When Miss California Carrie Prejean responded to the question about gay marriage posed to her by gay activist beauty judge Perez Hilton, she bravely answered that she believed marriage should remain defined as the union between a man and a woman. We all know about Perez Hilton’s vile response, in which he posted a video blog calling her a “dumb bitch”. Hilton not only refused to apologize, but instead said:
"I called her the 'b' word, and hey, I was thinking the 'c' word," Hilton said during an MSNBC interview.
Where are the outraged feminists? We now have liberals calling both Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean a cunt, and not a word of protest.
What’s more, the issue arose during the Miss America pageant, which purportedly attempts to portray women in a positive light, showing them not only as alluring and beautiful, but intelligent and strong. When the pageant owner, Donald Trump, intervened, he decided that Ms Prejean had spoken honestly to a tough question posed to her and should not be punished for that. In fact, he pointed out that her response was identical to that of the beloved Dear Leader, Barack Obama.
But then he also said that he would “love” for Perez Hilton to return and act as a judge in the future.
Are you kidding me?
This is the same queer Perez Hilton who posted the following image on his blog with an ejaculating penis pointed at her mouth:
I have never been so disgusted with the feminist movement in all my life. No man, not even a queer, should be allowed to denigrate women in this manner and be greeted by such resounding, complicit silence.
Shame on the feminists. Shame on the queers. And shame on Donald Trump for allowing it to continue.
Since the writing of that article, yet another incident has occurred to prove my point.
When Miss California Carrie Prejean responded to the question about gay marriage posed to her by gay activist beauty judge Perez Hilton, she bravely answered that she believed marriage should remain defined as the union between a man and a woman. We all know about Perez Hilton’s vile response, in which he posted a video blog calling her a “dumb bitch”. Hilton not only refused to apologize, but instead said:
"I called her the 'b' word, and hey, I was thinking the 'c' word," Hilton said during an MSNBC interview.
Where are the outraged feminists? We now have liberals calling both Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean a cunt, and not a word of protest.
What’s more, the issue arose during the Miss America pageant, which purportedly attempts to portray women in a positive light, showing them not only as alluring and beautiful, but intelligent and strong. When the pageant owner, Donald Trump, intervened, he decided that Ms Prejean had spoken honestly to a tough question posed to her and should not be punished for that. In fact, he pointed out that her response was identical to that of the beloved Dear Leader, Barack Obama.
But then he also said that he would “love” for Perez Hilton to return and act as a judge in the future.
Are you kidding me?
This is the same queer Perez Hilton who posted the following image on his blog with an ejaculating penis pointed at her mouth:
I have never been so disgusted with the feminist movement in all my life. No man, not even a queer, should be allowed to denigrate women in this manner and be greeted by such resounding, complicit silence.
Shame on the feminists. Shame on the queers. And shame on Donald Trump for allowing it to continue.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The illusion has been revealed: the strings are now visible.
When Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said she would reject nearly half of the federal stimulus money, she was lauded by conservatives. But she was also brutally attacked by liberals who claimed she was putting her state’s well-being in jeopardy just to make a political statement.
In March of this year, she said that she would only accept 55% of the federal economic stimulus money, because “we are not requesting funds intended to just grow government.” Palin reiterated that, in her opinion, the Federal Government had “too many strings attached” and accepting the money “would create unsustainable burdens on the state government once the federal money ran out.”
The greedy guts pols in Alaska's Legislature, however, wanted the “free money”. They “conducted more than 20 public hearings on the federal stimulus package, and legislative leaders said they couldn't find any of the strings attached to the funds that Palin had warned about.”
So liberals laughed and clapped and nearly broke their arms slapping themselves on the back with self-congratulatory praise when Palin finally gave in and accepted almost all of the money.
But today we hear that the Obama administration is threatening the state of California with rescinding all of the federal bailout money if the Schwarzenegger administration does not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.
Faced with a budget shortfall in the tens of billions of dollars, the California government must find cuts to reduce their deficit, or face collapse. The legislators there decided to cut the wages from $12.10 to $10.10 per hour, which would save California $74 million. But the Obama administration, being heavily indebted to Unions, is now violating California’s sovereignty and limiting the actions the state can take to restore its fiscal health.
Strings? What strings?
Perhaps California will be the next state, following Texas and Oklahoma, to reiterate its state sovereignty.
In March of this year, she said that she would only accept 55% of the federal economic stimulus money, because “we are not requesting funds intended to just grow government.” Palin reiterated that, in her opinion, the Federal Government had “too many strings attached” and accepting the money “would create unsustainable burdens on the state government once the federal money ran out.”
The greedy guts pols in Alaska's Legislature, however, wanted the “free money”. They “conducted more than 20 public hearings on the federal stimulus package, and legislative leaders said they couldn't find any of the strings attached to the funds that Palin had warned about.”
So liberals laughed and clapped and nearly broke their arms slapping themselves on the back with self-congratulatory praise when Palin finally gave in and accepted almost all of the money.
But today we hear that the Obama administration is threatening the state of California with rescinding all of the federal bailout money if the Schwarzenegger administration does not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.
Faced with a budget shortfall in the tens of billions of dollars, the California government must find cuts to reduce their deficit, or face collapse. The legislators there decided to cut the wages from $12.10 to $10.10 per hour, which would save California $74 million. But the Obama administration, being heavily indebted to Unions, is now violating California’s sovereignty and limiting the actions the state can take to restore its fiscal health.
Strings? What strings?
Perhaps California will be the next state, following Texas and Oklahoma, to reiterate its state sovereignty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
