Democrats have a far higher degree of integrity than Republicans. Democrats are not afraid to make their agenda known. They openly disrespect the Constitution and feel it is a document which has seen better days. They make no effort to hide their attempts to bring wealth re-distribution to America. They openly build up the national debt with no remorse.
Republicans, on the other hand, are hypocritical and sinister. They pretend to uphold the rights of the individual, while passing the Patriot Act. They promise lower taxes--but spew "read my lips" lies while raising taxes. They pretend to uphold religious rights, while setting up government takeover of the churches through Faith-Based Initiatives. They talk about reducing the size of government, while voting to double the size of government. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, they expand government by creating the Department of Homeland Security. They talk about upholding the free enterprise system, while destroying the system through bailouts and political favoritism. They buckle under political pressure to persecute companies and individuals if such trampling of rights wins the favor of American voters and gains them the image as being "tough"--as in the way Republicans supported Obama for extorting billions from B.P. without providing a fair trial. They talk about upholding the Constitution, while passing laws which undermine the ideals of the Constitution and the founding fathers of our nation.
For the past half century the Republican Party has duped American conservatives. Now it is time to call the bluff.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Boehner Makes an Ass of Himself in Three Minutes or Less
It's bad enough when you are a sleaze, but a moron as well?
John Boehner managed to show his true colors today in his moronic speech on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. With an imbecile like this leading the Republican Party, are you fellow conservatives and libertarians confident as I am in the leadership of this nation when the Re-pubis get control of Congress in the fall?
Within the first minutes of his speech, he managed to throw out the asinine cliche, "These colors don't run." I stand in awe...
Bravo, Johnny! Such originality and brave leadership qualities in the Minority Leader! How eloquent and profound!
Obama was right in his speech a couple of weeks ago. He warned that, with Republicans in office, we would simply have more of what we had the last eight years before he took office. Actually, this was highly understated. It would be worse than Obama says. Because now you will have the same bunch of deadheads in charge, impotent in their ability to reverse any of the failed policies of the current regime, still growing the size of government, still bailing out big business, and firmly holding the ground for the next round of Democratic-Party domination to push every business into a socialist monopoly under the control of the wealthiest 1% of the population.
Perhaps America is in the same spot as the addict that has not really hit bottom yet. We are still clinging to our bottle, or our fix, in our certain descent into economic depression. When we finally hit the pavement, we will hopefully be able to face the pain and then scrape ourselves up to make a new start.
I pray that when we do hit bottom, the government is not too powerful to be reformed or overthrown.
John Boehner managed to show his true colors today in his moronic speech on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. With an imbecile like this leading the Republican Party, are you fellow conservatives and libertarians confident as I am in the leadership of this nation when the Re-pubis get control of Congress in the fall?
Within the first minutes of his speech, he managed to throw out the asinine cliche, "These colors don't run." I stand in awe...
Bravo, Johnny! Such originality and brave leadership qualities in the Minority Leader! How eloquent and profound!
Obama was right in his speech a couple of weeks ago. He warned that, with Republicans in office, we would simply have more of what we had the last eight years before he took office. Actually, this was highly understated. It would be worse than Obama says. Because now you will have the same bunch of deadheads in charge, impotent in their ability to reverse any of the failed policies of the current regime, still growing the size of government, still bailing out big business, and firmly holding the ground for the next round of Democratic-Party domination to push every business into a socialist monopoly under the control of the wealthiest 1% of the population.
Perhaps America is in the same spot as the addict that has not really hit bottom yet. We are still clinging to our bottle, or our fix, in our certain descent into economic depression. When we finally hit the pavement, we will hopefully be able to face the pain and then scrape ourselves up to make a new start.
I pray that when we do hit bottom, the government is not too powerful to be reformed or overthrown.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Republican Game: Let's Pull the Wool Over Conservative Voters
Let me state clearly here that the greatest enemy to American freedom is NOT the Democratic Party. It is the Republican Party.
Within the fifty years of my life, the Republican Party has consistently promoted big government. Republicans will lie through their teeth on this policy, but their actions outweigh their empty promises.
Every Republican bastard in the White House has grown the size of both government and the national debt. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both generations of the Bush thugs have done this. Every Republican Congress has done the same, with an even greater subversion of the American system than the White House can achieve.
In the past half-century, the pattern has been to put Democrats in power to grow the size of government, increase the debt, and remove individual liberties. Intermissions to this overall trend come in the Republican years with lower taxation. The American people are duped into thinking that the lower taxation is a difference in policy, and we fall into the stupor of political action.
Under Republicans, our rights are, still, consistently whittled away, our debt continues to skyrocket, our entitlement programs remain intact, big business continues to get bailed out, our free enterprise system is manipulated under government dictatorship, the economy crumbles, and the leftist agenda gets pushed down our throats. HOW IS ANY OF THIS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC BASTARDS DO???
Fool yourself not: when the Republicans gain control of Congress in the fall, you will not see the size of government reduced. They will hold the ground until the next wave of Democrats again take over.
The political process has failed and we are left to other methods for change. It is time that the government and the wealthy who seek to profit from the socialist monopoly being created under the United States government begin to fear the people again.
Within the fifty years of my life, the Republican Party has consistently promoted big government. Republicans will lie through their teeth on this policy, but their actions outweigh their empty promises.
Every Republican bastard in the White House has grown the size of both government and the national debt. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both generations of the Bush thugs have done this. Every Republican Congress has done the same, with an even greater subversion of the American system than the White House can achieve.
In the past half-century, the pattern has been to put Democrats in power to grow the size of government, increase the debt, and remove individual liberties. Intermissions to this overall trend come in the Republican years with lower taxation. The American people are duped into thinking that the lower taxation is a difference in policy, and we fall into the stupor of political action.
Under Republicans, our rights are, still, consistently whittled away, our debt continues to skyrocket, our entitlement programs remain intact, big business continues to get bailed out, our free enterprise system is manipulated under government dictatorship, the economy crumbles, and the leftist agenda gets pushed down our throats. HOW IS ANY OF THIS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC BASTARDS DO???
Fool yourself not: when the Republicans gain control of Congress in the fall, you will not see the size of government reduced. They will hold the ground until the next wave of Democrats again take over.
The political process has failed and we are left to other methods for change. It is time that the government and the wealthy who seek to profit from the socialist monopoly being created under the United States government begin to fear the people again.
An Examination of the Position of Imam Rauf
Muslims fall into basically four categories:
1. Those who separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality. This is a similar approach of a modern-day Christian or Jew who has no intention of applying the Book of Leviticus in modern-day legal systems. Muslims, Christians, and Jews who separate religious law from modern law have no intention of stoning women to death.
2. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by violent means.
3. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by peaceful means. These people try to slip Sharia law into the legal system, first as an alternative law system, with separate Sharia courts, then to phase out any competing legal systems once the Islamic population of the nation reaches critical mass, as is occurring in Europe.
4. Those who fall into group 2 but fake belonging to group 3. This group is represented by the many Muslims along the east coast who formed the network through mosques which planned the September 11 attacks.
Those in group 1 are the only ones who can be supportive of the U.S. Constitution while remaining Muslim. All others make themselves enemies of the Constitution and are a potential threat to national security.
Judging him by his own words, Imam Rauf falls into category 3.
I feel Imam Rauf sees the positioning of the mosque as a means of promoting the law code of his god above the laws of humans as determined by the American system. His own words indicate this.
The bridge he wishes to build between Americans and Muslims is to make Islamic law palatable to American non-Muslims.
Islamic resentment of Americans is what caused the attack on the WTC, and it is insulting to first turn this the other way around to make the victims the perpetrators, then plant a mosque as close as possible to the place of destruction to say that the victims should submit.
I cannot verify this, but I feel a majority of Muslims, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, probably fall into category 3. I think it is difficult for most Muslims to separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality.
1. Those who separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality. This is a similar approach of a modern-day Christian or Jew who has no intention of applying the Book of Leviticus in modern-day legal systems. Muslims, Christians, and Jews who separate religious law from modern law have no intention of stoning women to death.
2. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by violent means.
3. Those who wish to apply Islamic law by peaceful means. These people try to slip Sharia law into the legal system, first as an alternative law system, with separate Sharia courts, then to phase out any competing legal systems once the Islamic population of the nation reaches critical mass, as is occurring in Europe.
4. Those who fall into group 2 but fake belonging to group 3. This group is represented by the many Muslims along the east coast who formed the network through mosques which planned the September 11 attacks.
Those in group 1 are the only ones who can be supportive of the U.S. Constitution while remaining Muslim. All others make themselves enemies of the Constitution and are a potential threat to national security.
Judging him by his own words, Imam Rauf falls into category 3.
I feel Imam Rauf sees the positioning of the mosque as a means of promoting the law code of his god above the laws of humans as determined by the American system. His own words indicate this.
The bridge he wishes to build between Americans and Muslims is to make Islamic law palatable to American non-Muslims.
Islamic resentment of Americans is what caused the attack on the WTC, and it is insulting to first turn this the other way around to make the victims the perpetrators, then plant a mosque as close as possible to the place of destruction to say that the victims should submit.
I cannot verify this, but I feel a majority of Muslims, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, probably fall into category 3. I think it is difficult for most Muslims to separate Islamic law from Islamic spirituality.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Limiting Diversity: A Liberal Dilemma in Embracing Islam
Most westerners are aware of the liberal agenda of diversity. We are finding with greater awareness that this agenda represents more the divide-and-conquer approach of British colonialism than a defense of the rights of individuals of diverse backgrounds. Liberals only defend the rights of individuals with an underlying motive, usually of building more government control. The liberals of the current regime whittle away the rights of individuals, and more so with each passing day, proving their appreciation of diversity to be a mere political tool.
Liberals are more interested in dividing the society than unifying it. A unified society carries a potential threat to the political power of the government.
In the meantime, the guise of encouraging diversity continues. First, consumers are encouraged to hate "big business"--well, at least until it's time for bailouts. Then abortion is used as an issue to divide the country down the middle. It is probably the only "right" defended by liberals. Then more division between women and men. Then division of blacks against whites. Then Hispanics against whites. Then fire the hatred between Muslims and everyone else. Then, of course, the option of gay marriage is tossed in, to try to divide homosexuals from the rest of society.
Don't get me wrong here. I am not a social conservative--I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, and not merely a watered-down "civil union" which carries the dangers of "separate-but-equal" thinking, akin to that applied to blacks prior to desegregation. Rather, I invoke the freedom to associate, as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.
What I oppose is the pandering to the gay community by the Democrats. Likewise, I oppose the pandering to the Muslim community. The dilemma I describe is the result of hypocritically pandering to both of these groups at the same time.
We Americans are yet to learn what Europeans have learned--and learned too late--that pandering to certain fanatical members of the Muslim community will eventually suppress the rights of homosexuals and the rights of women in our own society.
Muslims have the same rights of religion as the rest of us in America, guaranteed to them by our Constitution. They do not need an unfair advantage over those of other religions. To give them this advantage is a matter of appeasement, not justice.
Many methods of mediation as alternatives to the court system exist and are encouraged in our society. Muslims are free to set up mediation between Muslims. In other nations, however, allowing mediation is not enough to satisfy the fanatics. Actual Muslim courts are demanded. In America, this would pose a direct threat to the legitimate courts established under our Constitution.
I have no anti-Muslim hatred or bigotry, and I count Muslims among my friends. I have no objection to anyone peacefully practicing Islam, in the U.S. or elsewhere. I recognize that most Muslims who immigrate to the U.S. are peaceful people. Most have come here for a different and hopefully better way of life.
However, I do not overlook that many Muslims see Islam as a political and not merely a religious system, and as a system to replace western governance. I do not overlook the fact that most terrorism against the U.S. comes from adherents to Islam. I do not overlook the fact that Muslims want their religion "in the face" of the American public by building a huge mosque near the site of the most successful Muslim attack on American soil. I do not overlook the members of the Nation of Islam or the New Black Panthers with Muslim names who spew hatred against white people like myself. I also do not overlook the fact that homosexuals are persecuted in most Muslim-majority nations.
To refuse to overlook facts does not make one a bigot. If I hate an individual for being a Muslim, it makes me a bigot. If I look at the tendencies in behavior of a given group of people, it merely makes me biased and aware. If I refuse to accept the values of a society different from my own because I recognize them to be oppressive, it makes me free.
It is easy for liberals to confuse bias and bigotry to silence dissent, particularly when liberals are in control of the government.
Though most Muslims are peace-loving people, the fanatical fringe increases with the increase in Muslim population within a region. The percentage of the fringe is also known to increase with population growth. Sooner or later, there will be imams ready to apply Islamic law against the rights of homosexuals and women. Demands for separate "sharia courts" will be the first step in an effort to exert Islamic law over the entire society. And liberals will say, "What is wrong with this? Does it not recognize the diversity within the society?" And the word "Islamophobe" will roll off their tongues against anyone who questions this.
Will the same liberals openly and vocally apply the word "homophobe" to imams opposed to homosexuality? Will liberals denounce a trampling on the rights of women within our society when "pluralism" in law means Islamic women will be forced to wear burkhas in America?
Soon, the leftist movement will betray its lack of support for the rights of individuals, in this case homosexuals and women. The leftists will instead favor appeasement of a rapidly-reproducing group whose fanatical elements do not recognize individual rights, who, when in majority, stone and decapitate individuals on moral rather than legal grounds, who hold our constitutional "God-given rights" to be the false fabrications of humans, and who reject our system in favor of a divine law allegedly given to an Arabian prophet. We, in America, will face the same tragedy faced by Europeans today, and watch our values of freedom deteriorate before our very eyes. Or is this already happening today?
Liberals are more interested in dividing the society than unifying it. A unified society carries a potential threat to the political power of the government.
In the meantime, the guise of encouraging diversity continues. First, consumers are encouraged to hate "big business"--well, at least until it's time for bailouts. Then abortion is used as an issue to divide the country down the middle. It is probably the only "right" defended by liberals. Then more division between women and men. Then division of blacks against whites. Then Hispanics against whites. Then fire the hatred between Muslims and everyone else. Then, of course, the option of gay marriage is tossed in, to try to divide homosexuals from the rest of society.
Don't get me wrong here. I am not a social conservative--I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, and not merely a watered-down "civil union" which carries the dangers of "separate-but-equal" thinking, akin to that applied to blacks prior to desegregation. Rather, I invoke the freedom to associate, as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.
What I oppose is the pandering to the gay community by the Democrats. Likewise, I oppose the pandering to the Muslim community. The dilemma I describe is the result of hypocritically pandering to both of these groups at the same time.
We Americans are yet to learn what Europeans have learned--and learned too late--that pandering to certain fanatical members of the Muslim community will eventually suppress the rights of homosexuals and the rights of women in our own society.
Muslims have the same rights of religion as the rest of us in America, guaranteed to them by our Constitution. They do not need an unfair advantage over those of other religions. To give them this advantage is a matter of appeasement, not justice.
Many methods of mediation as alternatives to the court system exist and are encouraged in our society. Muslims are free to set up mediation between Muslims. In other nations, however, allowing mediation is not enough to satisfy the fanatics. Actual Muslim courts are demanded. In America, this would pose a direct threat to the legitimate courts established under our Constitution.
I have no anti-Muslim hatred or bigotry, and I count Muslims among my friends. I have no objection to anyone peacefully practicing Islam, in the U.S. or elsewhere. I recognize that most Muslims who immigrate to the U.S. are peaceful people. Most have come here for a different and hopefully better way of life.
However, I do not overlook that many Muslims see Islam as a political and not merely a religious system, and as a system to replace western governance. I do not overlook the fact that most terrorism against the U.S. comes from adherents to Islam. I do not overlook the fact that Muslims want their religion "in the face" of the American public by building a huge mosque near the site of the most successful Muslim attack on American soil. I do not overlook the members of the Nation of Islam or the New Black Panthers with Muslim names who spew hatred against white people like myself. I also do not overlook the fact that homosexuals are persecuted in most Muslim-majority nations.
To refuse to overlook facts does not make one a bigot. If I hate an individual for being a Muslim, it makes me a bigot. If I look at the tendencies in behavior of a given group of people, it merely makes me biased and aware. If I refuse to accept the values of a society different from my own because I recognize them to be oppressive, it makes me free.
It is easy for liberals to confuse bias and bigotry to silence dissent, particularly when liberals are in control of the government.
Though most Muslims are peace-loving people, the fanatical fringe increases with the increase in Muslim population within a region. The percentage of the fringe is also known to increase with population growth. Sooner or later, there will be imams ready to apply Islamic law against the rights of homosexuals and women. Demands for separate "sharia courts" will be the first step in an effort to exert Islamic law over the entire society. And liberals will say, "What is wrong with this? Does it not recognize the diversity within the society?" And the word "Islamophobe" will roll off their tongues against anyone who questions this.
Will the same liberals openly and vocally apply the word "homophobe" to imams opposed to homosexuality? Will liberals denounce a trampling on the rights of women within our society when "pluralism" in law means Islamic women will be forced to wear burkhas in America?
Soon, the leftist movement will betray its lack of support for the rights of individuals, in this case homosexuals and women. The leftists will instead favor appeasement of a rapidly-reproducing group whose fanatical elements do not recognize individual rights, who, when in majority, stone and decapitate individuals on moral rather than legal grounds, who hold our constitutional "God-given rights" to be the false fabrications of humans, and who reject our system in favor of a divine law allegedly given to an Arabian prophet. We, in America, will face the same tragedy faced by Europeans today, and watch our values of freedom deteriorate before our very eyes. Or is this already happening today?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
NASA Policy Poses a Security Risk
After several days of discussion on the topic by intelligent reporters who are critical of the Obama administration, I find it disturbing that nobody noticed the security risk posed by the new NASA policy of cooperation with Muslim nations.
In February, NASA Administrator Bolden stated, in reference to Obama:
Specifically, he talked about connecting with countries that do not have an established space program and helping them conduct science missions. He mentioned new opportunities with Indonesia, including an educational program that examines global climate change.
Am I the only person to notice the words "countries that do not have an established space program"? We must demand to know what this really means. Does it mean establishing missile programs in Indonesia or Yemen? If so, are we safe to assume that missiles capable of launching spacecraft into orbit will not also be used to launch attacks on the U.S. or Israel?
Is it improper to ask if a president who spent a significant portion of his formative years in Indonesia does not have an agenda to do more that build a warm-fuzzy feeling between the nation he now controls and the nation of his upbringing? Is his anti-Israeli attitude not to be understood in the context of his growing up with a Muslim father, a Muslim stepfather, and years spent overseas in a predominantly Muslim nation?
If Muslims are imported to work at NASA, they will be given access to technology. If the technology is exported to Jakarta or elsewhere in the "Muslim world," then it poses an even greater security risk.
Emotion seems to have taken the upper hand over reason here in the press. Our pride in the accomplishments of our space program over the past fifty years eclipses the real issue. We see the regime mocked by conservative journalists for wanting to "redistribute a feel-good attitude to the Muslim world" when the real threat is the redistribution of missile systems to Muslim-majority nations.
In February, NASA Administrator Bolden stated, in reference to Obama:
Specifically, he talked about connecting with countries that do not have an established space program and helping them conduct science missions. He mentioned new opportunities with Indonesia, including an educational program that examines global climate change.
Am I the only person to notice the words "countries that do not have an established space program"? We must demand to know what this really means. Does it mean establishing missile programs in Indonesia or Yemen? If so, are we safe to assume that missiles capable of launching spacecraft into orbit will not also be used to launch attacks on the U.S. or Israel?
Is it improper to ask if a president who spent a significant portion of his formative years in Indonesia does not have an agenda to do more that build a warm-fuzzy feeling between the nation he now controls and the nation of his upbringing? Is his anti-Israeli attitude not to be understood in the context of his growing up with a Muslim father, a Muslim stepfather, and years spent overseas in a predominantly Muslim nation?
If Muslims are imported to work at NASA, they will be given access to technology. If the technology is exported to Jakarta or elsewhere in the "Muslim world," then it poses an even greater security risk.
Emotion seems to have taken the upper hand over reason here in the press. Our pride in the accomplishments of our space program over the past fifty years eclipses the real issue. We see the regime mocked by conservative journalists for wanting to "redistribute a feel-good attitude to the Muslim world" when the real threat is the redistribution of missile systems to Muslim-majority nations.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Constitutional Principles
Our society currently operates under the premise that "doing the right thing" outweighs the importance of abiding by the standards of the U.S. Constitution.
What is it that sets the principles of our Constitution at odds with the progressive agendas of social conservatism and leftist liberalism? What is it that makes the Constitution an obstacle to the goals of these groups? It is the belief that personal freedom guarantees the common good of the society.
It is the idea that society is hampered, not strengthened, by stifling the freedom, creativity, and innovation of individuals. It is the idea that a society is not to place the common good over the rights of individuals. It is the idea that individuals have the freedom to even make mistakes. It is the idea that personal freedom is an innate and divinely-given right which laws are not to hamper in the interest of the common good--with the only exception of when one person's actions hamper the rights of another. It means that an individual has the right to privacy and the ownership of private property. It means that one has the right to bear arms to defend one's property and one's rights against all enemies. It means that government confiscation of private property and private business is to be stifled, and that what a person owns is not to be distributed among those who have done nothing to earn it. It means, as it did to James Madison, the primary writer of the Constitution, that "equal division of property" is to be considered "a wicked project." It means that government is not to hamper the free market in the interest of an arbitrary sense of fairness, and that the government is to remain separate from private business. It means that ownership "by the people" means private business and not government takeover by corrupt politicians.
When a law is passed "for your own good," and not to protect the rights of another, it is recognizably unconstitutional, because it indicates government intrusion into one's personal decision making which does not affect others. The passage of such a law means that the activities of an individual, or of consenting adults in a group, are to be monitored by "big brother" rather than respected as the privacy of individuals, guaranteed to us by the Fourth Amendment.
We support the government envisioned by the founders, described in detail in the Federalist Papers, and put into practice through the adoption of the Constitution. We hold that American citizens have not merely the right but the duty to oppose any legislation which infringes upon our constitutional rights.
What is it that sets the principles of our Constitution at odds with the progressive agendas of social conservatism and leftist liberalism? What is it that makes the Constitution an obstacle to the goals of these groups? It is the belief that personal freedom guarantees the common good of the society.
It is the idea that society is hampered, not strengthened, by stifling the freedom, creativity, and innovation of individuals. It is the idea that a society is not to place the common good over the rights of individuals. It is the idea that individuals have the freedom to even make mistakes. It is the idea that personal freedom is an innate and divinely-given right which laws are not to hamper in the interest of the common good--with the only exception of when one person's actions hamper the rights of another. It means that an individual has the right to privacy and the ownership of private property. It means that one has the right to bear arms to defend one's property and one's rights against all enemies. It means that government confiscation of private property and private business is to be stifled, and that what a person owns is not to be distributed among those who have done nothing to earn it. It means, as it did to James Madison, the primary writer of the Constitution, that "equal division of property" is to be considered "a wicked project." It means that government is not to hamper the free market in the interest of an arbitrary sense of fairness, and that the government is to remain separate from private business. It means that ownership "by the people" means private business and not government takeover by corrupt politicians.
When a law is passed "for your own good," and not to protect the rights of another, it is recognizably unconstitutional, because it indicates government intrusion into one's personal decision making which does not affect others. The passage of such a law means that the activities of an individual, or of consenting adults in a group, are to be monitored by "big brother" rather than respected as the privacy of individuals, guaranteed to us by the Fourth Amendment.
We support the government envisioned by the founders, described in detail in the Federalist Papers, and put into practice through the adoption of the Constitution. We hold that American citizens have not merely the right but the duty to oppose any legislation which infringes upon our constitutional rights.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
A Proposed Plan for Change
When top-ranking Republicans betray our constitutional rights, we supporters of the Constitution can gain control of the party by a simple plan. This method balances the effective removal of undesirable Republican candidates while still fighting a left-wing Democratic majority in the Congress.
- Determine which elected Republicans have trampled upon our constitutional rights by promoting socially conservative legislation, by the buildup of big government, by supporting the Patriot Act and the continued existence of the Department of Homeland Security, by supporting the existence the Department of Education and continuing unconstitutional federal taxes for education, and by other such encroachments on the rights of individuals and state governments.
- In the primary, have a tea-party candidate run against any anti-constitutional Republican candidate. Donate to the tea-partier's campaign. These first steps are already being done.
- Target the highest ranking anti-constitutional Republican who wins in the primaries. Make a donation to the campaign of the Democratic opponent. Do not be tempted to contribute to Libertarians or others who have no chance of winning--put the money where it will hurt. Only target one, the top one, so that only one seat will be lost to Democrats. This will send a clear message to the Republican National Committee and to elected Republicans.
- Inform the Republican National Committee and the anti-constitutional candidate of what we are doing and why we are doing it. Send multiple emails, letters, and make phone calls.
Help Me Start a Revolution
Please join me in donating to the campaign of Justin Coussoule, the Democratic opponent of Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner. If it means getting an Ohio Democrat in office for two years for us to clean out the scum of the Republican Party, then so be it.
I also urge you to donate to the campaign of Republican Joe Barton of Texas. There was no excuse for his party's Minority Leader to silence him.
Send whatever you can afford to each campaign, be it five or five thousand dollars. BE CERTAIN to drop emails to John Boehner, and to R.N.C. Chair Michael Steele, letting them know about your donations and why you are doing it.
I am not asking anyone to excuse British Petroleum from their responsibility. Rather, this is a plea to preserve the constitutional right of a fair trial to every individual and corporation in the United States. When the executive branch usurps this power, we have the beginnings of dictatorship. The Republican Party has sold us out. If the citizens of this nation do not oppose this trend, nobody will.
So let's start taking out the anti-constitutional Republican incumbents one by one.
I also urge you to donate to the campaign of Republican Joe Barton of Texas. There was no excuse for his party's Minority Leader to silence him.
Send whatever you can afford to each campaign, be it five or five thousand dollars. BE CERTAIN to drop emails to John Boehner, and to R.N.C. Chair Michael Steele, letting them know about your donations and why you are doing it.
I am not asking anyone to excuse British Petroleum from their responsibility. Rather, this is a plea to preserve the constitutional right of a fair trial to every individual and corporation in the United States. When the executive branch usurps this power, we have the beginnings of dictatorship. The Republican Party has sold us out. If the citizens of this nation do not oppose this trend, nobody will.
So let's start taking out the anti-constitutional Republican incumbents one by one.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
G-Summit Leftist Violence Still Again
Well, it's that time again for global summits. That means that the leftist violence is here.
More property damage, more burned police cars, more cases of urine being thrown upon normal people who actually earn a living. The protesters brand themselves "anarchists" to hide their leftist agenda. Anarchy is a lack of government, not an organized system of global wealth redistribution.
So who are these "steal-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor" protesters? Let's try to identify the spoiled rich brats whose corporate parents should have beaten some sense into them when they acted up as children, now filled with guilt for being born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but still rich enough to afford not to work and instead travel, frequently to other nations, to tear up property and harass citizens there. The rest are society's losers, those who feel that the world owes them a living, while making no effort to survive for themselves--in other words, potential recipients of some wealth redistribution.
Compliments go to the Toronto police for handling these criminals in the proper way, unlike the Pittsburgh police at the last G20. Hopefully enough protesters are trampled and die this time to reduce the quantity of scum showing up at the next G8 or G20. That would be true environmental cleanup.
In the meantime, the American mainstream press will ignore this left-wing violence to instead continue to pontificate on the evils of "right wing extremism" in their labeling of tea party rallies. It is undeniable that the only violence present in such rallies is done to the tea partiers by leftist opponents and Democratic-party representatives. One such example of this was in the Nevada protests against Harry Reid, where eggs were thrown at the tea partiers.
So what is the difference between the American tea partiers and these self-proclaimed anarchists? Tea partiers are normally working people, who respect the law, who hold normal jobs, and who cannot afford, under normal circumstances, to take a week off of work to protest and possibly get thrown in jail. The alleged anarchists are those who sponge off their rich parents or their society.
More property damage, more burned police cars, more cases of urine being thrown upon normal people who actually earn a living. The protesters brand themselves "anarchists" to hide their leftist agenda. Anarchy is a lack of government, not an organized system of global wealth redistribution.
So who are these "steal-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor" protesters? Let's try to identify the spoiled rich brats whose corporate parents should have beaten some sense into them when they acted up as children, now filled with guilt for being born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but still rich enough to afford not to work and instead travel, frequently to other nations, to tear up property and harass citizens there. The rest are society's losers, those who feel that the world owes them a living, while making no effort to survive for themselves--in other words, potential recipients of some wealth redistribution.
Compliments go to the Toronto police for handling these criminals in the proper way, unlike the Pittsburgh police at the last G20. Hopefully enough protesters are trampled and die this time to reduce the quantity of scum showing up at the next G8 or G20. That would be true environmental cleanup.
In the meantime, the American mainstream press will ignore this left-wing violence to instead continue to pontificate on the evils of "right wing extremism" in their labeling of tea party rallies. It is undeniable that the only violence present in such rallies is done to the tea partiers by leftist opponents and Democratic-party representatives. One such example of this was in the Nevada protests against Harry Reid, where eggs were thrown at the tea partiers.
So what is the difference between the American tea partiers and these self-proclaimed anarchists? Tea partiers are normally working people, who respect the law, who hold normal jobs, and who cannot afford, under normal circumstances, to take a week off of work to protest and possibly get thrown in jail. The alleged anarchists are those who sponge off their rich parents or their society.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Crime, Violence, and Poverty
The correlation between crime and poverty is undeniable. However, the socialist slant to the correlation is to pretend that poverty is the source of both crime and violence. This thinking has proven to be a cancer to our modern society, resulting in overwhelming American national debt, and the destruction of human character regarding personal responsibility.
This thinking has permeated western society since the time of the Great Depression of the 1930's. By using the failed economy as an excuse for government control, the Democrats provided the forerunner of our current "economic stimulus" legislation and budgeting, and set up the structure of today's nanny state. As with the "New Deal" of 80 years ago, today's stimulus packages are doomed to failure, by making the mistake of funding government nanny programs and preventing real economic growth through the private sector. Regulations are favored over incentives, and the redistribution of wealth through high taxation ensures that failed welfare programs are continued in perpetuity.
By the 1960's, the "New Deal" of Roosevelt, designed to stabilize the economy, developed into the "Great Society" of Johnson, aimed at the removal of poverty. The unmet goals of the 1930's developed into a Utopian dream in the 1960's. The idea that taxpayer dollars could remove both poverty and crime has proven, half a century later, to be a whimsical dream which deteriorated into madness.
The brilliant Texas bastard who started the alleged "Great Society" also revised military strategy. Social idealism combined with Lyndon Johnson's criminal interest in the Asian drug market to shape strategy in the Viet Nam War; it is no coincidence in timing between the drug culture of the 1960's and the Viet Nam War. Johnson's failed efforts in Viet Nam gave birth to the "counterinsurgency" strategy currently being applied in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The school systems were seen as tools in this "war on poverty" and racial integration was used as an excuse for change. By bringing students from high-crime and high-poverty neighborhoods into the same schools as the achieving, it was assumed that opportunities would improve for the poor and that both crime and poverty would be eliminated. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The introduction of criminal thinking into previously law-abiding families caused a catastrophic increase in crime. The introduction of criminal elements into the classrooms caused educational standards to spiral downwards, and schools failed to provide for the needs of productive students, regardless of racial background.
Combined with this, federal welfare payments reduced incentives for self-sufficiency among the poor, creating a dependency as sinister as any found under slavery in the 1800's.
Social conservatism combined with leftist liberalism in promoting the lie that poverty could be combated more with money than police action. Social conservatives successfully diverted police efforts into the "war on drugs," pathetic efforts at alleged "child protection," and a vast array of prohibitions infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens.
If something is stolen from one's home today, one should not expect to get it back, nor expect any serious investigation to result. Any theft today is ignored. After all, through theft, wealth is assumed to be redistributed, since poverty is considered the source of crime. Usually insurance companies pick up the tab for now.
With the attacks of 2001, excuses were made for the corrupt programs of the Bush years. The passing of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security resulted in the violation of citizen rights at the cost of citizen tax dollars. The start of Faith-Based Initiative programs ensure eventual government control of the churches. The current Obama regime has used these tools effectively in crushing the rights of citizens, but these were all established under Republican rule. The law-abiding citizens remain under tight government control, their rights violated, while the criminals and terrorists have "human rights" and are the only ones with any protection under the law.
The madness of our domestic policy has been exported to Iraq and Afghanistan, as testified to in the controversial Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. The madness of "counterinsurgency" strategy implies that the Taliban can be combated more by relieving poverty and providing a stable society of locals than by blasting the jihadi bastards out of existence. Let's send American tax dollars to the poor instead of bombs at the terrorists! Have we lost our minds? This failed policy of building the "Great Society" at home cannot work elsewhere, least of all in Muslim-majority nations, where our dollars end up being collected by terrorists.
In the efforts to stabilize Iraq after the invasion, the city of Fallujah should have been flattened. A significant number of terrorists would have been wiped out. Many civilian lives would have been lost, but many others saved in the long run. Had it been made clear to other terrorist cities and towns that they would meet a similar fate, the uprising would have stopped. A stable government would then have been possible. Instead, vain efforts to build a stable society amidst political instability will continue, and the fighting will continue long after U.S. troops leave either Iraq or Afghanistan. The welfare mentality re-wrote the U.S. rules of combat into a new strategy, called LOSING.
The confusion of cause and effect in the case of poverty and criminal behavior needs to be set straight. Crime breeds poverty. Violence breeds poverty. Forget about fighting poverty, and gain control over the criminals. Poverty will then be reduced, both in America and around the world.
This thinking has permeated western society since the time of the Great Depression of the 1930's. By using the failed economy as an excuse for government control, the Democrats provided the forerunner of our current "economic stimulus" legislation and budgeting, and set up the structure of today's nanny state. As with the "New Deal" of 80 years ago, today's stimulus packages are doomed to failure, by making the mistake of funding government nanny programs and preventing real economic growth through the private sector. Regulations are favored over incentives, and the redistribution of wealth through high taxation ensures that failed welfare programs are continued in perpetuity.
By the 1960's, the "New Deal" of Roosevelt, designed to stabilize the economy, developed into the "Great Society" of Johnson, aimed at the removal of poverty. The unmet goals of the 1930's developed into a Utopian dream in the 1960's. The idea that taxpayer dollars could remove both poverty and crime has proven, half a century later, to be a whimsical dream which deteriorated into madness.
The brilliant Texas bastard who started the alleged "Great Society" also revised military strategy. Social idealism combined with Lyndon Johnson's criminal interest in the Asian drug market to shape strategy in the Viet Nam War; it is no coincidence in timing between the drug culture of the 1960's and the Viet Nam War. Johnson's failed efforts in Viet Nam gave birth to the "counterinsurgency" strategy currently being applied in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The school systems were seen as tools in this "war on poverty" and racial integration was used as an excuse for change. By bringing students from high-crime and high-poverty neighborhoods into the same schools as the achieving, it was assumed that opportunities would improve for the poor and that both crime and poverty would be eliminated. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The introduction of criminal thinking into previously law-abiding families caused a catastrophic increase in crime. The introduction of criminal elements into the classrooms caused educational standards to spiral downwards, and schools failed to provide for the needs of productive students, regardless of racial background.
Combined with this, federal welfare payments reduced incentives for self-sufficiency among the poor, creating a dependency as sinister as any found under slavery in the 1800's.
Social conservatism combined with leftist liberalism in promoting the lie that poverty could be combated more with money than police action. Social conservatives successfully diverted police efforts into the "war on drugs," pathetic efforts at alleged "child protection," and a vast array of prohibitions infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens.
If something is stolen from one's home today, one should not expect to get it back, nor expect any serious investigation to result. Any theft today is ignored. After all, through theft, wealth is assumed to be redistributed, since poverty is considered the source of crime. Usually insurance companies pick up the tab for now.
With the attacks of 2001, excuses were made for the corrupt programs of the Bush years. The passing of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security resulted in the violation of citizen rights at the cost of citizen tax dollars. The start of Faith-Based Initiative programs ensure eventual government control of the churches. The current Obama regime has used these tools effectively in crushing the rights of citizens, but these were all established under Republican rule. The law-abiding citizens remain under tight government control, their rights violated, while the criminals and terrorists have "human rights" and are the only ones with any protection under the law.
The madness of our domestic policy has been exported to Iraq and Afghanistan, as testified to in the controversial Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. The madness of "counterinsurgency" strategy implies that the Taliban can be combated more by relieving poverty and providing a stable society of locals than by blasting the jihadi bastards out of existence. Let's send American tax dollars to the poor instead of bombs at the terrorists! Have we lost our minds? This failed policy of building the "Great Society" at home cannot work elsewhere, least of all in Muslim-majority nations, where our dollars end up being collected by terrorists.
In the efforts to stabilize Iraq after the invasion, the city of Fallujah should have been flattened. A significant number of terrorists would have been wiped out. Many civilian lives would have been lost, but many others saved in the long run. Had it been made clear to other terrorist cities and towns that they would meet a similar fate, the uprising would have stopped. A stable government would then have been possible. Instead, vain efforts to build a stable society amidst political instability will continue, and the fighting will continue long after U.S. troops leave either Iraq or Afghanistan. The welfare mentality re-wrote the U.S. rules of combat into a new strategy, called LOSING.
The confusion of cause and effect in the case of poverty and criminal behavior needs to be set straight. Crime breeds poverty. Violence breeds poverty. Forget about fighting poverty, and gain control over the criminals. Poverty will then be reduced, both in America and around the world.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Email to Boehner and Pence
(Note: Cantor's website does not allow for comments, in spite of my intentions of sending this to him as well.)
Your forcing of Joe Barton to recant on his apology for the extortion of money by the current White House regime is a disgrace. You have proven yourself to be unworthy of public office in this land by failing to uphold the authority of the Constitution, by allowing this extortion to happen, and by silencing one with the courage and integrity to condemn this assault on the rights of private business.
Mark J. Richard
Republican voter
Lafayette, Louisiana
Your forcing of Joe Barton to recant on his apology for the extortion of money by the current White House regime is a disgrace. You have proven yourself to be unworthy of public office in this land by failing to uphold the authority of the Constitution, by allowing this extortion to happen, and by silencing one with the courage and integrity to condemn this assault on the rights of private business.
Mark J. Richard
Republican voter
Lafayette, Louisiana
Still Another Republican Betrayal of Justice
Last year I wrote a blog here about the miserable and disgraceful failure of the Republican Party to provide a viable opposition to the Democratic regime. Then only last night, I challenged here the constitutionality of what Rep. Joe Barton rightly described as a "White House shakedown" of British Petroleum.
Rep. Barton obviously agrees with my assessment of the situation. However, the power-wielding scumbags of the Republican Party were quick to oppose this condemnation of the tactics of the current post-constitutional regime, and force him to recant under political threat.
It is time for the Tea Party movement to take on these scumbags who betray those who defend the Constitution, and the constitutional rights of individuals and entities in our nation. Determine the role, if any, of Michael Steele in this. GET BOEHNER, CANTOR, AND PENCE OUT OF OFFICE. Weed out the scum by running deserving candidates against these traitors to our constitutional principles. Let it be a lesson to those others who are tempted to put their political agenda in front of our constitutional rights.
In contrast to these jerks, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Tom Price have made similar condemnations of this White House effort to bypass the court system and proclaim B.P. guilty without trial. Bachman and Price have rightly described the White House extortion of $20 billion as a "shakedown" and a "redistribution of wealth fund."
No doubt dunces like Boehner, Cantor, and Pence think that by giving in to leftist-inspired political correctness, they increase the chance of Republicans getting more seats in Congress. However, the recent primaries have proven that nearly every candidate backed by the outspoken Sarah Palin has won in the primaries, even against party-backed opponents, and usually with an overwhelming victory. Why not take on the policies and approach of Sarah Palin? Why this "let's not rock the boat" attitude that compromises with, rather than confronting, the threat of the current regime?
We Republican defenders of the Constitution do not "more of the same" out of the Republican Party. We do not want another Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, or Faith-Based Initiatives to provide a means for federal intervention into the private and religious aspects of our lives. We do not want the curse of another Bush in the oval office, to provide to the even greater tyrants who follow still more governmental tools to be used against us as citizens.
We Americans are tired of seeing constitutional values being watered down and our constitutional rights trampled upon. This is the motivation behind the Tea Party movement. What is being done to B.P. is not something we want to see done to the companies we own, to ourselves as individuals, nor to the family members we love. We will respond in an appropriate way to any government tyranny, be it brought on by Democrats or Republicans, liberals or social conservatives.
Rep. Barton obviously agrees with my assessment of the situation. However, the power-wielding scumbags of the Republican Party were quick to oppose this condemnation of the tactics of the current post-constitutional regime, and force him to recant under political threat.
It is time for the Tea Party movement to take on these scumbags who betray those who defend the Constitution, and the constitutional rights of individuals and entities in our nation. Determine the role, if any, of Michael Steele in this. GET BOEHNER, CANTOR, AND PENCE OUT OF OFFICE. Weed out the scum by running deserving candidates against these traitors to our constitutional principles. Let it be a lesson to those others who are tempted to put their political agenda in front of our constitutional rights.
In contrast to these jerks, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Tom Price have made similar condemnations of this White House effort to bypass the court system and proclaim B.P. guilty without trial. Bachman and Price have rightly described the White House extortion of $20 billion as a "shakedown" and a "redistribution of wealth fund."
No doubt dunces like Boehner, Cantor, and Pence think that by giving in to leftist-inspired political correctness, they increase the chance of Republicans getting more seats in Congress. However, the recent primaries have proven that nearly every candidate backed by the outspoken Sarah Palin has won in the primaries, even against party-backed opponents, and usually with an overwhelming victory. Why not take on the policies and approach of Sarah Palin? Why this "let's not rock the boat" attitude that compromises with, rather than confronting, the threat of the current regime?
We Republican defenders of the Constitution do not "more of the same" out of the Republican Party. We do not want another Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, or Faith-Based Initiatives to provide a means for federal intervention into the private and religious aspects of our lives. We do not want the curse of another Bush in the oval office, to provide to the even greater tyrants who follow still more governmental tools to be used against us as citizens.
We Americans are tired of seeing constitutional values being watered down and our constitutional rights trampled upon. This is the motivation behind the Tea Party movement. What is being done to B.P. is not something we want to see done to the companies we own, to ourselves as individuals, nor to the family members we love. We will respond in an appropriate way to any government tyranny, be it brought on by Democrats or Republicans, liberals or social conservatives.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A Speech Filled With Lies
In listening to last night's latest propaganda performance by our community-rabble-rouser-in-chief, I find my anger boiling over, living here in Louisiana and staying informed on a day-to-day basis of events of the Obama Oil Disaster.
Let's look now at the truth behind the lies. While the president presented the need for new regulations, the administration failed miserably to implement existing laws and policies. The Huffington Post (not exactly a right-wing publication) described how under the Bush administration, the Deepwater Horizon rig had been issued six safety citations, including one on the blowout protector which failed and allowed the blowout. However, just prior to the blowout, the Obama administration had issued a safety award to the rig.
The proclamation that deep-water drilling is necessary because oil was depleted in shallower waters is maliciously wrong. Environmental policies have put an end to ordinary offshore drilling in many cases, forcing oil companies to go to deeper waters.
The president implied the building of sand barriers to be part of his plan. In reality, Governor Jindal, under whose administration the idea was developed, was restrained for over a month from building those sand barriers to prevent the oil from encroaching into our coastlines and swamps. Now that the swamps are saturated with oil, barrier construction is approved, and the president deceitfully claims "We've approved the construction of barrier islands in Louisiana, to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore..."
The Obama administration has turned down offers from other nations to send skimmer ships to help in the clean up. The Jones Act prohibits foreign ships from doing such work in U.S. waters, but this act can be rescinded in an emergency, as it was after Hurricane Katrina. The current regime has refused to allow foreign ships to be used because of pressure from labor unions. The Dutch offered early on to help in the clean up, but were refused by the regime.
The only effective responses of the Obama administration are to ban drilling, to threaten to take over British Petroleum, and to push for a "new energy policy." Louisiana, the state most affected by the oil disaster, has maintained a 4-6% unemployment rate, roughly half of the national average. Obama has effectively allowed the destruction of the Louisiana seafood industry. This, in turn, affects our tourism. His ban on drilling will cause the loss of jobs in the oil industry. Republican-run Louisiana will now be forced, by Democratic-led federal intervention, to face the same levels of unemployment as the rest of the nation. Is this a result of coincidence or calculation?
I would like to think that the president simply made poor decisions. A glance at his reaction, however, shows that these were not mistakes. Obama capitalized on the situation by turning a bad accident into a major disaster. His calculated moves increase federal interference in local governance and strengthen the executive branch to a degree of power far beyond that granted by our U.S. Constitution, a document deemed obsolete by most current politicians, but to which our military is sworn to uphold against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Private individuals in Alabama and Florida are PROHIBITED from doing voluntary beach cleanup. So much for their individual rights. Unless a go-ahead is given by our all-powerful federal government, no actions can be taken on a state or local level for cleanup. Obama wants visible damage, in order to remind our people of the catastrophe, so that government regulations and intervention can be increased. I am reminded that James Madison once remarked, "Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant."
The executive branch of government has openly usurped the power of the judicial branch. In the president's words, "We will make B.P. pay for the damage their company has caused." It is not up to the president of the United States to hold accountable or punish those companies he deems guilty. It is not within the power of the presidency to dictate what money B.P. has to pay out in damages, nor dictate the manner in which this is done. The proper third party to manage any trust funds or payouts is the constitutionally-established court system, not an executive-appointed board. What happened to the process of the class-action lawsuit? What gives anyone in our government the right to declare a company guilty without due process of the law, and a fair trial?
What is happening to our constitutional rights under the current regime? When the president determines the guilt and innocence of private companies, the next step is to usurp similar power over individuals. This is the mark of a totalitarian dictator rather than an elected official of a free republic.
Let's look now at the truth behind the lies. While the president presented the need for new regulations, the administration failed miserably to implement existing laws and policies. The Huffington Post (not exactly a right-wing publication) described how under the Bush administration, the Deepwater Horizon rig had been issued six safety citations, including one on the blowout protector which failed and allowed the blowout. However, just prior to the blowout, the Obama administration had issued a safety award to the rig.
The proclamation that deep-water drilling is necessary because oil was depleted in shallower waters is maliciously wrong. Environmental policies have put an end to ordinary offshore drilling in many cases, forcing oil companies to go to deeper waters.
The president implied the building of sand barriers to be part of his plan. In reality, Governor Jindal, under whose administration the idea was developed, was restrained for over a month from building those sand barriers to prevent the oil from encroaching into our coastlines and swamps. Now that the swamps are saturated with oil, barrier construction is approved, and the president deceitfully claims "We've approved the construction of barrier islands in Louisiana, to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore..."
The Obama administration has turned down offers from other nations to send skimmer ships to help in the clean up. The Jones Act prohibits foreign ships from doing such work in U.S. waters, but this act can be rescinded in an emergency, as it was after Hurricane Katrina. The current regime has refused to allow foreign ships to be used because of pressure from labor unions. The Dutch offered early on to help in the clean up, but were refused by the regime.
The only effective responses of the Obama administration are to ban drilling, to threaten to take over British Petroleum, and to push for a "new energy policy." Louisiana, the state most affected by the oil disaster, has maintained a 4-6% unemployment rate, roughly half of the national average. Obama has effectively allowed the destruction of the Louisiana seafood industry. This, in turn, affects our tourism. His ban on drilling will cause the loss of jobs in the oil industry. Republican-run Louisiana will now be forced, by Democratic-led federal intervention, to face the same levels of unemployment as the rest of the nation. Is this a result of coincidence or calculation?
I would like to think that the president simply made poor decisions. A glance at his reaction, however, shows that these were not mistakes. Obama capitalized on the situation by turning a bad accident into a major disaster. His calculated moves increase federal interference in local governance and strengthen the executive branch to a degree of power far beyond that granted by our U.S. Constitution, a document deemed obsolete by most current politicians, but to which our military is sworn to uphold against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Private individuals in Alabama and Florida are PROHIBITED from doing voluntary beach cleanup. So much for their individual rights. Unless a go-ahead is given by our all-powerful federal government, no actions can be taken on a state or local level for cleanup. Obama wants visible damage, in order to remind our people of the catastrophe, so that government regulations and intervention can be increased. I am reminded that James Madison once remarked, "Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant."
The executive branch of government has openly usurped the power of the judicial branch. In the president's words, "We will make B.P. pay for the damage their company has caused." It is not up to the president of the United States to hold accountable or punish those companies he deems guilty. It is not within the power of the presidency to dictate what money B.P. has to pay out in damages, nor dictate the manner in which this is done. The proper third party to manage any trust funds or payouts is the constitutionally-established court system, not an executive-appointed board. What happened to the process of the class-action lawsuit? What gives anyone in our government the right to declare a company guilty without due process of the law, and a fair trial?
What is happening to our constitutional rights under the current regime? When the president determines the guilt and innocence of private companies, the next step is to usurp similar power over individuals. This is the mark of a totalitarian dictator rather than an elected official of a free republic.
Never Let a Good Catastrophe Go to Waste???
Rahm Emanuel, concerning the political implications of the Obama oil disaster:
"Never let a good catastrophe go to waste."
So what does this mean? It is an admission of what I've been fuming about all along: that the president of our nation has hampered both prevention and cleanup of the oil spill, in essence creating a disaster, in order to further his political agenda.
Now we can expect government takeover or intensive regulation of oil companies...all in the name of "energy reform," no doubt.
While Barak Hussein obviously did not cause the oil spill, he definitely created the disaster we now see. He should be duly honored by having his handiwork referred to as the Obama Oil Disaster of 2010.
"Never let a good catastrophe go to waste."
So what does this mean? It is an admission of what I've been fuming about all along: that the president of our nation has hampered both prevention and cleanup of the oil spill, in essence creating a disaster, in order to further his political agenda.
Now we can expect government takeover or intensive regulation of oil companies...all in the name of "energy reform," no doubt.
While Barak Hussein obviously did not cause the oil spill, he definitely created the disaster we now see. He should be duly honored by having his handiwork referred to as the Obama Oil Disaster of 2010.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Social Conservatives and the Catholic League
Having visited the Catholic League site, I've noticed how leftist their agenda is, stating their firm stand with the Catholic Church on redistribution of wealth.
I find it both appalling and amusing that social conservatives run to the defense of this leftist group, all in the name of honoring Mother Teresa. Social conservatives completely overlook the fact that this socialist group, in its total disdain for private ownership of property, DEMANDS that a private building be used to further their religious cause--a cause contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution--a cause of "social justice" and perverted ethics.
This shows how social conservatism is merely another form of totalitarian thinking. It is time that the libertarian spirit of the Tea Party movement return us to constitutional values of capitalism and private ownership of property.
I find it both appalling and amusing that social conservatives run to the defense of this leftist group, all in the name of honoring Mother Teresa. Social conservatives completely overlook the fact that this socialist group, in its total disdain for private ownership of property, DEMANDS that a private building be used to further their religious cause--a cause contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution--a cause of "social justice" and perverted ethics.
This shows how social conservatism is merely another form of totalitarian thinking. It is time that the libertarian spirit of the Tea Party movement return us to constitutional values of capitalism and private ownership of property.
A Message to the Mafia Thugs at the Catholic League
(Sent to the Catholic League website, June 11, 2010)
Having grown up Roman Catholic, it is difficult for me to hate the religion of my ancestors. My parents did a decent job instilling values in me, whether or not I have lived up to these values.
That does not exempt Catholic organizations like your own from my harsh criticism. I have no tolerance when the Catholic League tries to insist that private landowners must cater to your religio-psychotic whims and give in to your leftist agenda. It is disgraceful to you when you refer to refusals to pay homage to your would-be saint as "snubs"
This is America, not medieval Europe. Forget the idea that your link to the Catholic Church gives you the right to dictate to the owners of private property what they should or should not do with what they own. The freedom gained by our founding fathers in the separation of church and state, and the protection of the rights of individuals--this is something Catholic Europe never could imagine, much less implement under any form of government. Catholic nations were too caught up in papal supremacy and divine rights of kings. Rather than giving the world freedom, twentieth-century European Catholic nations all gave rise to Fascism and National Socialism, with the sole exception of France, whose ideals were patterned after ours--not the Vatican's.
The Catholic League subscribes to socialist thinking and wealth redistribution, where what is yours is yours, and what is mine is also yours. And the more I earn, the more it is yours.
I will address your leader now. Mr. Donahue, you seem to disregard the fact that owners of a building do not need to make rules to suit the Catholic League. They only need to make rules to suit themselves. After all, don't they own the building? If you feel so strongly, go buy a skyscraper and put whatever lights on it you choose. And let some Jewish group complain that the lights are not in the shape of a Menorah at Hanukkah.
However, we know that Jews do not use Mafia tactics as developed in Catholic Italy. You organization is obviously not above this.
Having grown up Roman Catholic, it is difficult for me to hate the religion of my ancestors. My parents did a decent job instilling values in me, whether or not I have lived up to these values.
That does not exempt Catholic organizations like your own from my harsh criticism. I have no tolerance when the Catholic League tries to insist that private landowners must cater to your religio-psychotic whims and give in to your leftist agenda. It is disgraceful to you when you refer to refusals to pay homage to your would-be saint as "snubs"
This is America, not medieval Europe. Forget the idea that your link to the Catholic Church gives you the right to dictate to the owners of private property what they should or should not do with what they own. The freedom gained by our founding fathers in the separation of church and state, and the protection of the rights of individuals--this is something Catholic Europe never could imagine, much less implement under any form of government. Catholic nations were too caught up in papal supremacy and divine rights of kings. Rather than giving the world freedom, twentieth-century European Catholic nations all gave rise to Fascism and National Socialism, with the sole exception of France, whose ideals were patterned after ours--not the Vatican's.
The Catholic League subscribes to socialist thinking and wealth redistribution, where what is yours is yours, and what is mine is also yours. And the more I earn, the more it is yours.
I will address your leader now. Mr. Donahue, you seem to disregard the fact that owners of a building do not need to make rules to suit the Catholic League. They only need to make rules to suit themselves. After all, don't they own the building? If you feel so strongly, go buy a skyscraper and put whatever lights on it you choose. And let some Jewish group complain that the lights are not in the shape of a Menorah at Hanukkah.
However, we know that Jews do not use Mafia tactics as developed in Catholic Italy. You organization is obviously not above this.
Thank you, Obama
(Email sent to White House, May 28, 2010)
My thanks to you, the ghetto-boy-in-chief of our nation. Thank you for doing nothing for weeks as the oil slick entered our Louisiana marshes, even when we had a chance to prevent this mess. Thank you for giving us your ghetto-based panhandling-style words to attempt to appease us, but take ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS to prevent this rape of our coast.
If this were the California coast, you would be catering to the demands of your political whore, Pelosi, to get things cleaned up. Republican-dominated Louisiana is a different story, isn't it?
Thank you for "supporting" our governor by using your thugs in the Corps of Engineers to block his building of sand barriers to keep the oil from encroaching. Thank you for your racist attitude against our governor--after all, a bigoted reaction is to be expected of a black community rabble-rouser against those dark-skinned individuals with parents from other parts of the world, who prosper in America instead of moaning and groaning about "disparities." Is it a coincidence that you fail to cooperate with the governor whom you despise, whose superior intelligence you envy? The governor who has maintained low unemployment and economic prosperity in our state, despite your attempts to destroy our nation's economy to promote your true agenda? Is it a coincidence that you are out to destroy the only state which is prospering right now, avoiding the economic plight you and your Democratic Congress have inflicted upon the rest of the nation?
Anyone who doubts this should look at the numbers, and see what happened to the stock market once your Dems got control of the budget. Don't blame it on Bush--for his first six years, a Republican Congress gave us a bull market. A half-brain can look at the NASDAQ or Dow Jones records and see when the market plummeted, and see that it coincides with a Democratic majority in Congress.
Thank you for allowing this environmental catastrophe to happen so that you now have another excuse to place heavier restrictions against still another aspect of American business. The only thing you have shown speed in is your rapid effort to block further oil exploration and drilling in the U.S. Your priorities are clear to us. And our precious land in Louisiana is merely a tool for your corrupt political regime. But we Louisianians are not your pawns.
Go back to your Chicago ghetto. Go use your affirmative-action-provided Harvard education to stir up shit among the less educated. At least limit your crap to ruining one city instead of the whole nation. But, then again, is that not ruining our nation your real goal? Who needs external terrorists, when the terrorist-in-chief sits in the oval office?
My thanks to you, the ghetto-boy-in-chief of our nation. Thank you for doing nothing for weeks as the oil slick entered our Louisiana marshes, even when we had a chance to prevent this mess. Thank you for giving us your ghetto-based panhandling-style words to attempt to appease us, but take ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS to prevent this rape of our coast.
If this were the California coast, you would be catering to the demands of your political whore, Pelosi, to get things cleaned up. Republican-dominated Louisiana is a different story, isn't it?
Thank you for "supporting" our governor by using your thugs in the Corps of Engineers to block his building of sand barriers to keep the oil from encroaching. Thank you for your racist attitude against our governor--after all, a bigoted reaction is to be expected of a black community rabble-rouser against those dark-skinned individuals with parents from other parts of the world, who prosper in America instead of moaning and groaning about "disparities." Is it a coincidence that you fail to cooperate with the governor whom you despise, whose superior intelligence you envy? The governor who has maintained low unemployment and economic prosperity in our state, despite your attempts to destroy our nation's economy to promote your true agenda? Is it a coincidence that you are out to destroy the only state which is prospering right now, avoiding the economic plight you and your Democratic Congress have inflicted upon the rest of the nation?
Anyone who doubts this should look at the numbers, and see what happened to the stock market once your Dems got control of the budget. Don't blame it on Bush--for his first six years, a Republican Congress gave us a bull market. A half-brain can look at the NASDAQ or Dow Jones records and see when the market plummeted, and see that it coincides with a Democratic majority in Congress.
Thank you for allowing this environmental catastrophe to happen so that you now have another excuse to place heavier restrictions against still another aspect of American business. The only thing you have shown speed in is your rapid effort to block further oil exploration and drilling in the U.S. Your priorities are clear to us. And our precious land in Louisiana is merely a tool for your corrupt political regime. But we Louisianians are not your pawns.
Go back to your Chicago ghetto. Go use your affirmative-action-provided Harvard education to stir up shit among the less educated. At least limit your crap to ruining one city instead of the whole nation. But, then again, is that not ruining our nation your real goal? Who needs external terrorists, when the terrorist-in-chief sits in the oval office?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)