Folks, I just went back to look at something I had posted way back in 2008. This was during the campaign, before we knew what we know now. And boy, does it seem apt now.
I thought it might be interesting to look back and see it under new light.
Excerpt:
How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.” The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”
And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."
The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote. In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday.
But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:
Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain things in the constitution had to be changed?”
McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”
Goldberg:“I got scared!”
Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”
{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:
Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”
Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”Can it be any clearer, folks?
Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality. Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!
It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the Plantation.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Corpus Cristi versus Ticked Off Trannies
There is gay outrage this week because of the proposed screening of “Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives”, a film by Israel Luna is promoted as a “campy homage to the exploitation films” in which “a group of transgender women are violently beaten and left for dead,” but then “the violated vixens turn deadly divas.”
Apparently the idea of transgender women being attacked "for being who they are". The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has demanded that the film be removed from the Tribeca lineup.
"GLAAD has since seen the film in its entirety and can report that the title is far from the only problem with this film. The film, its title and its marketing misrepresent the lives of transgender women and use grotesque, exploitative depictions of violence against transgender women in ways that make light of the horrific brutality they all too often face."
GLADD continues its criticism:
"By marketing Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives as a "transploitation" film, by using the word "trannies" (a pejorative term for transgender people) in the title of the film, by casting transgender women in some roles, and by citing the murders of Angie Zapata and Jorge Mercado in the trailer, Israel Luna has attempted to place his film squarely within a transgender narrative.
However, while some of the actors in the film identify as transgender, the characters are written as drag queens, “performing” femininity in a way that is completely artificial. "
{Note: yeah, that makes perfect sense, because whenever I find out that someone born male who has their tallywacker removed and a vagina created, it would never occur to me to think that they are 'performing femininity in a way that is completely artificial'. There's nothing more natural than a male willfully having his genitalia removed so he could become a female.}
"Transgender people are a marginalized and vulnerable minority in our culture, subjected to horrific hate crimes and pervasive discrimination. Relatively few media images of transgender people exist, so every media image becomes essential in educating audiences about transgender lives and working to eliminate the discrimination and violence they face.
In this context, it is irresponsible and insulting to make a film that serves up graphic anti-transgender violence as a "hook" for an homage to B-movies of the 1970s. "
Yeah, I can see why they are upset. Seriously. Here you have a group that is misunderstood, misrepresented, and often finds itself the target of bigoted attacks. It does seem very inconsiderate to write such a film, and gosh darn it, I wish this kind of thing would stop.
Now that that's settled... I would like to sing the praises of a wonderful play, "Corpus Christi", being promoted in Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas.
This play sounds so sweet and could not possibly offend anyone. You see, it explores the life and times of Jesus Christ, except that it is in a modernized form, in which the "thinly veiled Jesus figure" is a boy named Joshua.
Oh, and he struggles "to confront a hostile environment"--just like Jesus did--except that the hostility Joshua suffers is because he just happens to be a homosexual.
Yes, that's right. It's a play about Jesus as a homosexual. And his best buddies, the good old apostles--you guessed it--they're all gay too! Will there be locker room fun? You'll have to attend to find out!
Director John Otte chose "Corpus Christi" as the final project for his advanced directing class. "I chose this play to direct and produce because I am a Christian," who, may I add, also just happens to be gay.
"It is being said often that this play is a direct attack on Christians -- their faith and their deity," Otte said. "It simply is not true. He is my savior as well, and I was raised in an extremely faithful and religious home."
That's nice, Mr. Otte, because no one in their right mind would be offended by the portrayal of their Messiah as a homosexual high school student! Pshaw!
And YET, not everyone is thrilled! The pastor of the local Hillcrest Church of Christ, David Harris, says: "It infuriates me that somebody would be given a platform to be able to demean and degrade the son of God...I'm angry about it, and every Christian should be."
Now, all sarcasm aside, is this not a wonderful situation?
On the one hand, you have a film maker who decided to recreate the campy slasher movies of the '70s but include a bunch of "trannies" as the victims-turned-heroes, and his stereotypical portrayal of transgendered women just doesn't ring true, and to these gays it seems "exploitative" to portray them being victimized.
And yet, on the other hand, you have homosexuals who are perverting the image of Jesus Christ and the apostles, making them gay--which is considered sinful by Christians--and this we are to accept as "art" with nary a whimper.
To be fair, "Corpus Cristi" is intended to be a heartwarming play to "bring people together". And why shouldn't it, when Jesus is portrayed as--get ready--"The King of Queers"?
Why would that upset Christians?
Shouldn't gays see the offense they are perpetrating on one of the world's great religions? Is this not yet another example of the kind of constant abuse that is heaped upon Christians by liberals, atheists, and now homosexuals? How many "Piss-Christ" type of blasphemies do Christians have to endure before this ends?
I ask you: when do you expect to see a play based upon "Gay Muhammad"? What do you think would happen?
To conclude, there's not much to say, except "you can dish it out, but you sorry bunch of over-sensitive pansies can't take it."
Apparently the idea of transgender women being attacked "for being who they are". The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has demanded that the film be removed from the Tribeca lineup.
"GLAAD has since seen the film in its entirety and can report that the title is far from the only problem with this film. The film, its title and its marketing misrepresent the lives of transgender women and use grotesque, exploitative depictions of violence against transgender women in ways that make light of the horrific brutality they all too often face."
GLADD continues its criticism:
"By marketing Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives as a "transploitation" film, by using the word "trannies" (a pejorative term for transgender people) in the title of the film, by casting transgender women in some roles, and by citing the murders of Angie Zapata and Jorge Mercado in the trailer, Israel Luna has attempted to place his film squarely within a transgender narrative.
However, while some of the actors in the film identify as transgender, the characters are written as drag queens, “performing” femininity in a way that is completely artificial. "
{Note: yeah, that makes perfect sense, because whenever I find out that someone born male who has their tallywacker removed and a vagina created, it would never occur to me to think that they are 'performing femininity in a way that is completely artificial'. There's nothing more natural than a male willfully having his genitalia removed so he could become a female.}
"Transgender people are a marginalized and vulnerable minority in our culture, subjected to horrific hate crimes and pervasive discrimination. Relatively few media images of transgender people exist, so every media image becomes essential in educating audiences about transgender lives and working to eliminate the discrimination and violence they face.
In this context, it is irresponsible and insulting to make a film that serves up graphic anti-transgender violence as a "hook" for an homage to B-movies of the 1970s. "
Yeah, I can see why they are upset. Seriously. Here you have a group that is misunderstood, misrepresented, and often finds itself the target of bigoted attacks. It does seem very inconsiderate to write such a film, and gosh darn it, I wish this kind of thing would stop.
Now that that's settled... I would like to sing the praises of a wonderful play, "Corpus Christi", being promoted in Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas.
This play sounds so sweet and could not possibly offend anyone. You see, it explores the life and times of Jesus Christ, except that it is in a modernized form, in which the "thinly veiled Jesus figure" is a boy named Joshua.
Oh, and he struggles "to confront a hostile environment"--just like Jesus did--except that the hostility Joshua suffers is because he just happens to be a homosexual.
Yes, that's right. It's a play about Jesus as a homosexual. And his best buddies, the good old apostles--you guessed it--they're all gay too! Will there be locker room fun? You'll have to attend to find out!
Director John Otte chose "Corpus Christi" as the final project for his advanced directing class. "I chose this play to direct and produce because I am a Christian," who, may I add, also just happens to be gay.
"It is being said often that this play is a direct attack on Christians -- their faith and their deity," Otte said. "It simply is not true. He is my savior as well, and I was raised in an extremely faithful and religious home."
That's nice, Mr. Otte, because no one in their right mind would be offended by the portrayal of their Messiah as a homosexual high school student! Pshaw!
And YET, not everyone is thrilled! The pastor of the local Hillcrest Church of Christ, David Harris, says: "It infuriates me that somebody would be given a platform to be able to demean and degrade the son of God...I'm angry about it, and every Christian should be."
Now, all sarcasm aside, is this not a wonderful situation?
On the one hand, you have a film maker who decided to recreate the campy slasher movies of the '70s but include a bunch of "trannies" as the victims-turned-heroes, and his stereotypical portrayal of transgendered women just doesn't ring true, and to these gays it seems "exploitative" to portray them being victimized.
And yet, on the other hand, you have homosexuals who are perverting the image of Jesus Christ and the apostles, making them gay--which is considered sinful by Christians--and this we are to accept as "art" with nary a whimper.
To be fair, "Corpus Cristi" is intended to be a heartwarming play to "bring people together". And why shouldn't it, when Jesus is portrayed as--get ready--"The King of Queers"?
Why would that upset Christians?
Shouldn't gays see the offense they are perpetrating on one of the world's great religions? Is this not yet another example of the kind of constant abuse that is heaped upon Christians by liberals, atheists, and now homosexuals? How many "Piss-Christ" type of blasphemies do Christians have to endure before this ends?
I ask you: when do you expect to see a play based upon "Gay Muhammad"? What do you think would happen?
To conclude, there's not much to say, except "you can dish it out, but you sorry bunch of over-sensitive pansies can't take it."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Let the anti-capitalist illegal immigrant rot in a North Korean jail
Just a short note.
You may have heard about Aijalon Mahli Gomes, an American from Boston who left America and ran off to North Korea, where he illegally crossed the border--thus becoming an illegal immigrant in the Socialist Republic of North Korea.
He was arrested and now will be tried for his illegal entry into that socialist paradise.
Irony: According to Reuters News, Aijalon Mahli Gomes left the USA because he no longer wanted to live in a capitalist society.
I wonder if he's started to rethink his naive, dangerous, and stupid belief that socialist nations are Utopias now that he's rotting in a North Korean jail.
In my opinion, The US State Department should not invest ONE second in obtaining his release. He wanted a socialist experience, and now he's finding out what it's REALLY like.
Let him rot in a commie jail!
You may have heard about Aijalon Mahli Gomes, an American from Boston who left America and ran off to North Korea, where he illegally crossed the border--thus becoming an illegal immigrant in the Socialist Republic of North Korea.
He was arrested and now will be tried for his illegal entry into that socialist paradise.
Irony: According to Reuters News, Aijalon Mahli Gomes left the USA because he no longer wanted to live in a capitalist society.
I wonder if he's started to rethink his naive, dangerous, and stupid belief that socialist nations are Utopias now that he's rotting in a North Korean jail.
In my opinion, The US State Department should not invest ONE second in obtaining his release. He wanted a socialist experience, and now he's finding out what it's REALLY like.
Let him rot in a commie jail!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A tale of two gays: Ashburn and Massa
This past week we've had a lot of fun with our representatives, haven't we?
Last week, California State Senator Roy Ashburn was "arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning."
The CBS article stated about Ashburn: "Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties, with a history of opposing gay rights."
It continues by examining his "anti-gay" record in depth:
"Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws."
My goodness. Liberals had a hay-day with that incident, and not because he was arrested for a DUI. No, it was because he was apparently a "hypocrite". John Danz Jr, writing for News Blaze, wrote:
"Politicians of both sides of the spectrum carry the stigma of being self-serving liars - but how is being gay and voting against gay rights self-serving? I think it's just stunningly moronic."
It appears, according to one article, that Ashburn "came out" on a radio program and admitted he was gay--a fact that did not provoke any sympathy from the Liberals. No, instead they were infuriated.
Ashburn explained his vote against gay issues this way: ""My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district, and I have always felt that my faith and allegiance was to the people there in the district, my constituents."
In response, Danze writes: "It should ...should be evident to anyone with half a brain and even a modicum of political knowledge that leaders and representatives are elected to make decisions on their own volition and not always at the whim of the people. If you're just making decisions based on the volition of the people, you may as well not even be there."
Really? Is that what Liberals believed when Clinton stuck his finger in the air to judge the political climate and formed policy that coincided with public opinion? It was brilliant when he did it.
But even then, why should we think that every gay man must also be a supporter of all the pro-gay legislation that Liberals are attempting to pass. The second assumption they are making is that he must secretly agree with gay marriage, but had voted against it to stay "in the closet".
Is it not feasible that there are some gay men who do not believe in gay marriage? Or of declaring a "Harvey Milk" day?
But before their outrage could even go stale, we were privileged to witness the personal woes of Democrat Representative Eric Massa.
In this story, we have the delicious tale of a Liberal, pro-Obama Democrat who was a former Navy man and, as we find out, had a long history of inappropriate sexual advances on his male staff, and perhaps even on Naval men years ago. Massa, who is also married with children, was also "in the closet" and it seems tries to pretend he is not gay, even though he had very gay tickle-fests with his staffers, not all of whom appreciated that, and even made an extremely provocative sexual advance on another.
In response to these revelations......absolutely no outrage from the left.
No, to the contrary, the only outrage they are expressing is that Massa is being beat up by the conservatives.
In fact, they actually are voicing compassion for the poor little bastard. In the Huffington Post, author Charles Karel Bouley writes a piece called "Stop The Gayhunt on Massa and Listen to Kennedy":
"Rep. Patrick Kennedy got all fired up on the floor of the Congress Thursday, March 11, 2010, veins bulging, spittle flying....why? He was angry that while the Congress debates Afghanistan and the $3 Billion dollar a year escalation there are two members of the press corps there; he contends because the rest are too busy talking 24/7 about former Rep. Eric Massa's personal woes."
He continues with an empathetic exploration of poor Massa's situation.
"His family must be in such an uproar, and his life is unraveling. The one thing this man has probably never dealt with, the fact that he obviously wants to explore men sexually on some level, has been ground in to grist for the media mill and he is literally falling apart under the glare of the spotlight. He is unstable, in huge denial, struggling internally to hold on the "self" he thought he had and the "self" that everyone now sees. He can't reconcile the two and he's come unglued in some areas. I'm no psychologist, I've just been gay my entire life and have seen this over and over again."
That was almost enough to make me cry for poor Massa. I might even shed a tear or two for Ashburn while I'm at it!
But isn't it rich that life affords us the opportunity to see in such stark contrast the difference in how Liberals will treat a supposed conservative gay and a liberal one?
Meanwhile, about Ashburn, John Danz Jr declares: "Roy Ashburn, Gay Hypocrite, Must Be Forced Out of Office"
Hey, as a conservative, I have no problem with that. Kick him out and let the conservative people of his district elect another conservative to his place.
What do you think the odds are that they would elect someone who would suddenly vote for Harvey Milk day?
Last week, California State Senator Roy Ashburn was "arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning."
The CBS article stated about Ashburn: "Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties, with a history of opposing gay rights."
It continues by examining his "anti-gay" record in depth:
"Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws."
My goodness. Liberals had a hay-day with that incident, and not because he was arrested for a DUI. No, it was because he was apparently a "hypocrite". John Danz Jr, writing for News Blaze, wrote:
"Politicians of both sides of the spectrum carry the stigma of being self-serving liars - but how is being gay and voting against gay rights self-serving? I think it's just stunningly moronic."
It appears, according to one article, that Ashburn "came out" on a radio program and admitted he was gay--a fact that did not provoke any sympathy from the Liberals. No, instead they were infuriated.
Ashburn explained his vote against gay issues this way: ""My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district, and I have always felt that my faith and allegiance was to the people there in the district, my constituents."
In response, Danze writes: "It should ...should be evident to anyone with half a brain and even a modicum of political knowledge that leaders and representatives are elected to make decisions on their own volition and not always at the whim of the people. If you're just making decisions based on the volition of the people, you may as well not even be there."
Really? Is that what Liberals believed when Clinton stuck his finger in the air to judge the political climate and formed policy that coincided with public opinion? It was brilliant when he did it.
But even then, why should we think that every gay man must also be a supporter of all the pro-gay legislation that Liberals are attempting to pass. The second assumption they are making is that he must secretly agree with gay marriage, but had voted against it to stay "in the closet".
Is it not feasible that there are some gay men who do not believe in gay marriage? Or of declaring a "Harvey Milk" day?
But before their outrage could even go stale, we were privileged to witness the personal woes of Democrat Representative Eric Massa.
In this story, we have the delicious tale of a Liberal, pro-Obama Democrat who was a former Navy man and, as we find out, had a long history of inappropriate sexual advances on his male staff, and perhaps even on Naval men years ago. Massa, who is also married with children, was also "in the closet" and it seems tries to pretend he is not gay, even though he had very gay tickle-fests with his staffers, not all of whom appreciated that, and even made an extremely provocative sexual advance on another.
In response to these revelations...
No, to the contrary, the only outrage they are expressing is that Massa is being beat up by the conservatives.
In fact, they actually are voicing compassion for the poor little bastard. In the Huffington Post, author Charles Karel Bouley writes a piece called "Stop The Gayhunt on Massa and Listen to Kennedy":
"Rep. Patrick Kennedy got all fired up on the floor of the Congress Thursday, March 11, 2010, veins bulging, spittle flying....why? He was angry that while the Congress debates Afghanistan and the $3 Billion dollar a year escalation there are two members of the press corps there; he contends because the rest are too busy talking 24/7 about former Rep. Eric Massa's personal woes."
He continues with an empathetic exploration of poor Massa's situation.
"His family must be in such an uproar, and his life is unraveling. The one thing this man has probably never dealt with, the fact that he obviously wants to explore men sexually on some level, has been ground in to grist for the media mill and he is literally falling apart under the glare of the spotlight. He is unstable, in huge denial, struggling internally to hold on the "self" he thought he had and the "self" that everyone now sees. He can't reconcile the two and he's come unglued in some areas. I'm no psychologist, I've just been gay my entire life and have seen this over and over again."
That was almost enough to make me cry for poor Massa. I might even shed a tear or two for Ashburn while I'm at it!
But isn't it rich that life affords us the opportunity to see in such stark contrast the difference in how Liberals will treat a supposed conservative gay and a liberal one?
Meanwhile, about Ashburn, John Danz Jr declares: "Roy Ashburn, Gay Hypocrite, Must Be Forced Out of Office"
Hey, as a conservative, I have no problem with that. Kick him out and let the conservative people of his district elect another conservative to his place.
What do you think the odds are that they would elect someone who would suddenly vote for Harvey Milk day?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Illegal Immigration Vs. a National Biometric ID Card
I'm going to wade into potentially dangerous territory today.
In an article in the WSJ today, author Laura Meckler writes:
"Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker."
The plan is being formed by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.).
Of course, privacy advocates are concerned. Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, responds that "it is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy....We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."
Exactly how is it being "treated like criminals" to provide identification to get a job? Don't we already have to provide a résumé? Don't we already provide a SSN? Don't employers already call around to verify our employment history, and sometimes perform extensive background checks?
It seems that what the ACLU is really concerned about is identifying the people who have illegally entered the country, illegally falsified identification, and illegally acquired jobs, and treating THEM like the criminals they are.
It is clear, in fact, it's indisputable, that this would require every citizen and legal resident to submit certain biometrics in order to acquire the card. And yes, to a certain extent, this card could be used "to track citizens".
But exactly how is that different from the way the government currently uses the Social Security Number today? In fact, it can be argued that the use of the Social Security Number is in direct violation of the promise by the Federal Government that the SSN would NOT be used for the purpose of identifying citizens. The original intent of the SSN was ONLY for the purpose of providing Social Security as a form of insurance.
However, Congress allowed a perversion of that intent and it morphed into the disastrous situation we have today, in which that number is used to verify an individual's identify for just about every important transaction in which he or she engages. Need a loan or credit? Show your SSN. Need a Driver's License? Show your SSN. Need a doctor's checkup? Show your SSN.
We now have a runaway problem in which organized crime is defrauding America of TRILLIONS of dollars by stealing SSNs in bulk. What's more, illegal immigrants have become some of the primary recipients of these stolen ID numbers.
And even more frightening, we are wide open to massive electoral fraud unless we get this situation under control.
So, let me ask this question: how is it any more intrusive to carry a card that is directly tied to biometric identifiers that are truly unique to the person and prevent the identifying number from being stolen and 're-purposed' by criminals? How is this different from a Social Security Card, except that it will be used for its actual intended purpose? How is it different from the use of a birth-certificate (which also can be falsified), or a Passport?
If there are privacy concerns, surely those can be handled through legislation. Why not?
In fact, there is really no reason why we could not issue a national biometric identification card {referred to as NBIDC from now on} AND solve the problems surrounding identity theft tied to the use of SSNs.
I have travelled and lived Latin America, and without exception, every country I've visited uses a national ID card, or Carnét. These are used to verify each individual's identity when requesting a bank account, credit, a passport, and yes, even before voting. To my knowledge, it has yet to become a "privacy issue" in these countries, or at least, no more so than a SSN is here in the United States.
But what are the benefits to issuing an NBIDC?
We can't tell business owners that they "shall not" employ illegal immigrants if there is no method for them to identify legal residents.
And until the job opportunities for illegals dries up, we'll never solve that problem.
Think about the cost of continuing "business as usual".
The REAL issue here is: how do we want to go about deporting millions of illegals? Or should we give the current millions "amnesty" in exchange for this problem-solver?
In an article in the WSJ today, author Laura Meckler writes:
"Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker."
The plan is being formed by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.).
Of course, privacy advocates are concerned. Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, responds that "it is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy....We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."
Exactly how is it being "treated like criminals" to provide identification to get a job? Don't we already have to provide a résumé? Don't we already provide a SSN? Don't employers already call around to verify our employment history, and sometimes perform extensive background checks?
It seems that what the ACLU is really concerned about is identifying the people who have illegally entered the country, illegally falsified identification, and illegally acquired jobs, and treating THEM like the criminals they are.
It is clear, in fact, it's indisputable, that this would require every citizen and legal resident to submit certain biometrics in order to acquire the card. And yes, to a certain extent, this card could be used "to track citizens".
But exactly how is that different from the way the government currently uses the Social Security Number today? In fact, it can be argued that the use of the Social Security Number is in direct violation of the promise by the Federal Government that the SSN would NOT be used for the purpose of identifying citizens. The original intent of the SSN was ONLY for the purpose of providing Social Security as a form of insurance.
However, Congress allowed a perversion of that intent and it morphed into the disastrous situation we have today, in which that number is used to verify an individual's identify for just about every important transaction in which he or she engages. Need a loan or credit? Show your SSN. Need a Driver's License? Show your SSN. Need a doctor's checkup? Show your SSN.
We now have a runaway problem in which organized crime is defrauding America of TRILLIONS of dollars by stealing SSNs in bulk. What's more, illegal immigrants have become some of the primary recipients of these stolen ID numbers.
And even more frightening, we are wide open to massive electoral fraud unless we get this situation under control.
So, let me ask this question: how is it any more intrusive to carry a card that is directly tied to biometric identifiers that are truly unique to the person and prevent the identifying number from being stolen and 're-purposed' by criminals? How is this different from a Social Security Card, except that it will be used for its actual intended purpose? How is it different from the use of a birth-certificate (which also can be falsified), or a Passport?
If there are privacy concerns, surely those can be handled through legislation. Why not?
In fact, there is really no reason why we could not issue a national biometric identification card {referred to as NBIDC from now on} AND solve the problems surrounding identity theft tied to the use of SSNs.
I have travelled and lived Latin America, and without exception, every country I've visited uses a national ID card, or Carnét. These are used to verify each individual's identity when requesting a bank account, credit, a passport, and yes, even before voting. To my knowledge, it has yet to become a "privacy issue" in these countries, or at least, no more so than a SSN is here in the United States.
But what are the benefits to issuing an NBIDC?
- In the battle against illegal immigration, the only entity enabled to police immigration is the Federal Government.
- Business owners who want to comply with the law and not hire illegals run the risk of a discrimination lawsuit if they ask to see proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect might be a foreigner.
- Police are constantly being sued for discrimination whenever they stop individuals whom they suspect are here illegally.
- Because drivers licenses in most states can be acquired even without being a legal citizen (either legally or illegally by easily circumventing the identification methods in place), driver's licenses are not a good preventative measure. And in many states, that's all that's required to vote, so we run the risk of non-citizens voting for who-so-ever promises the most to foreign interests or to keep the borders open so their 37 relatives can also come here--illegally.
We can't tell business owners that they "shall not" employ illegal immigrants if there is no method for them to identify legal residents.
And until the job opportunities for illegals dries up, we'll never solve that problem.
Think about the cost of continuing "business as usual".
- Massive illegal immigration provides a source of cheap labor to companies that would otherwise have to pay more to legal residents and citizens.
- It creates a debilitating drain on our social services--such as health care--and that cost is forwarded onto all citizens and legal residents.
- Illegal immigrants have been tied directly to many crimes, ranging from identity theft, to drug trafficking, burglaries, rapes and murders, not to mention the many thousands of automobile-related accidents costing our citizens financially and in lost loved ones.
- Our jails are beginning to overflow with illegal immigrants. In fact, it's become such a problem, many illegals receive a virtual "get out of jail free" card for their minor infractions. This means that there is a growing double standard wherein citizens are punished more harshly for their infractions while illegal immigrants are repeatedly given second, third, fourth chances.
- If we can't stop their access to jobs, the temptation will remain for them to cross our borders, which will again infuriate the citizens who in turn will push for a militarized border and the construction of costly fences and other measures to stop them.
- What would be more cost effective: A thousand mile fence, or a National ID Card?
- And there is a national security element to the discussion, as well. If we eliminate the numbers of illegal immigrants we also reduce the ability for terrorists to enter the country and hide among them. We provide a mechanism by which individuals who enter the country LEGALLY with the intention of overstaying their visas (and thus become ILLEGAL down the road) to be more easily identified and deported.
The REAL issue here is: how do we want to go about deporting millions of illegals? Or should we give the current millions "amnesty" in exchange for this problem-solver?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Why hunt bears, when it's snakes that kill us?
Why do we think that “changing the way we live” is “admitting defeat” to al Qaeda?
Ted Koppel, in his recent interview by BBC World News America’s Matt Frei, appeared to drop a “bombshell” by declaring that the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing by al Qa’eda can be classified as “an absolute triumph for al Qaeda.”
Why? Because, according to Koppel, the United States’ reactions to the attempt has been so intense, and our attention so completely drawn to the attack, that they must be sitting back in their caves saying to themselves, “Not bad! If we can do that with a failed attempt, just think what we can do with a successful one.”
When Frei asked if the American response was an over-reaction, Koppel answered: “I think it’s an overreaction because we have spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, it is all that our media has been yapping about, it is much of what our Congress has been focusing on, the President himself has had to focus visibly his attention on it. Ironically, I think his initial reaction was the right one…I’m not going to over react publicly {but} he wasn’t able to sustain it.”
Koppel then explains that with all of the media “yapping” about “connecting the dots”, it leaves the politicians “no alternative but to make it look as though you are doing something. Well, doing something is exactly what the Terrorists want; they want to feel that they control our actions, rather than we control them ourselves.”
There is an element of truth to Koppel’s analysis. Al Qaeda intentions are clearly to attack the United States and take the initiative in the struggle. As in any chess game or war, an attack that elicits a response can be considered a successful move. What’s more, a minor attack (by comparison with major, complex and highly coordinated attacks such as the 9/11 attacks) that receives as much attention as this most recent attack did must surely be considered by the al Qa’eda leadership as a success.
Frei then quotes President Obama’s declaration that “we will not let a small band of terrorists define the way that this country lives its lives”, to which Koppel response that “this is the right thing to say, but it is not the way we have responded.”
And this is precisely where I diverge from Koppel’s absurd analysis. The thought pattern that is being promoted by Obama, as it had been by Bush and other leaders, that we should not allow the terrorists to “change our lives” or else “they win”, is infantile and dangerous. It is the mentality of the people who said, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, that we should not over-react and be drawn into war. It is the same mentality of the individuals who said we should not fight against the Taliban and al Qa’eda in Afghanistan after they had killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens in New York. And it’s also the mentality of the politically correct fools who still cling to the absurd notion that—even though we know our enemy, we know what they look like, we know their religion, we know their languages, we know their profile—we should be “fair” and “just” by treating all individuals with the same suspicion rather than focusing our attention on the individuals who match the description of our enemy.
Think of it this way. If a village in India is suffering from deadly attacks of venomous snakes, should they take measures to clean the snakes out of the village, educate the villagers about the appearance and habits of the snakes, and teach them how to kill them when they are found? Or, in order to avoid discriminating against snakes, should they tell them not to worry about the snakes, because Polar bears might attack at any time? “We do not have Polar bears here in India!” they might respond. “Yes, but what if one comes here? And if you are looking for snakes, and not Polar bears, you might not be ready.” You can imagine how the villagers would immediately identify the village idiot, and they would return to hunting and killing snakes.
What’s more, imagine the stupidity of the statement: “we should not allow our enemy to change how we live our lives.” Was this the attitude that Americans took to win WWII? Did our grandparents declare that they would not report for the draft? Did the women refuse to get jobs? Did they refuse to conserve their use of gasoline?
What if Americans had allowed these village idiots to convince them that, if we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it would have been a victory for the Japanese?
The ultimate truth here is that this mentality is being promoted by individuals who arrogantly believe that the United States is too powerful to suffer cataclysmic attacks at the hands of "a small band of terrorists", and therefore we should treat them with indifference, a swish of a tail for an annoying mosquito. That response would be fine, if only the mosquitoes did not carry malaria. Would these same people propose that we ignore the mosquitoes, or should we drain the swamps and spray insecticide?
These people simply cannot comprehend: we are truly at WAR.
If we do not adapt, if we do not respond, if we cease hunting snakes and instead hunt Polar bears, we give a major advantage to our enemy. And this is exactly what Obama, and Koppel, are proposing. There is no strategic advantage to giving enemy combatants a civil trial, when precedent and law allows us to try them in military tribunals. There is no strategic advantage to Mirandizing enemy combatants in the field and hobbling our intelligence community. In fact, these decisions are exactly the kind of “civilized insanity” that al Qa’eda is counting on in order to continue inflicting damage on us. There is no strategic advantage to continuing the Polar bear hunt, when we know our people are dying of snakebites.
Ted Koppel, in his recent interview by BBC World News America’s Matt Frei, appeared to drop a “bombshell” by declaring that the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing by al Qa’eda can be classified as “an absolute triumph for al Qaeda.”
Why? Because, according to Koppel, the United States’ reactions to the attempt has been so intense, and our attention so completely drawn to the attack, that they must be sitting back in their caves saying to themselves, “Not bad! If we can do that with a failed attempt, just think what we can do with a successful one.”
When Frei asked if the American response was an over-reaction, Koppel answered: “I think it’s an overreaction because we have spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, it is all that our media has been yapping about, it is much of what our Congress has been focusing on, the President himself has had to focus visibly his attention on it. Ironically, I think his initial reaction was the right one…I’m not going to over react publicly {but} he wasn’t able to sustain it.”
Koppel then explains that with all of the media “yapping” about “connecting the dots”, it leaves the politicians “no alternative but to make it look as though you are doing something. Well, doing something is exactly what the Terrorists want; they want to feel that they control our actions, rather than we control them ourselves.”
There is an element of truth to Koppel’s analysis. Al Qaeda intentions are clearly to attack the United States and take the initiative in the struggle. As in any chess game or war, an attack that elicits a response can be considered a successful move. What’s more, a minor attack (by comparison with major, complex and highly coordinated attacks such as the 9/11 attacks) that receives as much attention as this most recent attack did must surely be considered by the al Qa’eda leadership as a success.
Frei then quotes President Obama’s declaration that “we will not let a small band of terrorists define the way that this country lives its lives”, to which Koppel response that “this is the right thing to say, but it is not the way we have responded.”
And this is precisely where I diverge from Koppel’s absurd analysis. The thought pattern that is being promoted by Obama, as it had been by Bush and other leaders, that we should not allow the terrorists to “change our lives” or else “they win”, is infantile and dangerous. It is the mentality of the people who said, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, that we should not over-react and be drawn into war. It is the same mentality of the individuals who said we should not fight against the Taliban and al Qa’eda in Afghanistan after they had killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens in New York. And it’s also the mentality of the politically correct fools who still cling to the absurd notion that—even though we know our enemy, we know what they look like, we know their religion, we know their languages, we know their profile—we should be “fair” and “just” by treating all individuals with the same suspicion rather than focusing our attention on the individuals who match the description of our enemy.
Think of it this way. If a village in India is suffering from deadly attacks of venomous snakes, should they take measures to clean the snakes out of the village, educate the villagers about the appearance and habits of the snakes, and teach them how to kill them when they are found? Or, in order to avoid discriminating against snakes, should they tell them not to worry about the snakes, because Polar bears might attack at any time? “We do not have Polar bears here in India!” they might respond. “Yes, but what if one comes here? And if you are looking for snakes, and not Polar bears, you might not be ready.” You can imagine how the villagers would immediately identify the village idiot, and they would return to hunting and killing snakes.
What’s more, imagine the stupidity of the statement: “we should not allow our enemy to change how we live our lives.” Was this the attitude that Americans took to win WWII? Did our grandparents declare that they would not report for the draft? Did the women refuse to get jobs? Did they refuse to conserve their use of gasoline?
What if Americans had allowed these village idiots to convince them that, if we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it would have been a victory for the Japanese?
The ultimate truth here is that this mentality is being promoted by individuals who arrogantly believe that the United States is too powerful to suffer cataclysmic attacks at the hands of "a small band of terrorists", and therefore we should treat them with indifference, a swish of a tail for an annoying mosquito. That response would be fine, if only the mosquitoes did not carry malaria. Would these same people propose that we ignore the mosquitoes, or should we drain the swamps and spray insecticide?
These people simply cannot comprehend: we are truly at WAR.
If we do not adapt, if we do not respond, if we cease hunting snakes and instead hunt Polar bears, we give a major advantage to our enemy. And this is exactly what Obama, and Koppel, are proposing. There is no strategic advantage to giving enemy combatants a civil trial, when precedent and law allows us to try them in military tribunals. There is no strategic advantage to Mirandizing enemy combatants in the field and hobbling our intelligence community. In fact, these decisions are exactly the kind of “civilized insanity” that al Qa’eda is counting on in order to continue inflicting damage on us. There is no strategic advantage to continuing the Polar bear hunt, when we know our people are dying of snakebites.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
When idiots speak truths, redux.
This week's truth-telling idiot? Howard Dean.
Last October, I penned “When idiots speak truths”, in which I lambasted Joe Biden for saying that, if Obama were to be elected, America’s enemies would test the administration with an international crisis within six months. I had no doubt he was right (and we’ve already seen the Obama administration fail a number of tests); I thought the statement was stupid on various other levels. But it was also amusing because it was such a great example of Joe gaffe-a-minute Biden at his best.
We now have a replay of that moment, but it’s former DNC Chair Howard Dean whose mouth “doth runneth over”. And I’m not attacking Dean for lying or obfuscating (his usual tactics), but rather using Dean’s momentary clarity against the Dems push for the “health reform” bill.
In a series of interviews with Vermont Public Radio and MSNBC, Dean has attacked the health reform bill that is nearing completion in the Senate. On VPR, Dean said “Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."
Hey, I like that advice. For once, Dems, listen to Dean.
But what is really astonishing is what else he had to say about the bill.
Dean said that the current bill will force citizens to pay for healthcare and fine them if they don’t. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.” “IF” the bill works? Do I detect a hint of doubt?
So, did Dean just reveal that Democrats, for all their pompous statements of confidence, honestly have NO IDEA if the changes they are proposing to 1/6th of the US economy will work? Is that a gamble that YOU, Dear American Citizen, are willing to let them take with your health?
“The bill does more harm than good,” he stated.
He stated on VPR: “You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don't have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it's not close to health care reform."
You are right, Americans want “reform”. What we don’t want is socialized medicine. And this bill is not “reform”, but rather a path to socialized medicine. Thank you for that moment of clarity.
Mr. Dean has, in the past, uttered absurdities that solidly confirmed his status as either an idiot or a liar. For whatever reason, this idiot has finally started to tell the truth—a truth, by the way, which happens to agree with the criticisms coming from Conservatives.
One problem Dean has with the bill is that the “pre-existing conditions piece” (which would have prohibited insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage, forcing the companies to either absorb the loss—which is not likely—or spread that out to everyone else—which the companies have said they will do) has been stripped from the bill, enabling the companies to charge more to the elderly (who have a higher rate of illness than the young) and sick. Well, no kidding, Mr. Dean! So his solution is to force insurance companies to charge the same to everyone, no matter what conditions they have and how much they have neglected their health up to that point. Under his idiotic plan, the rest of us will see our rates skyrocket as a result of that insanity.
MSNBC Interviewer and liberal-apologist George Stephanopoulos tried to counter Dean’s arguments by stating all the things the bill allegedly does to “control cost:” 1) A tax on the “Cadillac health care plans”, 2) New incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality, 3) and two new Medicare panels to try to control cost.
Dean replies: “George, you just named a whole bunch of bureaucracies and a lot of promises, I don’t see cost control in this bill; I really don’t.” Now, isn’t this one of the things Conservatives have been saying? Isn’t this one of the so-called “lies” for which Democrats have attacked Conservatives? Dean has again revealed that the Dems KNOW that their plan will NOT control costs!
I’d like to say that Mr. Dean might be on the road to recovery of his senses, but other comments clearly reveal that he is not. He’s still an idiot, but for political reasons alone he has finally let the truth slip. It sounds very much like the Conservatives were right all along.
Last October, I penned “When idiots speak truths”, in which I lambasted Joe Biden for saying that, if Obama were to be elected, America’s enemies would test the administration with an international crisis within six months. I had no doubt he was right (and we’ve already seen the Obama administration fail a number of tests); I thought the statement was stupid on various other levels. But it was also amusing because it was such a great example of Joe gaffe-a-minute Biden at his best.
We now have a replay of that moment, but it’s former DNC Chair Howard Dean whose mouth “doth runneth over”. And I’m not attacking Dean for lying or obfuscating (his usual tactics), but rather using Dean’s momentary clarity against the Dems push for the “health reform” bill.
In a series of interviews with Vermont Public Radio and MSNBC, Dean has attacked the health reform bill that is nearing completion in the Senate. On VPR, Dean said “Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."
Hey, I like that advice. For once, Dems, listen to Dean.
But what is really astonishing is what else he had to say about the bill.
Dean said that the current bill will force citizens to pay for healthcare and fine them if they don’t. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.” “IF” the bill works? Do I detect a hint of doubt?
So, did Dean just reveal that Democrats, for all their pompous statements of confidence, honestly have NO IDEA if the changes they are proposing to 1/6th of the US economy will work? Is that a gamble that YOU, Dear American Citizen, are willing to let them take with your health?
“The bill does more harm than good,” he stated.
He stated on VPR: “You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don't have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it's not close to health care reform."
You are right, Americans want “reform”. What we don’t want is socialized medicine. And this bill is not “reform”, but rather a path to socialized medicine. Thank you for that moment of clarity.
Mr. Dean has, in the past, uttered absurdities that solidly confirmed his status as either an idiot or a liar. For whatever reason, this idiot has finally started to tell the truth—a truth, by the way, which happens to agree with the criticisms coming from Conservatives.
One problem Dean has with the bill is that the “pre-existing conditions piece” (which would have prohibited insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage, forcing the companies to either absorb the loss—which is not likely—or spread that out to everyone else—which the companies have said they will do) has been stripped from the bill, enabling the companies to charge more to the elderly (who have a higher rate of illness than the young) and sick. Well, no kidding, Mr. Dean! So his solution is to force insurance companies to charge the same to everyone, no matter what conditions they have and how much they have neglected their health up to that point. Under his idiotic plan, the rest of us will see our rates skyrocket as a result of that insanity.
MSNBC Interviewer and liberal-apologist George Stephanopoulos tried to counter Dean’s arguments by stating all the things the bill allegedly does to “control cost:” 1) A tax on the “Cadillac health care plans”, 2) New incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality, 3) and two new Medicare panels to try to control cost.
Dean replies: “George, you just named a whole bunch of bureaucracies and a lot of promises, I don’t see cost control in this bill; I really don’t.” Now, isn’t this one of the things Conservatives have been saying? Isn’t this one of the so-called “lies” for which Democrats have attacked Conservatives? Dean has again revealed that the Dems KNOW that their plan will NOT control costs!
I’d like to say that Mr. Dean might be on the road to recovery of his senses, but other comments clearly reveal that he is not. He’s still an idiot, but for political reasons alone he has finally let the truth slip. It sounds very much like the Conservatives were right all along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
