“A Wisconsin labor council that sponsors the Labor Day parade in Wausau is giving Republican lawmakers their walking papers — in the form of banning them from walking in the parade this year — saying they are unfriendly to union workers.”
Excuse me I’m a worker or was since I'm now retired. I’ve never belonged to a union.
The Unions are totally out of control and against the tax payer and even some of their own members only belong because they had to join in order to get a job. I remember that part very well, because that’s what my friends did in order to get work – back in the 1970’s. It’s still alive and well in that respect today in most of the areas of our great country.
In the past, the unions have done some good things for the American worker, yet they have gotten way out of control, as I learned when I got out of the Army back in 1977 and refused to join up, and the article by Newsmax shows.
I do not believe in unions within our government institutions and this article points out a very good reason that the Mayor and city council positions should NOT be political party affiliated.
We are slowly losing our country to the socialist’s. It makes me sick.
Luckily, I live in an Independent Stronghold, because that’s how I’ll always be.
I will bow down before no one other than GOD and his son Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Prima Facie
August 29, 2011 by Bob Livingston
The American people do not inquire beyond that which appears as “public” information.
Prima Facie is a legal term that translates as “on its first appearance” or “at first sight.” This also means self-evident.
In other words, if something is prima facie, no inquiry is needed to further investigate. All evidence is contained on the face of a subject.
The American people see and interpret prima facie. They do not inquire beyond that which appears as “public” information.
The reality is that most information comes to us in layers. The truth is beneath the surface and beneath the written or spoken word. Information from the public media and from official and political sources comes in layers. The first layer is what our natural senses perceive and retain as fact. This is almost 100 percent deceptive.
However, inquiring beneath the first layer, or prima facie, brings us closer to reality and truth. The more layers peeled back and the more inquiry we make, the closer we come to reality.
Some people get through several layers. A few people get to the reality that all or almost all public information, as well as public education, is false and totally misleading.
Finally, a small number of people get through enough layers of information that they come to the shocking conclusion that government is organized crime and it is every man for himself.
Most people don’t inquire enough to get to the big shock. The ones who do rush their assets out of the country.
This is why propaganda is so effective against a population. It is human nature to see, hear and translate without inquiry or without question.
The world of most Americans is a cartoon, a fantasy or a mirage. This is the product of a controlled media and “public education.”
People control is a work in progress. The system attacks the population by dumbing the people down to the point where they have no inquiry. Everything is prima facie. Everything is what the system says it is. Our lives are prescribed and defined. We do not think our own thoughts. We have a Mickey Mouse mentality, and we dwell upon frivolity.
Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the only sober voice in American politics. He repeatedly warns the American people about the evils of our monetary non-system and how fiat paper money is in the final stages of transferring the remaining savings and wealth of the American people to the money creators.
Few people are listening!
Paul has now drilled a chink in the armor of the elite’s 100-year tyranny and financial burden of the private Federal Reserve Bank. Paul teaches and explains daily about the evils of a debt money system that is in the final stages of destroying America and impoverishing its people.
Thoughts just off center comment: As an ultra conservative, Ron Paul tells the truth as he sees it. He makes serious gaffs when asked questions towards America’s evolvement in foreign affairs. I for one would not want him as the President for his lack of knowledge and clear views on foreign affairs and a few other issues. He would isolate us from the rest of the world.
How has this monster, masquerading as a central bank, survived and prospered in our midst for several generations since 1913? The answer is back to prima facie. We accept the propaganda of the Federal Reserve and its lackey banker stooges without inquiry. The Federal Reserve Bank is organized crime at its apex and perfection.
This private cartel is at this moment creating inflation and food shortages by stepped-up money printing. It is criminal but “legal.”
The American people have been well taught to trust the system, the politicians, the bankers and the bureaucrats. They are oblivious to crime at the highest levels of government and the crime of the money creators.
The United States Congress and the U.S. Presidents are scoundrels. They get elected and stay in office by promising something they don’t have. It’s made possible because of printing-press money.
President Andrew Jackson said: “If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”
“Presidents Lincoln, Jackson and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest…” (Quotes from “Bulletin” Feb. 1989 and 1991 issues, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, Colo. 80522).
My friends, the sole purpose of the U.S. Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal nor reserve) is to transfer wealth from savers and producers to the non-productive creators of fiat money. We are in the final stages of the greatest wealth transfer in history, and precious few Americans are aware of it. This is a testament to how crime at the highest levels can operate for a century under the cover of prima facie. The people simply believe without inquiry what the system tells them.
We are out of time because governments in their last days engage in all kinds of tyranny and oppression under high-sounding and “patriotic” terms. Be warned and beware. As confidence collapses, aggression against the population intensifies.
Bob Livingston is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter for 42 years. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom. His views and writings can be found at: http://www.personalliberty.com/
The American people do not inquire beyond that which appears as “public” information.
Prima Facie is a legal term that translates as “on its first appearance” or “at first sight.” This also means self-evident.
In other words, if something is prima facie, no inquiry is needed to further investigate. All evidence is contained on the face of a subject.
The American people see and interpret prima facie. They do not inquire beyond that which appears as “public” information.
The reality is that most information comes to us in layers. The truth is beneath the surface and beneath the written or spoken word. Information from the public media and from official and political sources comes in layers. The first layer is what our natural senses perceive and retain as fact. This is almost 100 percent deceptive.
However, inquiring beneath the first layer, or prima facie, brings us closer to reality and truth. The more layers peeled back and the more inquiry we make, the closer we come to reality.
Some people get through several layers. A few people get to the reality that all or almost all public information, as well as public education, is false and totally misleading.
Finally, a small number of people get through enough layers of information that they come to the shocking conclusion that government is organized crime and it is every man for himself.
Most people don’t inquire enough to get to the big shock. The ones who do rush their assets out of the country.
This is why propaganda is so effective against a population. It is human nature to see, hear and translate without inquiry or without question.
The world of most Americans is a cartoon, a fantasy or a mirage. This is the product of a controlled media and “public education.”
People control is a work in progress. The system attacks the population by dumbing the people down to the point where they have no inquiry. Everything is prima facie. Everything is what the system says it is. Our lives are prescribed and defined. We do not think our own thoughts. We have a Mickey Mouse mentality, and we dwell upon frivolity.
Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the only sober voice in American politics. He repeatedly warns the American people about the evils of our monetary non-system and how fiat paper money is in the final stages of transferring the remaining savings and wealth of the American people to the money creators.
Few people are listening!
Paul has now drilled a chink in the armor of the elite’s 100-year tyranny and financial burden of the private Federal Reserve Bank. Paul teaches and explains daily about the evils of a debt money system that is in the final stages of destroying America and impoverishing its people.
Thoughts just off center comment: As an ultra conservative, Ron Paul tells the truth as he sees it. He makes serious gaffs when asked questions towards America’s evolvement in foreign affairs. I for one would not want him as the President for his lack of knowledge and clear views on foreign affairs and a few other issues. He would isolate us from the rest of the world.
How has this monster, masquerading as a central bank, survived and prospered in our midst for several generations since 1913? The answer is back to prima facie. We accept the propaganda of the Federal Reserve and its lackey banker stooges without inquiry. The Federal Reserve Bank is organized crime at its apex and perfection.
This private cartel is at this moment creating inflation and food shortages by stepped-up money printing. It is criminal but “legal.”
The American people have been well taught to trust the system, the politicians, the bankers and the bureaucrats. They are oblivious to crime at the highest levels of government and the crime of the money creators.
The United States Congress and the U.S. Presidents are scoundrels. They get elected and stay in office by promising something they don’t have. It’s made possible because of printing-press money.
President Andrew Jackson said: “If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”
“Presidents Lincoln, Jackson and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest…” (Quotes from “Bulletin” Feb. 1989 and 1991 issues, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, Colo. 80522).
My friends, the sole purpose of the U.S. Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal nor reserve) is to transfer wealth from savers and producers to the non-productive creators of fiat money. We are in the final stages of the greatest wealth transfer in history, and precious few Americans are aware of it. This is a testament to how crime at the highest levels can operate for a century under the cover of prima facie. The people simply believe without inquiry what the system tells them.
We are out of time because governments in their last days engage in all kinds of tyranny and oppression under high-sounding and “patriotic” terms. Be warned and beware. As confidence collapses, aggression against the population intensifies.
Bob Livingston is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter for 42 years. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom. His views and writings can be found at: http://www.personalliberty.com/
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Getaway, by Ben Crystal
The Getaway, August 23, 2011 by Ben Crystal
Courtesy of -
President Barack Obama is vacationing on Martha's Vineyard.
For the amount of controversy it has generated, you might think President Barack Obama’s latest vacation involves 10 or so days in the sunny climes of Havana or Caracas, Venezuela. Everyone from Jon Stewart to Pat Buchanan has noticed the fact that if the President plays hooky one more time, he’s going to have to take a vacation from all the vacations he’s taking. Predictably, rather than suggest Obama hightail it back to the office and put in a little time culling the stack in the in-box, the Democratic spin machine is redlining the RPMs in response. Spend more than a few moments enduring the shrieking slander monkeys on MSNBC, and you will find yourself inundated with excuses for the President’s jaunt to the millionaire’s playground of Martha’s Vineyard (wedged in between comparing Republicans to every odious character in the annals of history short of Vlad the Impaler, of course).
Courtesy of -
President Barack Obama is vacationing on Martha's Vineyard.
For the amount of controversy it has generated, you might think President Barack Obama’s latest vacation involves 10 or so days in the sunny climes of Havana or Caracas, Venezuela. Everyone from Jon Stewart to Pat Buchanan has noticed the fact that if the President plays hooky one more time, he’s going to have to take a vacation from all the vacations he’s taking. Predictably, rather than suggest Obama hightail it back to the office and put in a little time culling the stack in the in-box, the Democratic spin machine is redlining the RPMs in response. Spend more than a few moments enduring the shrieking slander monkeys on MSNBC, and you will find yourself inundated with excuses for the President’s jaunt to the millionaire’s playground of Martha’s Vineyard (wedged in between comparing Republicans to every odious character in the annals of history short of Vlad the Impaler, of course).
However, while the President and his family enjoy their vacation time in “The Vineyard,” a retreat for New England blue bloods which is nearly as lily-white as Buckingham Palace on Boxing Day, I will refrain from joining in the chorus demanding Obama focus more on the welfare of the nation and less on saving par from the bunker. After all, Obama is highly unlikely to inflict further damage on the rest of us if he’s preoccupied with deciding which wine goes best with lobster. As long as Obama avoids doing his job, how much worse off can we possibly be?
In the past month alone, Standard & Poor’s downgraded our national sovereign credit rating to “at least you’re not Belarus.” The national debt, if expressed in dollar bills, would make a stack which stretches from here to the Oort Cloud. (For victims of teachers’ unions: That’s, like, totally mega far away! OMG!) The national unemployment rate is nearly five points higher than it was the day Obama took office. And the dollar has declined in value to somewhere between Charmin™ and coupons for 50 percent off your next meal at the local E-coli King.
Meanwhile, Obama has dealt a stunning blow to those who believe in the sovereign borders of the United States. Just before departing D.C., he announced a plan to suspend deportations of illegal aliens. His edict circumvents both the courts and Congress, a fiat decree of what amounts to general amnesty. The only upside to Obama’s decision to validate the illegal parking of the millions of illegals squatting within our borders involves cheaper landscaping for his Martha’s Vineyard cronies and extra votes for Democrats in Chicago.
In the Mideast, the so-called “Arab Spring” so roundly cheered by liberals has produced the very real possibility of an Islamofascist government takeover in the Arab world’s most populous country, Egypt. While Obama settled into his luxe Massachusetts digs, “someone” used Egyptian territory to launch a terrorist attack on Israel. Given Obama’s vague hostility toward our most redoubtable Mideast ally, perhaps it should come as no surprise that he didn’t react. Venturing deeper into the Muslim world, we find the Russians — whose President Putin termed the United States “a parasite” — negotiating to build more nuclear power plants in the Islamofascist regime of Iran.
Back on the home front, if the graffiti left on Ohio contractor John King’s car is anything to go by, the union thugs have stopped slashing tires, throwing bricks through windows and beating up old people. Instead, if the bullet lodged in King’s arm is anything to go by, they have started shooting. I suppose the Democrats’ aversion to the 2nd Amendment was more of a guideline than an actual rule.
Even some of Obama’s most dedicated fans are showing signs of turning from parrots to boo-birds. The Godmother of the Rodney King riots, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, took a break last week from avoiding an ethics trial to exhort a crowd of disaffected black voters to “unleash us” to attack the President over the black unemployment rate, which is nearly double the national average. Granted, Obama need hardly sweat over the votes of people who consider Maxine Waters worthy of attention, but the fact that Waters publicly expressed dissatisfaction with “The One” is bad news for Barack.
Do us all a favor, Mr. President. Ignore the complaints. Stay on vacation. Work on your latest memoirs. Get a head start on the next chapter in your life. It’s going to start next year either way.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Change with No Hope
The President has changed on a lot of the issues - no hope, yet a lot of hype - -
In 2008,candidate Obama had some harsh words about President George W. Bush’s fiscal policy:
CBS News reported Monday:
The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.
The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.
It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.
In 2008,candidate Obama had some harsh words about President George W. Bush’s fiscal policy:
The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up the national debt from 5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.Forget for a moment that during the Bush administration, the highest offense one could commit was to question the patriotism of the far-Left.
CBS News reported Monday:
The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.
The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.
It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.
Education
I left out a class or two (or three), so I’ll discuss them now.
“World History” and “U.S. History.”
It is important to know where you came from and why the world operates the way it does. However, “History” needs to be taught truthfully. If the United States of America was involved, as we know it has been for the last 250+ years, then the why’s of the decisions that were made need to be addressed. History needs to be taught without the “Right or Left” twists that the NEA puts on it. Teach it straight, the students may not totally understand, yet they will as they get older and live their lives out in the world.
“Music,” “Crafts (Shop),” “Life Skills” and “Physical Education.”
Should three of the four be mandatory as electives? I think so, as they are part of the physical development. They should begin at the Middle School or Junior High School level. Music or Shop should be the two courses that are interchangeable.
Life Skills should focus on the local, State, and Federal behaviors that the students need to know to survive socially and morally. Most of the focus should be on the local (50%) and State (30%) morays and cultural backgrounds and basically on how we should treat each other respectfully. The reason for this is, they majority of individuals stay within the area that they've grown up in, I'm an exception. As they get older, they may travel out of the local area, yet few travel and or live permanately out side of the State they were born and raised in.
Physical Education should focus on the development of our bodies (physical performance). I know I’ll run into an issue or two of deviant teachers, yet as/when they are caught – they need to be “outed with the community” and punished severely. Their licenses to teach should be taken away and they should become “black listed” from the teaching profession nationwide.
“World History” and “U.S. History.”
It is important to know where you came from and why the world operates the way it does. However, “History” needs to be taught truthfully. If the United States of America was involved, as we know it has been for the last 250+ years, then the why’s of the decisions that were made need to be addressed. History needs to be taught without the “Right or Left” twists that the NEA puts on it. Teach it straight, the students may not totally understand, yet they will as they get older and live their lives out in the world.
“Music,” “Crafts (Shop),” “Life Skills” and “Physical Education.”
Should three of the four be mandatory as electives? I think so, as they are part of the physical development. They should begin at the Middle School or Junior High School level. Music or Shop should be the two courses that are interchangeable.
Life Skills should focus on the local, State, and Federal behaviors that the students need to know to survive socially and morally. Most of the focus should be on the local (50%) and State (30%) morays and cultural backgrounds and basically on how we should treat each other respectfully. The reason for this is, they majority of individuals stay within the area that they've grown up in, I'm an exception. As they get older, they may travel out of the local area, yet few travel and or live permanately out side of the State they were born and raised in.
Physical Education should focus on the development of our bodies (physical performance). I know I’ll run into an issue or two of deviant teachers, yet as/when they are caught – they need to be “outed with the community” and punished severely. Their licenses to teach should be taken away and they should become “black listed” from the teaching profession nationwide.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Fix America's Education System
How about if we down size the U.S. Education Department and place true conservative teachers into the system. I mean, let’s get rid of the Socialist and Marxist teachings; leave that for the college level.
I truly believe that everyone should be taught about Socialism and Marxism, just not at the K-12 level. The students at the K-12 level don’t have the educational backgrounds to understand the consequences of any of the agendas entailed within the Capitalist, Socialist, or Marxist doctrines.
So, with that said, let’s stick to the basics, with heavy emphasis on the sciences. As our students reach the upper levels (11th/12th grades, maybe even 10th grade) they can be introduced to the basics of each of the systems, and why, in the United States of America, we utilize the Capitalist system. I mean each without twisting the realities of each of the systems.
However, this would entail that our current teachers and the NEA back off their agenda to indoctrinate our children with things that the majority of Americans don’t believe in. At the High School level, teachers could even teach about the various welfare systems in America, the good and bad points. Again, without any indoctrination – just the facts.
Now the U.S. Department of Education job would be to insure that schools and students have the resources to teach the basics, and insure that the teachers stay qualified to teach, AND KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OF OUR CHILDREN. The department would also have the responsibility to come up with basic tests in reading, writing, math, science, geography, and computer skills that the students must show they have mastered before they can move one to the next level
Secondly, the department would have the ability to structure the level of security of each school, as needed demographically. Again, the students are there to learn, not fight or do illegal things within the safe confines of the schools. This doesn’t mean that I want a police state at the schools. I want the schools to be safe!
Now, Grants, Scholarships, ect., would be put to good use, towards the students that showed they had the ability to succeed at the college level. Those social statistics could still be used, to a certain extent, yet it would still be based upon the students’ performance. I don’t care (economically) where the student comes from.
Lastly, Student Loans would be handled just like any other loan. They would be required to start paying off their loans, just like they make a vehicle payment. Although the rate would remain low on these loans, the student would be required to find a job and make the payments once they complete their education. One way or another, the American people deserve to get their investment in education back, STOP THE FREELOADERS! There are individuals out in our society, that have very well paying jobs and own their own business, that still owe the government on their student loans. And you know I’m not talking about the struggling business person.
I could go on, yet I think its’ best that I stop here as it will possibly turn into a rant. After all, I did start the last paragraph using the word "lastly."
Thanks for reading – wlc.
What's Up with Europe? Dick Morris
I find the videos by Dick Morris very educational. I do research what he says and find that he has a conservative twist on the issues, yet he is truthfull in his reporting. Which I find very refreshing.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Don't let America become disarmed by the Politicians!
Everyone in America should see this video! Everyone who loves their freedom, what little we have left, should join an organization promoting firearms and firearm safety.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Allen West on National Security Policy
Florida Representative Allen West spoke at a Center for Security Policy event in New York City, on the national secutity threats the United States of America faces - specificallin the the Middle East. In the question and answer section he also dicusses Venezeula and South America.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Social Degeneration - Parts I, II and III
by Thomas Sowell
Someone at long last has had the courage to tell the plain, honest truth about race.
After mobs of young blacks rampaged through Philadelphia committing violence -- as similar mobs have rampaged through Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and other places -- Philadelphia's black mayor, Michael A. Nutter, ordered a police crackdown and lashed out at the whole lifestyle of those who did such things.
"Pull up your pants and buy a belt 'cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt," he said. "If you walk into somebody's office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won't hire you? They don't hire you 'cause you look like you're crazy," the mayor said. He added: "You have damaged your own race."
While this might seem like it is just plain common sense, what Mayor Nutter said undermines a whole vision of the world that has brought fame, fortune and power to race hustlers in politics, the media and academia. Any racial disparities in hiring can only be due to racism and discrimination, according to the prevailing vision, which reaches from street corner demagogues to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Just to identify the rioters and looters as black is a radical departure, when mayors, police chiefs and the media in other cities report on these outbreaks of violence without mentioning the race of those who are doing these things. The Chicago Tribune even made excuses for failing to mention race when reporting on violent attacks by blacks on whites in Chicago.
Such excuses might make sense if the same politicians and media talking heads were not constantly mentioning race when denouncing the fact that a disproportionate number of young black men are being sent to prison.
The prevailing social dogma is that disparities in outcomes between races can only be due to disparities in how these races are treated. In other words, there cannot possibly be any differences in behavior.
But if black and white Americans had exactly the same behavior patterns, they would be the only two groups on this planet that are the same.
The Chinese minority in Malaysia has long been more successful and more prosperous than the Malay majority, just as the Indians in Fiji have long been more successful and more prosperous than the indigenous Fijians. At various places and times throughout history, the same could be said of the Armenians in Turkey, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Parsees in India, the Japanese in Brazil, and numerous others.
There are similar disparities within particular racial or ethnic groups. Even this late in history, I have had northern Italians explain to me why they are not like southern Italians. In Australia, Jewish leaders in both Sydney and Melbourne went to great lengths to tell me why and how the Jews are different in these two cities.
In the United States, despite the higher poverty level among blacks than among whites, the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994. The disparities within the black community are huge, both in behavior and in outcomes.
Nevertheless, the dogma persists that differences between groups can only be due to the way others treat them or to differences in the way others perceive them in "stereotypes."
All around the country, people in politics and the media have been tip-toeing around the fact that violent attacks by blacks on whites in public places are racially motivated, even when the attackers themselves use anti-white invective and mock the victims they leave lying on the streets bleeding.
This is not something to ignore or excuse. It is something to be stopped. Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia seems to be the first to openly recognize this.
This needs to be done for the sake of both black and white Americans -- and even for the sake of the hoodlums. They have set out on a path that leads only downward for themselves.
Part II - -
These attacks have been accompanied by explicitly racist statements by the attackers, so it is not a question of having to figure out what the motivation is. There has also been rioting and looting by these young hoodlums.
Yet blacks have no monopoly on these ugly and malicious episodes. Remarkably similar things are being done by lower-class whites in England. Anybody reading "Life at the Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple will recognize the same barbaric and self-destructive patterns among people with the same attitudes, even though their skin color is different.
Anyone reading today's headline stories about young hoodlums turning the streets of London into scenes of shattered and burning chaos, complete with violence, will discover the down side of the brotherhood of man.
While the history and the races are different, what is the same in both countries are the social policies and social attitudes long promoted by the intelligentsia and welfare state politicians.
A recent study in England found 352,000 households in which nobody had ever worked. Moreover, two-thirds of the adults in those households said that they didn't want to work. As in America, such people feel both "entitled" and aggrieved.
In both countries, those who have achieved less have been taught by the educational system, by the media and by politicians on the left that they have a grievance against those who have achieved more.
As in the United States, they feel a fierce sense of resentment against strangers who have done nothing to them, and lash out violently against those strangers.
During the riots, looting and violence in England, a young woman was quoted as saying that this showed "the rich" and the police that "we can do whatever we want." Among the things done during these riots was forcing apparently prosperous looking people to strip naked in the streets.
The need to bring people down in humiliation that marked the mass violence against the Armenians in Turkey nearly a century ago, and that later marked the Nazi persecutions of the Jews in Germany, is still alive and well in people who resent those who have achieved more than they have.
Someone at long last has had the courage to tell the plain, honest truth about race.
After mobs of young blacks rampaged through Philadelphia committing violence -- as similar mobs have rampaged through Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and other places -- Philadelphia's black mayor, Michael A. Nutter, ordered a police crackdown and lashed out at the whole lifestyle of those who did such things.
"Pull up your pants and buy a belt 'cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt," he said. "If you walk into somebody's office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won't hire you? They don't hire you 'cause you look like you're crazy," the mayor said. He added: "You have damaged your own race."
While this might seem like it is just plain common sense, what Mayor Nutter said undermines a whole vision of the world that has brought fame, fortune and power to race hustlers in politics, the media and academia. Any racial disparities in hiring can only be due to racism and discrimination, according to the prevailing vision, which reaches from street corner demagogues to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Just to identify the rioters and looters as black is a radical departure, when mayors, police chiefs and the media in other cities report on these outbreaks of violence without mentioning the race of those who are doing these things. The Chicago Tribune even made excuses for failing to mention race when reporting on violent attacks by blacks on whites in Chicago.
Such excuses might make sense if the same politicians and media talking heads were not constantly mentioning race when denouncing the fact that a disproportionate number of young black men are being sent to prison.
The prevailing social dogma is that disparities in outcomes between races can only be due to disparities in how these races are treated. In other words, there cannot possibly be any differences in behavior.
But if black and white Americans had exactly the same behavior patterns, they would be the only two groups on this planet that are the same.
The Chinese minority in Malaysia has long been more successful and more prosperous than the Malay majority, just as the Indians in Fiji have long been more successful and more prosperous than the indigenous Fijians. At various places and times throughout history, the same could be said of the Armenians in Turkey, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Parsees in India, the Japanese in Brazil, and numerous others.
There are similar disparities within particular racial or ethnic groups. Even this late in history, I have had northern Italians explain to me why they are not like southern Italians. In Australia, Jewish leaders in both Sydney and Melbourne went to great lengths to tell me why and how the Jews are different in these two cities.
In the United States, despite the higher poverty level among blacks than among whites, the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994. The disparities within the black community are huge, both in behavior and in outcomes.
Nevertheless, the dogma persists that differences between groups can only be due to the way others treat them or to differences in the way others perceive them in "stereotypes."
All around the country, people in politics and the media have been tip-toeing around the fact that violent attacks by blacks on whites in public places are racially motivated, even when the attackers themselves use anti-white invective and mock the victims they leave lying on the streets bleeding.
This is not something to ignore or excuse. It is something to be stopped. Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia seems to be the first to openly recognize this.
This needs to be done for the sake of both black and white Americans -- and even for the sake of the hoodlums. They have set out on a path that leads only downward for themselves.
Part II - -
Although much of the media have their antennae out to pick up anything that might be construed as racism against blacks, they resolutely ignore even the most blatant racism by blacks against others.
That includes a pattern of violent attacks on whites in public places in Chicago, Denver, New York, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Kansas City, as well as blacks in schools beating up Asian classmates -- for years -- in New York and Philadelphia.
That includes a pattern of violent attacks on whites in public places in Chicago, Denver, New York, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Kansas City, as well as blacks in schools beating up Asian classmates -- for years -- in New York and Philadelphia.
These attacks have been accompanied by explicitly racist statements by the attackers, so it is not a question of having to figure out what the motivation is. There has also been rioting and looting by these young hoodlums.
Yet blacks have no monopoly on these ugly and malicious episodes. Remarkably similar things are being done by lower-class whites in England. Anybody reading "Life at the Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple will recognize the same barbaric and self-destructive patterns among people with the same attitudes, even though their skin color is different.
Anyone reading today's headline stories about young hoodlums turning the streets of London into scenes of shattered and burning chaos, complete with violence, will discover the down side of the brotherhood of man.
While the history and the races are different, what is the same in both countries are the social policies and social attitudes long promoted by the intelligentsia and welfare state politicians.
A recent study in England found 352,000 households in which nobody had ever worked. Moreover, two-thirds of the adults in those households said that they didn't want to work. As in America, such people feel both "entitled" and aggrieved.
In both countries, those who have achieved less have been taught by the educational system, by the media and by politicians on the left that they have a grievance against those who have achieved more.
As in the United States, they feel a fierce sense of resentment against strangers who have done nothing to them, and lash out violently against those strangers.
During the riots, looting and violence in England, a young woman was quoted as saying that this showed "the rich" and the police that "we can do whatever we want." Among the things done during these riots was forcing apparently prosperous looking people to strip naked in the streets.
The need to bring people down in humiliation that marked the mass violence against the Armenians in Turkey nearly a century ago, and that later marked the Nazi persecutions of the Jews in Germany, is still alive and well in people who resent those who have achieved more than they have.
Part III - -
The orgies of violent attacks against strangers on the streets -- in both England and the United States -- are not necessarily just passing episodes. They should be wake-up calls, warning of the continuing degeneration of Western society.
As British doctor and author Theodore Dalrymple said, long before these riots broke out, "the good are afraid of the bad and the bad are afraid of nothing."
Not only the trends over the years leading up to these riots but also the squeamish responses to them by officials -- on both sides of the Atlantic -- reveal the moral dry rot that has spread deep into Western societies.
Even when black youth gangs target white strangers on the streets and spew out racial hatred as they batter them and rob them, mayors, police chiefs and the media tiptoe around their racism and many in the media either don't cover these stories or leave out the race and racism involved.
In England, the government did not call out the troops to squash their riots at the outset. The net result was that young hoodlums got to rampage and loot for hours, while the police struggled to try to contain the violence. Hoodlums returned home with loot from stores with impunity, as well as bringing home with them a contempt for the law and for the rights of other people.
With all the damage that was done by these rioters, both to cities and to the whole fabric of British society, it is very unlikely that most of the people who were arrested will be sentenced to jail. Only 7 percent of people convicted of crime in England are actually put behind bars.
"Alternatives to incarceration" are in vogue among the politically correct elites in England, just as in the United States. But in Britain those elites have had much more clout for a much longer time. And they have done much more damage.
Nevertheless, our own politically correct elites are pointing us in the same direction. A headline in the New York Times shows the same politically correct mindset in the United States: "London Riots Put Spotlight on Troubled, Unemployed Youths in Britain." There is not a speck of evidence that the rioters and looters are troubled -- unless you engage in circular reasoning and say that they must have been troubled to do the things they did.
In reality, like other rioters on both sides of the Atlantic they are often exultant in their violence and happy to be returning home with stolen designer clothes and upscale electronic devices.
In both England and in the United States, whole generations have been fed a steady diet of grievances and resentment against society, and especially against others who are more prosperous than they are. They get this in their schools, on television, on campuses and in the movies. Nothing is their own fault. It is all "society's" fault.
One of the young Britons interviewed in the New York Times reported that he had learned to read only three years ago. He is not unique. In Theodore Dalrymple's book, "Life at the Bottom," he referred to many British youths who are unashamedly illiterate. The lyrics of a popular song in Britain said, "We don't need no education" and another song was titled "Poor, White and Stupid."
Dr. Dalrymple says, "I cannot recall meeting a sixteen-year-old white from the public housing estates that are near my hospital who could multiple nine by seven."
In the United States, the color may be different but the attitudes among the hoodlum element are very similar. In both countries, classmates who try to learn can find themselves targeted by bullies.
Here those who want to study in ghetto schools are often accused of "acting white." But whites in Britain show the same pattern. Some conscientious students are beaten up badly enough to end up at Dr. Dalrymple's hospital.
Our elites often advise us to learn from other countries. They usually mean that we should imitate other countries. But it may be far more important to learn from their mistakes -- the biggest of which may be listening to fashionable nonsense from the smug intelligentsia.
These countries show us where that smug nonsense leads. It may be a sneak preview of our own future.
"Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
The orgies of violent attacks against strangers on the streets -- in both England and the United States -- are not necessarily just passing episodes. They should be wake-up calls, warning of the continuing degeneration of Western society.
As British doctor and author Theodore Dalrymple said, long before these riots broke out, "the good are afraid of the bad and the bad are afraid of nothing."
Not only the trends over the years leading up to these riots but also the squeamish responses to them by officials -- on both sides of the Atlantic -- reveal the moral dry rot that has spread deep into Western societies.
Even when black youth gangs target white strangers on the streets and spew out racial hatred as they batter them and rob them, mayors, police chiefs and the media tiptoe around their racism and many in the media either don't cover these stories or leave out the race and racism involved.
In England, the government did not call out the troops to squash their riots at the outset. The net result was that young hoodlums got to rampage and loot for hours, while the police struggled to try to contain the violence. Hoodlums returned home with loot from stores with impunity, as well as bringing home with them a contempt for the law and for the rights of other people.
With all the damage that was done by these rioters, both to cities and to the whole fabric of British society, it is very unlikely that most of the people who were arrested will be sentenced to jail. Only 7 percent of people convicted of crime in England are actually put behind bars.
"Alternatives to incarceration" are in vogue among the politically correct elites in England, just as in the United States. But in Britain those elites have had much more clout for a much longer time. And they have done much more damage.
Nevertheless, our own politically correct elites are pointing us in the same direction. A headline in the New York Times shows the same politically correct mindset in the United States: "London Riots Put Spotlight on Troubled, Unemployed Youths in Britain." There is not a speck of evidence that the rioters and looters are troubled -- unless you engage in circular reasoning and say that they must have been troubled to do the things they did.
In reality, like other rioters on both sides of the Atlantic they are often exultant in their violence and happy to be returning home with stolen designer clothes and upscale electronic devices.
In both England and in the United States, whole generations have been fed a steady diet of grievances and resentment against society, and especially against others who are more prosperous than they are. They get this in their schools, on television, on campuses and in the movies. Nothing is their own fault. It is all "society's" fault.
One of the young Britons interviewed in the New York Times reported that he had learned to read only three years ago. He is not unique. In Theodore Dalrymple's book, "Life at the Bottom," he referred to many British youths who are unashamedly illiterate. The lyrics of a popular song in Britain said, "We don't need no education" and another song was titled "Poor, White and Stupid."
Dr. Dalrymple says, "I cannot recall meeting a sixteen-year-old white from the public housing estates that are near my hospital who could multiple nine by seven."
In the United States, the color may be different but the attitudes among the hoodlum element are very similar. In both countries, classmates who try to learn can find themselves targeted by bullies.
Here those who want to study in ghetto schools are often accused of "acting white." But whites in Britain show the same pattern. Some conscientious students are beaten up badly enough to end up at Dr. Dalrymple's hospital.
Our elites often advise us to learn from other countries. They usually mean that we should imitate other countries. But it may be far more important to learn from their mistakes -- the biggest of which may be listening to fashionable nonsense from the smug intelligentsia.
These countries show us where that smug nonsense leads. It may be a sneak preview of our own future.
"Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Iowa Debate
Comments from - -http://godfatherpolitics.com/
If the debate review feels rushed, it’s because it is. But I thought a few comments were in order:
The biggest losers of the debate were the panelists. Chris Wallace should be ashamed of himself, and I have pretty thick skin. But Newt Gingrich utterly humiliated him, and frankly, he had it coming. His lighting the fire on the stupid little hack fest between Pawlenty and Bachmann was juvenile, and his question to Newt was garbage. But then Byron York really took it to a new level of low with his lame question about marital submission. These people know way, way better, and I am not falling for the “it is good to see conservative Fox News ask tough questions” nonsense. They did not ask “tough” questions; they asked “retarded” questions, and I expected better. I can’t remember the gal’s name from the Examiner, but I will tell you this right now: CNN employs people of better economic literacy than she has. She asked at least four questions implying that someone in China getting a job was a bad thing for Americans, and unless she was Pat Buchannan in a dress, I thought that it would not be possible to find such protectionist drivel this side of Lou Dobbs. Bad, bad panel.
(2) This is not to say there were no losers on the stage. Tim Pawlenty is done, over, and out. If he can save his campaign at this point (and after what will likely be a 5th or 6th place showing on Saturday), it will be the greatest political comeback in history. I am not disparaging the guy — I like him, and on paper he would be a good candidate. But this thing just never got going, and it is DONE.
(3) Everyone I talk to says that this little fight between Pawlenty and Bachmann was started by Pawlenty, and if that is true, I suppose he brought it on himself. But the whole thing is distasteful, remarkably non-Presidential, totally lame, and oh, by the way, the greatest thing Mitt Romney has ever seen in his life.
(4) Ron Paul was also one of the losers tonight because he showed up and talked about Iran. THIS was the 2008 Ron Paul I know and love. Talking about America picking a fight with them, like when we took 58 of their people as hostage in 1979 and they had to come negotiate a release. “They have a few militants but . . .” “Why shouldn’t they have a nuclear weapon? I mean, Israel has one.” You know, all the regular anti-semitic, anti-American, morally ambiguous garbage that has ruined every sane thing he has to say about sound money. But ay yi yi did he step in it on that polygamy question or what??? When Santorum blasted him about states’ rights I am pretty sure he said, “Well, it sounds like you’re going to ask about slavery, I mean, we all know no one wants to do this.” Ummmm, do you mean besides the polygamists? In case anyone was wondering, he DID say that polygamy should be a decision to be determined by the states; he just didn’t have the intelligence or the courage ACTUALLY to say it.
(5) Herman Cain had some weak moments early on, but his pro-economic growth message is solid and frankly his four-point plan behind it is more substantive than most of the content the candidates have blessed us with thus far. His closing speech was particularly strong.
(6) Santorum had some strong moments and will probably do okay in the straw poll. And then he will be done.
(7) Huntsman doesn’t warrant an iota of our time. Oh my gosh.
(8) Romney had neither a strong night nor a poor one. His entire campaign right now is based on a “four corners” offense. And guess what? It seems to be working! He needs to be ready to KILL the nonsense about Bain Capital shedding jobs, and his answer to that idiotic question was actually better than I expected. He still comes off like a walking flip-flop, but in two days he will be the second place candidate, and I am not sure if his “stall” offense will work as well then as it does now.
(9) Newt just killed it tonight, and I mean, KILLED IT. Don’t get me wrong — his candidacy is going nowhere. But he needs to stay in as long as possible, because he is tremendous in these debates. Debating has never been his weakness though, and his weaknesses are insurmountable. But his lashing of Chris Wallace was pure glory.
(10) Rick Perry probably won the debate tonight. No one has stepped up into clear leadership. Romney is strong but totally beatable. Cain has no money. Bachmann is great on rhetoric but not viable. Pawlenty fizzled. Newt is an idea guy but not a serious candidate. Huntsman is like a total creep or something. Santorum is not viable. No need to mention the Iranian Polygamist Caucus’s candidate. Basically, if Perry has money (he does), the ability to raise money (he definitely does), and a serious campaign team (he better), he is going to be the nominee for President. He is probably not perfect, but he is an extremely formidable candidate.
My friends, I have not supported Barack Obama for one moment since he became the President. I never fell for his “uniter” nonsense, and being a conservative ideologue, I was never all that intrigued by the ideas he brought to the White House. However, I never would have DREAMED that my fear of his Presidency would reach the level it has in such a short period of time. He has done more damage to the fabric of our country than any President in the last 75 years, and that is saying something.
I believe we need to be laser-focused on seeing him lose in November 2012. Bachman/Pawlenty cat fights are not going to help. We need the weak chaff of this campaign to drop out within a few months so that a nominee can be chosen as soon as possible, and an unbelievable intensity can be applied to seeing whomever the winning candidate is defeat this radical President. I respect the primary process and believe most of these discussions are good for the cause. But this time it’s different. Nature has to run its course, obviously, but we really need to have a commitment to support the eventual nominee, and doing so without reservation. The stakes are extremely high for those of us who love this country!
Wisconsin and Ohio vs, the Unions - Right to Work at Stake
The Union's are on the attack again fighting against Wisconsin's union bargaining reforms and now against Ohio's new right to work law for the government sector.
How can any responsible person be against the concept of "right to work". Right to work simple means, having the right to work in a job your are qualified for without having a union "tax" (at best) or "extort" (at worse) part of your pay check to pay for, among other things, political ads overwhelmingly for liberal, socialist values?
Wisconsin and Ohio both righted a moral wrong by eliminating the union's power over government employees,...but as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation correct asserts, the union bosses won't relinquish their special legal privileges without a fight.
Right now union lawyers are scheming and working to overturn Wisconsin's monopoly bargaining reforms in the courts, union bosses and their allies in Ohio have launched a massive campaign in support of a ballot measure that would repeal Ohio's new government-sector Right to Work law.
This past week, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 Ohio school teachers filed a class-action suit demonstrating once again why the new Right to Work protections are so clearly needed. All 15 teachers who launched the lawsuit have exercised their right to refrain from membership in the Ohio Education Association (OAE) union and its affiliates, but nonetheless are forced to accept the "representation" of and pay tribute to union bosses as a condition of employment.
In the Foundation-won precedent Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment guarantees that nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union-boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.
OEA union officials have unlawfully overcharged the teachers for costs supporting the union's political activism and electioneering, which of course is again over-whelmingly if not 100% in support of Democrats, Liberals, Big Government spending, anti-constitutionalists and Socialists,....ahh, but I'm being redundant.
One of big wrongs this Country has to fix is when workers can be compelled to support an unwanted union.
The above article was para-phrased in part from a report by The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. This is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. Its web address is www.nrtw.org/
Thoughts just off Center - "This article was stolen from my friend at:
How can any responsible person be against the concept of "right to work". Right to work simple means, having the right to work in a job your are qualified for without having a union "tax" (at best) or "extort" (at worse) part of your pay check to pay for, among other things, political ads overwhelmingly for liberal, socialist values?
Wisconsin and Ohio both righted a moral wrong by eliminating the union's power over government employees,...but as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation correct asserts, the union bosses won't relinquish their special legal privileges without a fight.
Right now union lawyers are scheming and working to overturn Wisconsin's monopoly bargaining reforms in the courts, union bosses and their allies in Ohio have launched a massive campaign in support of a ballot measure that would repeal Ohio's new government-sector Right to Work law.
This past week, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 Ohio school teachers filed a class-action suit demonstrating once again why the new Right to Work protections are so clearly needed. All 15 teachers who launched the lawsuit have exercised their right to refrain from membership in the Ohio Education Association (OAE) union and its affiliates, but nonetheless are forced to accept the "representation" of and pay tribute to union bosses as a condition of employment.
In the Foundation-won precedent Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment guarantees that nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union-boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.
OEA union officials have unlawfully overcharged the teachers for costs supporting the union's political activism and electioneering, which of course is again over-whelmingly if not 100% in support of Democrats, Liberals, Big Government spending, anti-constitutionalists and Socialists,....ahh, but I'm being redundant.
One of big wrongs this Country has to fix is when workers can be compelled to support an unwanted union.
The above article was para-phrased in part from a report by The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. This is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. Its web address is www.nrtw.org/
Thoughts just off Center - "This article was stolen from my friend at:
If you're reading this you should read his at: http://cowboys-and-tea-parties.blogspot.com/
A Response to the "Trash Mouth" Individuals that use the Internet
First - America was based on freedom of religion and free speech; however, you’re going too far when you disrespect someone’s beliefs by using vulgar language. It just shows what a jerk you are.
Secondly, I believe anyone has the right to voice their opinion; they should use a little tack in voicing it though.
Thirdly, I wish everyone would stop with the aggressive attitudes that they are owed something for doing nothing, other than sitting on their behinds. One of these days that person you flip off in traffic is going to follow you to where ever you’re going and kick your butts. So PLEASE stop it and act respectable towards each other.
Lastly, get to work America; there are plenty of jobs out there. You might not like starting from the bottom again, yet that is something we all have to do whenever we're looking to/or forced to change our line of work. Yes some of the jobs stink, yet it's still a respectable job.
Herman Cain on Class Warefare
Dick Morris' interview of Herman Cain.
Listen carefully America and find out which political party supported the civil rights movement. I know, do you? Herman Cain is for real, I think he is an excellent presidental canidate. Will he make it? Who knows.
Listen carefully America and find out which political party supported the civil rights movement. I know, do you? Herman Cain is for real, I think he is an excellent presidental canidate. Will he make it? Who knows.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Very Near to my Line of Thinking
Fairness or Unfairness - by John Hawkins
If one child complains that he didn't get as much food as his brother because his frankfurter was cut into four pieces, while his brother's hot dog was cut into five pieces, we laugh. What we often don't realize is that the definitions of "fairness" that adults use are often every bit as arbitrary as those of children. This is why politicians are so in love with the word "fairness." Using that word justifies their attempt to swoop in, ignore merit, overrule the market, and take something from one group of people to give it to another group of people who are more likely to vote for them. So next time someone starts talking about "fairness," put your hand over your wallet, put on your thinking cap, and consider that what is defined as "fairness" could look extremely "unfair" if you're open minded enough to take a look at it from another perspective.
1) Affirmative Action's only "fair?" The idea here is that we're going to discriminate against white Americans who have not done anything wrong in order to help black Americans who may not have been discriminated against so that we can make up for past discrimination against black Americans. That begs the question: Do we flip this around at some point and start deliberately discriminating against black Americans again to make up for the government's discrimination against white Americans? It may sound outrageous, but that ridiculous idea would be every bit as "fair" as Affirmative Action.
2) Making losers pay for legal costs would be "unfair" to the little guy! Because liberals get a lot of money from trial lawyers, they oppose a "loser pays" rule for lawsuits. They justify this by saying that system would be "unfair" to the people suing. Why, what if they couldn't afford to sue because their opponents’ legal fees would be too high? Of course, that's a really backward way to look at it. After all, how fair is it for someone to have to spend countless hours of their time and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves from a meritless lawsuit without compensation? Surely, if it's "fair" for the plaintiffs to get money if they win, then it should be "fair" for the defendants to at least have their expenses covered if they triumph.
3) The rich aren't paying their "fair" share. It's easy to take shots at rich people. There usually aren't enough of them to swing an election with their votes, nobody really feels sorry for people who have a lot of money, and as often as not, they give contributions to both parties as "protection money." But here's a thought: How can the rich not be paying their "fair share" when the top 10% of Americans pay 69.9% of the money we take in from the income tax while 47 percent of Americans don't even pay a single dollar a year? Arguing that people -- who probably pay for all the services they'll get from the government in an entire lifetime over any given month -- aren't paying their "fair share" while so many people pay nothing at all, seems more than a bit....."unfair."
4) Cutting spending would be "unfair!" Any time you try to cut something from the budget, there are aliens in other galaxies who can undoubtedly hear the screams from space. We get rants about cruelty, Tea Party "terrorists," pushing old people off cliffs, balancing the budget on the backs of the less fortunate -- it goes on and on. However, there's no such thing as "free" government money. So, what we're actually doing is selling our children into debt slavery so that liberal politicians can borrow more money to buy votes today. What could be crueler or more "unfair" than a child who's born starting his life more than $176,000 in debt before he's ever opened his eyes for the first time?
5) Minimum wage laws make sure people get a "fair" wage. If you're making the minimum wage right now, it's entirely possible that the law benefits you by insuring that you get paid a higher wage than you otherwise would. Liberals would call this "fairness." But, how about all the people with low skills who either aren't worth the minimum wage or who could be hired for jobs that don't merit the minimum wage? It's all well and good to say that a job's not worth someone's time if it doesn't pay the minimum wage, but there are probably a lot of unemployed Americans who'd be grateful to make $7 an hour while they look for a better job. What's "fair" to those people about putting a law in place that prevents willing businesses from hiring willing workers who desperately need the money?
6) Not allowing illegal aliens to become American citizens is "unfair!" If we allow people who sneak across the border or overstay their VISA to become American citizens, then doesn't that make legal immigrants look like complete idiots? There are people who spent years in their home countries, paying thousands of dollars, and filling out endless paperwork while liberals want to give people who broke the law the gift of American citizenship? What's the message to people who became citizens the right way supposed to be other than, "You are a moron for following the rules?" How can it be anything other than grossly "unfair" to legal immigrants to give illegals a break? Additionally, how about all the American workers, including legal immigrants, who have less money to bring home in their paychecks each week or no jobs at all because illegal aliens who pay no car insurance, health insurance, or taxes can afford to do the job at a cheaper price and drive down wages? How "fair" is it to hurt American citizens to help people who didn't even come to this country legally?
7) Wal-Mart isn't "fair" to its employees. Liberals generally don't like big corporations and they especially don't like Wal-Mart because it's an enormous company that has successfully fought off unionization. This leads to cries that Wal-Mart's "unfair" because it doesn’t pay its employees enough or allow its employees to buy fancy health care plans. Of course, if Wal-Mart could be perfectly honest, its response would probably be, “We don't force our employees to work for us and if they decide they’re unhappy, they can always go somewhere else.” That being said, there's another group of people who aren't being "fairly" treated by the liberal push to unionize Wal-Mart – Wal-Mart customers. Wal-Mart employs more than 2.1 million people in America, but roughly 82% of American households shop at Wal-Mart each year. If Wal-Mart is forced to pay its employees more, then you're taking money out of the pockets of everyone who shops there to pay for it. Why should a dirt-poor widow with four kids who buys her groceries at Wal-Mart be forced to pay more money than she would otherwise to subsidize union salaries? That seems more than a little "unfair."
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
Thoughts just off Center comment: This article was originally published by Townhalldaily.com. I changed the title and edited one or two words that I found inappropriate.
If one child complains that he didn't get as much food as his brother because his frankfurter was cut into four pieces, while his brother's hot dog was cut into five pieces, we laugh. What we often don't realize is that the definitions of "fairness" that adults use are often every bit as arbitrary as those of children. This is why politicians are so in love with the word "fairness." Using that word justifies their attempt to swoop in, ignore merit, overrule the market, and take something from one group of people to give it to another group of people who are more likely to vote for them. So next time someone starts talking about "fairness," put your hand over your wallet, put on your thinking cap, and consider that what is defined as "fairness" could look extremely "unfair" if you're open minded enough to take a look at it from another perspective.
1) Affirmative Action's only "fair?" The idea here is that we're going to discriminate against white Americans who have not done anything wrong in order to help black Americans who may not have been discriminated against so that we can make up for past discrimination against black Americans. That begs the question: Do we flip this around at some point and start deliberately discriminating against black Americans again to make up for the government's discrimination against white Americans? It may sound outrageous, but that ridiculous idea would be every bit as "fair" as Affirmative Action.
2) Making losers pay for legal costs would be "unfair" to the little guy! Because liberals get a lot of money from trial lawyers, they oppose a "loser pays" rule for lawsuits. They justify this by saying that system would be "unfair" to the people suing. Why, what if they couldn't afford to sue because their opponents’ legal fees would be too high? Of course, that's a really backward way to look at it. After all, how fair is it for someone to have to spend countless hours of their time and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves from a meritless lawsuit without compensation? Surely, if it's "fair" for the plaintiffs to get money if they win, then it should be "fair" for the defendants to at least have their expenses covered if they triumph.
3) The rich aren't paying their "fair" share. It's easy to take shots at rich people. There usually aren't enough of them to swing an election with their votes, nobody really feels sorry for people who have a lot of money, and as often as not, they give contributions to both parties as "protection money." But here's a thought: How can the rich not be paying their "fair share" when the top 10% of Americans pay 69.9% of the money we take in from the income tax while 47 percent of Americans don't even pay a single dollar a year? Arguing that people -- who probably pay for all the services they'll get from the government in an entire lifetime over any given month -- aren't paying their "fair share" while so many people pay nothing at all, seems more than a bit....."unfair."
4) Cutting spending would be "unfair!" Any time you try to cut something from the budget, there are aliens in other galaxies who can undoubtedly hear the screams from space. We get rants about cruelty, Tea Party "terrorists," pushing old people off cliffs, balancing the budget on the backs of the less fortunate -- it goes on and on. However, there's no such thing as "free" government money. So, what we're actually doing is selling our children into debt slavery so that liberal politicians can borrow more money to buy votes today. What could be crueler or more "unfair" than a child who's born starting his life more than $176,000 in debt before he's ever opened his eyes for the first time?
5) Minimum wage laws make sure people get a "fair" wage. If you're making the minimum wage right now, it's entirely possible that the law benefits you by insuring that you get paid a higher wage than you otherwise would. Liberals would call this "fairness." But, how about all the people with low skills who either aren't worth the minimum wage or who could be hired for jobs that don't merit the minimum wage? It's all well and good to say that a job's not worth someone's time if it doesn't pay the minimum wage, but there are probably a lot of unemployed Americans who'd be grateful to make $7 an hour while they look for a better job. What's "fair" to those people about putting a law in place that prevents willing businesses from hiring willing workers who desperately need the money?
6) Not allowing illegal aliens to become American citizens is "unfair!" If we allow people who sneak across the border or overstay their VISA to become American citizens, then doesn't that make legal immigrants look like complete idiots? There are people who spent years in their home countries, paying thousands of dollars, and filling out endless paperwork while liberals want to give people who broke the law the gift of American citizenship? What's the message to people who became citizens the right way supposed to be other than, "You are a moron for following the rules?" How can it be anything other than grossly "unfair" to legal immigrants to give illegals a break? Additionally, how about all the American workers, including legal immigrants, who have less money to bring home in their paychecks each week or no jobs at all because illegal aliens who pay no car insurance, health insurance, or taxes can afford to do the job at a cheaper price and drive down wages? How "fair" is it to hurt American citizens to help people who didn't even come to this country legally?
7) Wal-Mart isn't "fair" to its employees. Liberals generally don't like big corporations and they especially don't like Wal-Mart because it's an enormous company that has successfully fought off unionization. This leads to cries that Wal-Mart's "unfair" because it doesn’t pay its employees enough or allow its employees to buy fancy health care plans. Of course, if Wal-Mart could be perfectly honest, its response would probably be, “We don't force our employees to work for us and if they decide they’re unhappy, they can always go somewhere else.” That being said, there's another group of people who aren't being "fairly" treated by the liberal push to unionize Wal-Mart – Wal-Mart customers. Wal-Mart employs more than 2.1 million people in America, but roughly 82% of American households shop at Wal-Mart each year. If Wal-Mart is forced to pay its employees more, then you're taking money out of the pockets of everyone who shops there to pay for it. Why should a dirt-poor widow with four kids who buys her groceries at Wal-Mart be forced to pay more money than she would otherwise to subsidize union salaries? That seems more than a little "unfair."
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
Thoughts just off Center comment: This article was originally published by Townhalldaily.com. I changed the title and edited one or two words that I found inappropriate.
The Morning Brief
At President Obama’s Morning Briefing, the U.S. Department of Defense reported that 2-Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq.
To everyone's surprise, he collapsed onto his desk, head in his hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.
Finally, he composed himself and then asked, - - - - “Just how many is a BRAZILIAN?”
This is not surprising, since he obviously has no understanding of billion or trillion either.
To everyone's surprise, he collapsed onto his desk, head in his hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.
Finally, he composed himself and then asked, - - - - “Just how many is a BRAZILIAN?”
This is not surprising, since he obviously has no understanding of billion or trillion either.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
This is the reason Socalism doesn't work
A valid point, via e-mail:
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Thoughts just off Center comment: Anyone should be able to understand this analogy.
Remember, there is a test coming up. "The 2012 elections." DO YOU HOMEWORK!
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Thoughts just off Center comment: Anyone should be able to understand this analogy.
Remember, there is a test coming up. "The 2012 elections." DO YOU HOMEWORK!
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Secrets to a Long & Happy Marriage
Who says I don't have a good sense of humor or that women can't tell the truth -
This has NOTHING to do with Political Party Affiliation!
This is by far the shortest, clearest, most concise explanation of the seriousness of America's budget mess. I especially like this video from "Government Gone Wild." They didn't blame one political party over another, as I believe BOTH parties are guilty of over-spending. When are we as a country, and as citizens of this country, going to get serious and deal with this issue for our own survival.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
A look into the Future
Thanksgiving 2022. "Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat," Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world", Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting. Yet it wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in.
It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey. Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce, and mincemeat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey.
And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020, to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims' historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.
Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated CFL light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats - which were monitored and controlled by the electric company - be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.
Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family.
Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program.
And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. "The RHC's resources are limited", explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss."
Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines - for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.
Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids.
Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists."
Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny," even when probable cause was involved.
Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost. The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact.
"A living Constitution is extremely flexible", said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. " Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example", she added.
Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner.
Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.
His 36-year-old son, Howard, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he received growing up in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism, or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner", but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility.
It didn't help that Howard had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being.
Winston paid the $5,000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13.
The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth." This time, they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.
Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least, he had his memories.
He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential.
Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.
He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2011, when all the real nonsense began.
"Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said 'enough is enough' when we had the chance," he thought.
Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so.
Special Thanks to
I predicted this was going to happen.
and it did.
So much for believing that our Representatives and Senators would to the right thing, instead of leaving our children and grandchildren to poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)