Right Wing Radicals
Yeah, maybe we are kooky old men, but at least we remember some history.
When we call Barack Obama a communist, we are soundly scolded. Why would we come up with that foolishness? We remember an old saying suggesting that if something "looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck" you can quit searching for further identification; IT IS A DUCK.
Listen to Obama in his recent news conference: "I refuse to give tax cuts to rich people who don't need them." Who don't need them? Where have we heard that sort of quacking before? Oh, Yes, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That was Karl Marx, father of Communism. Only Communists believe governments should decide what their citizens need. Rich folks don't need tax cuts? Says who?
Okay, if rich folks don't need to have their taxes cut, who does need for rich folks to have their taxes cut? The answer is, all the rest of us. John F. Kennedy, an icon of the Democratic Party who pushed for deep tax cuts, argued, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Urging a tax rate cut, Kennedy said: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. The experience of a number of European countries has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reductions in 1954 has borne this out, and the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget -- and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budgetary deficit but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which will bring a budgetary surplus."
Economist Art Laffer researched history and came up with the Laffer Curve. A graphic way of illustrating his findings, it clearly showed that as tax rates decreased, tax revenues increased. History.
Two time winner of the Pulitzer Prize, David McCullough, widely acclaimed as a “master of the art of narrative history,” was interviewed on CBS Television's 60 Minutes. He deplored American's lack of knowledge of history. We old right wing radicals concur. How sad that lessons we learned, often with considerable pain, must be re-learned.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Reuben and Rachel
For some time now, that ditty has been stuck in my head. Especially the part where Rachel sings:
Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
What a grand world this would be
If the men were all transported
Far beyond the Northern Sea
My guess is that the author chose "Far beyond the Northern Sea" for meter and rhyme. But the meaning from Rachel's point of view was clear... she wanted those men gone, forever removed from any influence on her life. She did not necessarily want them to suffer harm, just sent too far away to ever return.
I think of that ditty every time I think of the folks who ran the political campaigns of Bush 41 - second term, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Karl Rove, et al, were great statisticians. They understood the electoral college, the political divisions among states, all the nuances of voting blocs. They just didn't know how to sell a candidate or a policy position.
Far beyond the Northern Sea sounds like a terribly cold place, so I would settle for some place like Idaho. It is a very pretty place, where they could surely find happiness. Just don't ever let them run another political campaign.
For some time now, that ditty has been stuck in my head. Especially the part where Rachel sings:
Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
What a grand world this would be
If the men were all transported
Far beyond the Northern Sea
My guess is that the author chose "Far beyond the Northern Sea" for meter and rhyme. But the meaning from Rachel's point of view was clear... she wanted those men gone, forever removed from any influence on her life. She did not necessarily want them to suffer harm, just sent too far away to ever return.
I think of that ditty every time I think of the folks who ran the political campaigns of Bush 41 - second term, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Karl Rove, et al, were great statisticians. They understood the electoral college, the political divisions among states, all the nuances of voting blocs. They just didn't know how to sell a candidate or a policy position.
Far beyond the Northern Sea sounds like a terribly cold place, so I would settle for some place like Idaho. It is a very pretty place, where they could surely find happiness. Just don't ever let them run another political campaign.
Medicine Men
When I was a small boy, back in the "Dirty thirties" there was scant family entertainment. We had no TV or computers, no CDs, DVDs, cassettes, 8-track cartridges, I-Pads, etc. We did have 78-rpm records and an old Victrola wind-up record player, but with titles like "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" and "May I Sleep In Your Barn Tonight Mister?", records were not very entertaining.
There were movies, but they cost money, which we did not have. Also, my straight-laced parents disapproved of Hollywood and their products. Movies were off-limits.
But, we did have "Medicine Shows"! The name, medicine show, was dreamed up by the public... the same way we call certain TV dramas "Soap Operas". (Only because they were often sponsored by soap or detergent manufacturers.)
A Medicine Show was a kind of vaudeville show, live, usually in a big tent. I no longer remember the entertainment, but I certainly remember the "Pitch". Sitting through the pitch was the price you paid for the free entertainment. Halfway through the show, the pitch man came on stage. An extraordinarily persuasive, smooth-talking guy, his perfect presentation glorified the product they were selling.
Usually the product was some kind of tonic - sold as a magic cure-all for any and every ailment. I always bought into the pitch and wondered why my father never bought a bottle. Many others did lay out their 25¢ or 50¢ to acquire a bottle of the expertly sold tonic, on their way out of the tent!
When TV came along, medicine shows moved from the tent to the studio. The entertainment improved. The products changed, But the concept did not. You could sell anything to a gullible public with a carefully crafted message. And, the message crafters have become ever more skilled.
This morning I visited a doctor's office. The receptionist, with whom I have discussed politics in the past, remarked that "We are still scratching our heads", a reference to the presidential election which gave us four more years of Barack Obama.
The answer to her unanswerable question, of course, is medicine men, that is, very smart persuaders who correctly read the public's mood and crafted a message that convinced millions of Americans to buy a bottle of Obama on their way out of the tent.
Were Obama's policies good? Didn't matter. Were Romney's policies bad? Didn't matter. Obama's medicine men succeeded in selling their tonic. Romney's did not.
When I was a small boy, back in the "Dirty thirties" there was scant family entertainment. We had no TV or computers, no CDs, DVDs, cassettes, 8-track cartridges, I-Pads, etc. We did have 78-rpm records and an old Victrola wind-up record player, but with titles like "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" and "May I Sleep In Your Barn Tonight Mister?", records were not very entertaining.
There were movies, but they cost money, which we did not have. Also, my straight-laced parents disapproved of Hollywood and their products. Movies were off-limits.
But, we did have "Medicine Shows"! The name, medicine show, was dreamed up by the public... the same way we call certain TV dramas "Soap Operas". (Only because they were often sponsored by soap or detergent manufacturers.)
A Medicine Show was a kind of vaudeville show, live, usually in a big tent. I no longer remember the entertainment, but I certainly remember the "Pitch". Sitting through the pitch was the price you paid for the free entertainment. Halfway through the show, the pitch man came on stage. An extraordinarily persuasive, smooth-talking guy, his perfect presentation glorified the product they were selling.
Usually the product was some kind of tonic - sold as a magic cure-all for any and every ailment. I always bought into the pitch and wondered why my father never bought a bottle. Many others did lay out their 25¢ or 50¢ to acquire a bottle of the expertly sold tonic, on their way out of the tent!
When TV came along, medicine shows moved from the tent to the studio. The entertainment improved. The products changed, But the concept did not. You could sell anything to a gullible public with a carefully crafted message. And, the message crafters have become ever more skilled.
This morning I visited a doctor's office. The receptionist, with whom I have discussed politics in the past, remarked that "We are still scratching our heads", a reference to the presidential election which gave us four more years of Barack Obama.
The answer to her unanswerable question, of course, is medicine men, that is, very smart persuaders who correctly read the public's mood and crafted a message that convinced millions of Americans to buy a bottle of Obama on their way out of the tent.
Were Obama's policies good? Didn't matter. Were Romney's policies bad? Didn't matter. Obama's medicine men succeeded in selling their tonic. Romney's did not.
Monday, November 12, 2012
11th Hour of 11th Day of 11th Month, 1918
That was when the Armistice was signed, ending the first world war. So brutal, so widespread was the violence of that war, it was widely believed that civilized humans would never again engage in war. Thus, World War I was called the war to end all wars. November 11 was remembered as Armistice Day and became a national holiday.
A scant twenty-one years later, on September 8, 1939, then again on May 27, 1941, President Roosevelt declared a State Of Emergency because Europe was once again at war. On December 7, 1941, Imperial Japan attacked American soil in Hawaii. Another World War was underway for Americans. President Truman declared an end to hostilities of this second world war on December 31, 1946.
Three and one-half years later, on June 25, 1950, North Korea launched an attack on American and Korean forces in south Korea, and we were at war again.
When President-Elect Dwight Eisenhower engineered an armistice in 1953, the observance of November 11 as "Armistice Day" seemed a little outdated. The following year, it was officially decided to designate November 11 as Veteran's Day, to recognize all veterans of all American wars.
Going back to 1918 and just ten days before that famous armistice, my uncle, Prentice (Prince) Bradley was killed in France. U.S. Army Captain Clifford Davidson, commanding Co. A, 359th Infantry, wrote my grandfather:
I don't know if my uncle's remains were ever re-interred, but it is evident that in 1918, if a soldier received serious injuries, he just died and was buried by his comrades.
Things have changed. Thanks to today's advances in medicine, many seriously injured soldiers survive. The result means a great number of "Wounded Warriors".
While we honor all veterans on November 11, today we feel especially indebted to those young men and women suffering both visible and invisible war wounds. The sight of a young man with an artificial leg, or a despairing homeless man wearing a Viet Nam Veteran cap is heartbreaking.
The death of my uncle ten days before the end of a war, or the sight of these wounded warriors always makes me ask "Why?". What value ensued from killing my uncle when, for all practical purposes, the objectives of that war had already been passed? What value ensued from the exploding I.E.D. that took the young soldier's leg? Why must nations go to war?
Perhaps, some day, Iraq or Afghanistan, or The War On Terror will be remembered as The War That Ended All Wars. Perhaps, some day, all veterans of all wars will have died of old age. But, I hope America will always observe the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in remembrance of those American veterans who brought about that final end of war.
That was when the Armistice was signed, ending the first world war. So brutal, so widespread was the violence of that war, it was widely believed that civilized humans would never again engage in war. Thus, World War I was called the war to end all wars. November 11 was remembered as Armistice Day and became a national holiday.
A scant twenty-one years later, on September 8, 1939, then again on May 27, 1941, President Roosevelt declared a State Of Emergency because Europe was once again at war. On December 7, 1941, Imperial Japan attacked American soil in Hawaii. Another World War was underway for Americans. President Truman declared an end to hostilities of this second world war on December 31, 1946.
Three and one-half years later, on June 25, 1950, North Korea launched an attack on American and Korean forces in south Korea, and we were at war again.
When President-Elect Dwight Eisenhower engineered an armistice in 1953, the observance of November 11 as "Armistice Day" seemed a little outdated. The following year, it was officially decided to designate November 11 as Veteran's Day, to recognize all veterans of all American wars.
Going back to 1918 and just ten days before that famous armistice, my uncle, Prentice (Prince) Bradley was killed in France. U.S. Army Captain Clifford Davidson, commanding Co. A, 359th Infantry, wrote my grandfather:
I don't know if my uncle's remains were ever re-interred, but it is evident that in 1918, if a soldier received serious injuries, he just died and was buried by his comrades.
Things have changed. Thanks to today's advances in medicine, many seriously injured soldiers survive. The result means a great number of "Wounded Warriors".
While we honor all veterans on November 11, today we feel especially indebted to those young men and women suffering both visible and invisible war wounds. The sight of a young man with an artificial leg, or a despairing homeless man wearing a Viet Nam Veteran cap is heartbreaking.
The death of my uncle ten days before the end of a war, or the sight of these wounded warriors always makes me ask "Why?". What value ensued from killing my uncle when, for all practical purposes, the objectives of that war had already been passed? What value ensued from the exploding I.E.D. that took the young soldier's leg? Why must nations go to war?
Perhaps, some day, Iraq or Afghanistan, or The War On Terror will be remembered as The War That Ended All Wars. Perhaps, some day, all veterans of all wars will have died of old age. But, I hope America will always observe the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in remembrance of those American veterans who brought about that final end of war.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
The Election...
Everyone except me has weighed in on election results. Now it's my turn.
1.The Candidate: Never mind that Romney was eminently qualified. He lacked charisma. He lacked Hollywood appeal (whatever that is). Way back in 1964, I observed a local election in which one candidate was a lawyer, more than adequately qualified. But he was a funny-looking guy. Unusual facial structure, parted his hair in the middle and wore a mustache.
A friend predicted that this guy could not be elected because people will not vote for someone who parts their hair in the middle or wears a mustache. This candidate did both.
My friend was correct as to results of the vote, though not exactly right on the reason. The hair part and mustache were starters. In all, this guy was just, well, funny looking. Romney certainly looked okay but, no matter, folks just didn't really like him.
2. Voting blocks: Romney lost the Hispanic vote (in spite of a broken promise on immigration reform); black Americans (in spite of same-sex marriage); Jews (in spite of Obama's sorry treatment of Israel); Catholics (in spite of the contraception brouhaha.
I remember when folks spoke of "The Solid South". Solid Democrat, that is. But Republicans came to understand the issues important to the south, addressed those issues, and became inclusive. The South is still solid, but now it is solid GOP. The GOP can, and must, show other groups that they are the party most likely to solve their problems.
The Democrats have treated black Americans shoddily for decades. Jim Crow, etc. But, certain Democrat candidates sold black Americans on the idea that they were the ones responsible for civil rights successes. The idea caught on and has passed from generation to generation. It is accepted as fact in the black community - no questions asked.
Same goes for Hispanics. History has proven that Democrats always have and shall continue to have disdain for Hispanics. But they convinced Hispanics that they were their party. I had one Hispanic friend who owned several small businesses. The Democrat's policies were clearly counter to this friend's business interests. Yet he often said "My father would turn over in his grave if I ever voted for a Republican." And he never did.
I have partnered in business with Jews who were dear friends, smart people, good businessmen - but solidly Democrat. The reason? Henry Ford was once associated with a openly anti-Semitic newspaper. So bitter were my colleagues that they refused to drive any automobile produced by Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford has been dead for 65 years!
The bottom line? A national primary might nominate a candidate people like, regardless of qualifications. No more of this "He won Florida." She won Ohio."
Then, instead of a dozen candidates fighting through a long, bitter primary campaign which included a dozen debates, the GOP could concentrate on listening to the disparate voting groups, learning to understand their concerns, finding ways to honestly address those concerns, then selling the groups that they will do so.
Everyone except me has weighed in on election results. Now it's my turn.
1.The Candidate: Never mind that Romney was eminently qualified. He lacked charisma. He lacked Hollywood appeal (whatever that is). Way back in 1964, I observed a local election in which one candidate was a lawyer, more than adequately qualified. But he was a funny-looking guy. Unusual facial structure, parted his hair in the middle and wore a mustache.
A friend predicted that this guy could not be elected because people will not vote for someone who parts their hair in the middle or wears a mustache. This candidate did both.
My friend was correct as to results of the vote, though not exactly right on the reason. The hair part and mustache were starters. In all, this guy was just, well, funny looking. Romney certainly looked okay but, no matter, folks just didn't really like him.
2. Voting blocks: Romney lost the Hispanic vote (in spite of a broken promise on immigration reform); black Americans (in spite of same-sex marriage); Jews (in spite of Obama's sorry treatment of Israel); Catholics (in spite of the contraception brouhaha.
I remember when folks spoke of "The Solid South". Solid Democrat, that is. But Republicans came to understand the issues important to the south, addressed those issues, and became inclusive. The South is still solid, but now it is solid GOP. The GOP can, and must, show other groups that they are the party most likely to solve their problems.
The Democrats have treated black Americans shoddily for decades. Jim Crow, etc. But, certain Democrat candidates sold black Americans on the idea that they were the ones responsible for civil rights successes. The idea caught on and has passed from generation to generation. It is accepted as fact in the black community - no questions asked.
Same goes for Hispanics. History has proven that Democrats always have and shall continue to have disdain for Hispanics. But they convinced Hispanics that they were their party. I had one Hispanic friend who owned several small businesses. The Democrat's policies were clearly counter to this friend's business interests. Yet he often said "My father would turn over in his grave if I ever voted for a Republican." And he never did.
I have partnered in business with Jews who were dear friends, smart people, good businessmen - but solidly Democrat. The reason? Henry Ford was once associated with a openly anti-Semitic newspaper. So bitter were my colleagues that they refused to drive any automobile produced by Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford has been dead for 65 years!
The bottom line? A national primary might nominate a candidate people like, regardless of qualifications. No more of this "He won Florida." She won Ohio."
Then, instead of a dozen candidates fighting through a long, bitter primary campaign which included a dozen debates, the GOP could concentrate on listening to the disparate voting groups, learning to understand their concerns, finding ways to honestly address those concerns, then selling the groups that they will do so.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Racism... its roots.
Ever since Barack Obama, the "post racial president" burst upon the scene, talk of racism has increased exponentially. What's going on?
I believe it is two things: the multicultural mindset and the politicians never-ending quest for votes.
1. We must acknowledge and respect the Black culture. We must support its unique qualities.
2. We must lump Blacks into one, cohesive voting group. We must bestow them with common problems that only politicians can solve.
How sad!
Skin color means no more than eye color or shoe size. Skin color has no connection to the brain. Yes, some people in the South eat collard greens and grits (yum). Skin color has nothing to do with it. Lots of people from Maryland rave about crab cakes (yuk). Skin color has nothing to do with it.
People from places like Brooklyn talk with a funny accent (my late mother, foremost among them). Skin color had nothing to do with it. Or, you might say that people from the deep south are the ones with the funny accent. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
People like Thomas Sowell and Ben Stein are great economists. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
The only way to end racism is to recognize these facts. Politicians must quit talking about "The Black Vote". Politically correct do-gooders must quit promoting and protecting "Black culture" and "The Black Community". Young Black men (boys) must quit striving to act, talk and dress "Black". Above all, the spotlight must be removed from race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had it right. Character is everything. Skin color is nothing. Once we agree with him, we dig racism out by the roots.
Ever since Barack Obama, the "post racial president" burst upon the scene, talk of racism has increased exponentially. What's going on?
I believe it is two things: the multicultural mindset and the politicians never-ending quest for votes.
1. We must acknowledge and respect the Black culture. We must support its unique qualities.
2. We must lump Blacks into one, cohesive voting group. We must bestow them with common problems that only politicians can solve.
How sad!
Skin color means no more than eye color or shoe size. Skin color has no connection to the brain. Yes, some people in the South eat collard greens and grits (yum). Skin color has nothing to do with it. Lots of people from Maryland rave about crab cakes (yuk). Skin color has nothing to do with it.
People from places like Brooklyn talk with a funny accent (my late mother, foremost among them). Skin color had nothing to do with it. Or, you might say that people from the deep south are the ones with the funny accent. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
People like Thomas Sowell and Ben Stein are great economists. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
The only way to end racism is to recognize these facts. Politicians must quit talking about "The Black Vote". Politically correct do-gooders must quit promoting and protecting "Black culture" and "The Black Community". Young Black men (boys) must quit striving to act, talk and dress "Black". Above all, the spotlight must be removed from race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had it right. Character is everything. Skin color is nothing. Once we agree with him, we dig racism out by the roots.
Monday, November 05, 2012
Helloooo! Anybody home????
CBS Television's Steve Kroft, on 60 Minutes, interviewed Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid. He pressed the idea of cooperation, compromise. Why can't it happen to get the work of Congress done?
Steve is not alone. Everywhere we hear that Congress is deadlocked. We need compromise! We need bi-partisan action! We need the parties to come together! Everything will be lovely if the Democrats and Republicans will just reach across the aisle!
Why are all these TV and print reporters being paid such high salaries when they seem to be permanently "out to lunch"? Why can't any of these tunnel vision idiots see the big picture?
We have had years of compromise. We have had decades of bi-partisan cooperation. Congress has worked with the White House to get the job done.
What is the result? $16 trillion in debt ($10 trillion before Obama). Trillion dollar deficits. The housing market nearly non-existent. Unemployment disgracefully high. Elementary education is a disaster, higher education a high-priced waste of time. Energy independence nowhere in sight. Record numbers of Americans on the dole. Entitlement obligations we cannot possibly hope to meet. Daily warnings of a coming fiscal cliff.
They blame the Tea Party. We hear reporters of every stripe call them radical, extreme, obstructionists. Have any of these big time journalists ever left their East Coast neighborhoods? Doesn't seem like it!
In the spring of 2009, a movement of sensible, everyday Americans finally took a good look at their government and realized it was screwing up their beloved country. En masse, they stood up and said, "Stop! No more spending! We don't give a hoot for the consequences. Just stop spending! Fix the entitlements! Eliminate those wasteful, failed government bureaus!"
They are the Tea Party. They are hated, vilified.
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe said we are lucky when congress is not in session; they cannot hurt you.
Texas Governor Rick Perry said we should follow the Texas legislature's practice; let congress meet for 60 days every other year then go home.
They are the voices of reason. They or ridiculed, ignored.
The high-salaried reporters? They are the stars. The celebrities. Millions hang on their every word!
Amazing.
CBS Television's Steve Kroft, on 60 Minutes, interviewed Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid. He pressed the idea of cooperation, compromise. Why can't it happen to get the work of Congress done?
Steve is not alone. Everywhere we hear that Congress is deadlocked. We need compromise! We need bi-partisan action! We need the parties to come together! Everything will be lovely if the Democrats and Republicans will just reach across the aisle!
Why are all these TV and print reporters being paid such high salaries when they seem to be permanently "out to lunch"? Why can't any of these tunnel vision idiots see the big picture?
We have had years of compromise. We have had decades of bi-partisan cooperation. Congress has worked with the White House to get the job done.
What is the result? $16 trillion in debt ($10 trillion before Obama). Trillion dollar deficits. The housing market nearly non-existent. Unemployment disgracefully high. Elementary education is a disaster, higher education a high-priced waste of time. Energy independence nowhere in sight. Record numbers of Americans on the dole. Entitlement obligations we cannot possibly hope to meet. Daily warnings of a coming fiscal cliff.
They blame the Tea Party. We hear reporters of every stripe call them radical, extreme, obstructionists. Have any of these big time journalists ever left their East Coast neighborhoods? Doesn't seem like it!
In the spring of 2009, a movement of sensible, everyday Americans finally took a good look at their government and realized it was screwing up their beloved country. En masse, they stood up and said, "Stop! No more spending! We don't give a hoot for the consequences. Just stop spending! Fix the entitlements! Eliminate those wasteful, failed government bureaus!"
They are the Tea Party. They are hated, vilified.
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe said we are lucky when congress is not in session; they cannot hurt you.
Texas Governor Rick Perry said we should follow the Texas legislature's practice; let congress meet for 60 days every other year then go home.
They are the voices of reason. They or ridiculed, ignored.
The high-salaried reporters? They are the stars. The celebrities. Millions hang on their every word!
Amazing.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The Present that will become The Past.
Given my age, I occasionally have someone ask my opinion of what it was like when Truman was president, or when Eisenhower was president. Harry won the oval office when I was but 20; Ike did it 60 years ago.
Given that I will not be around in 60 more years, let me record my impression of our current president, just in case someone wants my opinion of Barack Obama in 2072!
I believe Obama is a sock puppet. The left... the Communists, Marxists or whatever you wish to call them, have, as blogger John Hawkins puts it, "completed their long march into the institutions and now own Hollywood, colleges, and the mainstream media." Ignorant of history and blind to reality, these people have bought into the Lenin-Marx poison that if everyone shares everything, the world will be a happy place.
Not all, of course: there are the cunning few who use the Left line as a path to power. But, never think these behind-the-scenes controllers are stupid. Far from stupid, they have, as Hawkins points out, progressed well down their selected path. But, controlling the above referenced institutions has never been their end goal... they want it all.
Fortunately, they have never found a key to the White House door, until they found Barack Hussein Obama. Here was a clean, articulate young black man with widespread popular appeal. Somewhere along the way... from his over-educated mother; his Indonesian step-father (obviously a smart man as he held some power in Indonesia's government); his grandmother, a vice-president of a Hawaiian bank; Frank Marshal Davis, a card-carrying Communist; or, perhaps the left-leaning professors and Marxist students he courted at Occidental and Columbia universities, Obama learned how to con people into liking him, even yearning to support him.
Working as a Community Organizer in Chicago Obama made numerous appeals to local government officials in Chicago. Somewhere along the way, some one of them took note of Obama's talents and started promoting him. He was chosen, likely as a token "African-American" to address a Democratic National Convention. That speech propelled him into the arms of left-wing powers and the rest is history.
Obama was the perfect choice at the perfect time. George W. Bush was completing eight years as president. The Iraq war was dragging on. People wanted a change and Obama represented the biggest change in the history of the American presidency. White America justly regretted the racist past and Obama offered a chance to prove it was the past.
Obama had everything going for him... almost. He looked and sounded great, but he was stupid. Never mind, his handlers were not. They assigned Valerie Jarret, David Axelrod and other left-leaners to usher him along. They would make relentless use of the teleprompter, with dialog written by the handlers.
Early in his Illinois legislative career, he would always vote "present" to avoid establishing a record that could hurt him. A bit of political chicanery put him in the U.S. Senate, a perfect stepping stone to running for the presidency, just in time for the end of the Bush years. Once elected, he was used to pass some of the lefts favorite causes, like health care. There was never an intent to pass things like the promised comprehensive immigration reform or deficit reduction. Instead they sought ways to reduce America's military and engineered the so-called sequestration toward that purpose.
But, the hand that holds the puppet misjudged America's people. They may have swayed the unschooled Hollywood elite and the brain-washed student air-heads. What they missed are the millions who truly and passionately love this country. When these millions smell a rat, look out. As the Imperial Japanese and the Nazis learned, these America-loving millions have been a sleeping giant. Once awakened, they become a terrible force. Now, like the Nazis and the Japanese militants, Obama faces a crushing defeat at their hands.
Given my age, I occasionally have someone ask my opinion of what it was like when Truman was president, or when Eisenhower was president. Harry won the oval office when I was but 20; Ike did it 60 years ago.
Given that I will not be around in 60 more years, let me record my impression of our current president, just in case someone wants my opinion of Barack Obama in 2072!
I believe Obama is a sock puppet. The left... the Communists, Marxists or whatever you wish to call them, have, as blogger John Hawkins puts it, "completed their long march into the institutions and now own Hollywood, colleges, and the mainstream media." Ignorant of history and blind to reality, these people have bought into the Lenin-Marx poison that if everyone shares everything, the world will be a happy place.
Not all, of course: there are the cunning few who use the Left line as a path to power. But, never think these behind-the-scenes controllers are stupid. Far from stupid, they have, as Hawkins points out, progressed well down their selected path. But, controlling the above referenced institutions has never been their end goal... they want it all.
Fortunately, they have never found a key to the White House door, until they found Barack Hussein Obama. Here was a clean, articulate young black man with widespread popular appeal. Somewhere along the way... from his over-educated mother; his Indonesian step-father (obviously a smart man as he held some power in Indonesia's government); his grandmother, a vice-president of a Hawaiian bank; Frank Marshal Davis, a card-carrying Communist; or, perhaps the left-leaning professors and Marxist students he courted at Occidental and Columbia universities, Obama learned how to con people into liking him, even yearning to support him.
Working as a Community Organizer in Chicago Obama made numerous appeals to local government officials in Chicago. Somewhere along the way, some one of them took note of Obama's talents and started promoting him. He was chosen, likely as a token "African-American" to address a Democratic National Convention. That speech propelled him into the arms of left-wing powers and the rest is history.
Obama was the perfect choice at the perfect time. George W. Bush was completing eight years as president. The Iraq war was dragging on. People wanted a change and Obama represented the biggest change in the history of the American presidency. White America justly regretted the racist past and Obama offered a chance to prove it was the past.
Obama had everything going for him... almost. He looked and sounded great, but he was stupid. Never mind, his handlers were not. They assigned Valerie Jarret, David Axelrod and other left-leaners to usher him along. They would make relentless use of the teleprompter, with dialog written by the handlers.
Early in his Illinois legislative career, he would always vote "present" to avoid establishing a record that could hurt him. A bit of political chicanery put him in the U.S. Senate, a perfect stepping stone to running for the presidency, just in time for the end of the Bush years. Once elected, he was used to pass some of the lefts favorite causes, like health care. There was never an intent to pass things like the promised comprehensive immigration reform or deficit reduction. Instead they sought ways to reduce America's military and engineered the so-called sequestration toward that purpose.
But, the hand that holds the puppet misjudged America's people. They may have swayed the unschooled Hollywood elite and the brain-washed student air-heads. What they missed are the millions who truly and passionately love this country. When these millions smell a rat, look out. As the Imperial Japanese and the Nazis learned, these America-loving millions have been a sleeping giant. Once awakened, they become a terrible force. Now, like the Nazis and the Japanese militants, Obama faces a crushing defeat at their hands.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
About Lance Armstrong
I am a cyclist. Not competitive, like Armstrong, just one who loves to ride. My love for bicycles runs deep. During the depression, when the price of a bicycle was far, far beyond my family's reach, I used to run down our long farm driveway. my hands extended in front as though I was holding handlebars, stepping high to imitate pedaling; pretending, dreaming, that I was riding a bicycle.
Eventually, through odd jobs and a little help from my Mom, I amassed eight dollars and bought a used Schwinn. Here, in high-water pants, I sit astride the old Schwinn at age 15.
I've owned other bikes - one I won in an endurance contest. About a dozen years ago my daughter gave me a Trek mountain bike. I put a quality odometer on it and have since logged over 10,000 miles. Hey, that's like across the United States, coast to coast, three times! And that's just since my 70th birthday.
I know something about riding bikes. I know what it means to ride so hard that your legs quit working and when you step off the bike, they collapse and you fall. I know what it's like to take a spill and endure some severe abrasions. Or, how it feels to attain such high speed down a steep hill that it is nearly impossible to control your bike.
I understand that it is almost beyond human ability to win the Tour de France. Day after grueling day, in sprints, up and down mountains, riding in rain, and managing to best a field of the the very best bike riders in the world. To do that seven times is nothing short of a miracle.
Now they are saying Lance Armstrong did it because he was doping? Really! Let me tell you. Anyone who says you can perform that superhuman feat because you took some pills, or injected something or other into your system, is a damn fool. And, to think that some are saying "everyone was doing it"! Now, would that not, in itself, level the playing field?
Lance Armstrong is my hero. He accomplished something no other man has done - no other man will ever do in the future. Then he used his fame to contribute mightily to the battle against cancer. Like Lance, my wife is a cancer survivor. In recognition of her victory in that battle, and in appreciation for all Lance Armstrong has accomplished, I wear a yellow Livestrong bracelet, and will for the rest of my life.
I am a cyclist. Not competitive, like Armstrong, just one who loves to ride. My love for bicycles runs deep. During the depression, when the price of a bicycle was far, far beyond my family's reach, I used to run down our long farm driveway. my hands extended in front as though I was holding handlebars, stepping high to imitate pedaling; pretending, dreaming, that I was riding a bicycle.
Eventually, through odd jobs and a little help from my Mom, I amassed eight dollars and bought a used Schwinn. Here, in high-water pants, I sit astride the old Schwinn at age 15.
I've owned other bikes - one I won in an endurance contest. About a dozen years ago my daughter gave me a Trek mountain bike. I put a quality odometer on it and have since logged over 10,000 miles. Hey, that's like across the United States, coast to coast, three times! And that's just since my 70th birthday.
I know something about riding bikes. I know what it means to ride so hard that your legs quit working and when you step off the bike, they collapse and you fall. I know what it's like to take a spill and endure some severe abrasions. Or, how it feels to attain such high speed down a steep hill that it is nearly impossible to control your bike.
I understand that it is almost beyond human ability to win the Tour de France. Day after grueling day, in sprints, up and down mountains, riding in rain, and managing to best a field of the the very best bike riders in the world. To do that seven times is nothing short of a miracle.
Now they are saying Lance Armstrong did it because he was doping? Really! Let me tell you. Anyone who says you can perform that superhuman feat because you took some pills, or injected something or other into your system, is a damn fool. And, to think that some are saying "everyone was doing it"! Now, would that not, in itself, level the playing field?
Lance Armstrong is my hero. He accomplished something no other man has done - no other man will ever do in the future. Then he used his fame to contribute mightily to the battle against cancer. Like Lance, my wife is a cancer survivor. In recognition of her victory in that battle, and in appreciation for all Lance Armstrong has accomplished, I wear a yellow Livestrong bracelet, and will for the rest of my life.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Remembering Democrats who "fixed" things.
There are two problems with history books: The people who write them (partisans) and the people who read them (no one).
Here is some history I remember:
World War II ended in Europe and the evil third Reich was no more. Democrat U.S. president Roosevelt had a great opportunity to fight for a unified, democratic Germany (which the German people finally achieved), but instead he happily acceded to a carved up Germany, giving half to Russia. Then he threw in Eastern Europe and the northern half of Korea as a further reward to mass murderer Joseph Stalin.
Next came Harry Truman. Perhaps Chiang Kai Shek was not an ideal leader, but Truman ignored his plea for help and let the Communists take over China, now an adversary. China thanked us by attacking our troops in Korea, assuring the success of the psychotic Kims.
Iran was a secular, modern nation, a friend of the West. But Jimmy Carter considered the Shah a bad apple and assisted the rise of the Mullahs, producing a murderous regime now seeking WMDs to destroy Israel.
Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for almost 30 years, following the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Mubarak was not what most would consider a nice guy, but he kept the peace and was friendly to the West. Barack Obama erroneously visualized something better in Egypt and happily watched Muslim exremists depose the dictator.
Ditto for crazy man Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Gadhafi had a nasty past but appeared to have learned his lesson. He gave up his plan for nukes and seemed willing to improve his behavior. Obama thought otherwise and abetted Gadhafi's murder.
How different this world would be if China and Korea were our friends and allies. How brighter the future would be if the Iranian government was as friendly as the Iranian people always were. And, just imagine a stable, friendly North Africa.
How different the world would be if a string of Democratic U.S. presidents had not "fixed" things.
There are two problems with history books: The people who write them (partisans) and the people who read them (no one).
Here is some history I remember:
World War II ended in Europe and the evil third Reich was no more. Democrat U.S. president Roosevelt had a great opportunity to fight for a unified, democratic Germany (which the German people finally achieved), but instead he happily acceded to a carved up Germany, giving half to Russia. Then he threw in Eastern Europe and the northern half of Korea as a further reward to mass murderer Joseph Stalin.
Next came Harry Truman. Perhaps Chiang Kai Shek was not an ideal leader, but Truman ignored his plea for help and let the Communists take over China, now an adversary. China thanked us by attacking our troops in Korea, assuring the success of the psychotic Kims.
Iran was a secular, modern nation, a friend of the West. But Jimmy Carter considered the Shah a bad apple and assisted the rise of the Mullahs, producing a murderous regime now seeking WMDs to destroy Israel.
Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for almost 30 years, following the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Mubarak was not what most would consider a nice guy, but he kept the peace and was friendly to the West. Barack Obama erroneously visualized something better in Egypt and happily watched Muslim exremists depose the dictator.
Ditto for crazy man Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Gadhafi had a nasty past but appeared to have learned his lesson. He gave up his plan for nukes and seemed willing to improve his behavior. Obama thought otherwise and abetted Gadhafi's murder.
How different this world would be if China and Korea were our friends and allies. How brighter the future would be if the Iranian government was as friendly as the Iranian people always were. And, just imagine a stable, friendly North Africa.
How different the world would be if a string of Democratic U.S. presidents had not "fixed" things.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
I Love Mathematics
More correctly, I should say I love numbers. Education-wise, I am 100 miles short of being a mathematician. My schooling went only as far as trigonometry and that was long ago. Today I could hardly distinguish a cosine from a co-signer!
My college professor son tells me that college freshmen bust their butts selecting a course of study as far as possible from mathematics. That is sad and I lay the blame on our primary education system. They barely skim the principles of mathematics as they hurry through a social-studies-heavy curriculum, and if a student fails to grasp one "step" in math, he is in trouble with everything that follows. Most kids graduate high school deathly afraid of mathematics.
I love math because two and two are always four. How cool is that! Plus, numbers are fun. You can play endless games with numbers and the numbers are always reliable. But math is not taught the fun way. It is taught in a complex, boring way.
Let's consider simple multiplication. Suppose you want to multiply 16 times 16. Surely you need pencil and paper for that. Wrong! Take a closer look at the numbers. In Spanish, 16 is pronounced diez y seis, which translates to "ten and six"... exactly what 16 means in English, 10 and 6.
So, 16 times 16 means 10 & 6 times 10 & 6. Now 10 times 16 = 160. 6 times 10 = 60. 6 times 6 = 36. 160 + 60 + 36 is 256, the correct answer. Anyone can figure that without pencil and paper. None of this "write down the 6 and carry the three; 6 times 1 is 6, add the 3 and write down the 9, etc. Can you imagine a more convoluted way to do it? I can't!
Also, numbers can make patterns that are fully predictable. I was born on November 6, 1928, the first Tuesday in that November. That was a presidential election day in the U.S. A calendar year is 365 days, an odd number. Thus, in each year, any given date will fall on a later day of the week than in the previous year. If New Year's Day falls on Sunday in one year, it will fall on Monday the next year, Tuesday the next, etc.
How often, then, should my birthday fall on a presidential election day? Every seventh year? No, because of leap years. Every fourth year we make the calendar year a day longer, which must figure into our numbers pattern. My birthday, then, will fall on the first Tuesday in November every 7 times 4 years, or every 28 years: 1928, 1956, 1984, and 2012.
And, coincidentally, every year that my birthday fell on presidential election day, a Republican was elected: 1928, Herbert Hoover; 1956, Dwight Eisenhower; 1984, Ronald Reagan, and 2012, Mitt Romney?
I love numbers!
Monday, October 08, 2012
Bluest of the blue:
My wife is an artist, but a bit different from others. She has the eye of an artist but the mind of a realist.
After decades of work in advertising, I have learned that artists exist in a unique world. They see things in color and shape but not in detail. I have worked with talented artists who are experts at perspective but could not pass a fourth grade spelling test.
It is commonplace to walk through a gallery and see appealing works of art which, upon close examination, depict physical impossibilities.
And artists overwhelmingly have Liberal political ideologies. They are often single issue advocates who never see beyond that issue.
After two days at an event with one of her art groups, my wife related a story that gave me shivers. Reacting to a comment from the October 3rd presidential candidates debate, a group of artists discussed the notion of defunding the Public Broadcasting System, PBS! "How could one imagine cutting taxpayer dollars from Sesame Street, thus eliminating early childhood education?
How indeed? In the fair and honest interest of the child, that's how!
Yes, Big Bird may assist that small child's learning. but at what cost? We are borrowing billions from China, a chunk of which is used to help fund a television program that will entertain our toddlers for an hour or so a day. That, of course, relieves the parent from spending their time teaching the child the simple lessons of everyday life.
Those billions must one day be repaid to the Chinese and who will do that? The child!
Here's the big picture: We are taking a huge loan in the name of our children to hire a babysitter, (Kermit The Frog, and friends). When that child becomes an adult, he gets to repay that loan.
How heartless of a presidential candidate to suggest ending that practice!
My wife is an artist, but a bit different from others. She has the eye of an artist but the mind of a realist.
After decades of work in advertising, I have learned that artists exist in a unique world. They see things in color and shape but not in detail. I have worked with talented artists who are experts at perspective but could not pass a fourth grade spelling test.
It is commonplace to walk through a gallery and see appealing works of art which, upon close examination, depict physical impossibilities.
And artists overwhelmingly have Liberal political ideologies. They are often single issue advocates who never see beyond that issue.
After two days at an event with one of her art groups, my wife related a story that gave me shivers. Reacting to a comment from the October 3rd presidential candidates debate, a group of artists discussed the notion of defunding the Public Broadcasting System, PBS! "How could one imagine cutting taxpayer dollars from Sesame Street, thus eliminating early childhood education?
How indeed? In the fair and honest interest of the child, that's how!
Yes, Big Bird may assist that small child's learning. but at what cost? We are borrowing billions from China, a chunk of which is used to help fund a television program that will entertain our toddlers for an hour or so a day. That, of course, relieves the parent from spending their time teaching the child the simple lessons of everyday life.
Those billions must one day be repaid to the Chinese and who will do that? The child!
Here's the big picture: We are taking a huge loan in the name of our children to hire a babysitter, (Kermit The Frog, and friends). When that child becomes an adult, he gets to repay that loan.
How heartless of a presidential candidate to suggest ending that practice!
Friday, October 05, 2012
Photo ID required!
All across this nation, people argue over the need to present a photo ID when voting. One side says a positive ID would help prevent voter fraud. The other side says to require a photo ID will disenfranchise many voters... especially the elderly and the poor.
Interestingly, the voting booth is the only place where feelings about photo IDs run so high. Witness this ad for Jo-Ann, a retail chain that sells stuff for people who sew, etc.
A discount for seniors age 60 or older. A Photo ID required for proof of age!
What are we to make of this? Do women lie about their age hoping to prove they are older than they appear? Is the store trying to "disenfranchise" customers from taking the discount by setting the hurdle too high? Do modern women so frequently appear younger than their actual age that you cannot hope to accurately judge ages by appearance? Or, does this simply enable a woman to discreetly show her proof of age to a cashier without announcing it to others in line?
Most likely the truth is that all this talk about the need for a photo ID being burdensome is just nonsense.
All across this nation, people argue over the need to present a photo ID when voting. One side says a positive ID would help prevent voter fraud. The other side says to require a photo ID will disenfranchise many voters... especially the elderly and the poor.
Interestingly, the voting booth is the only place where feelings about photo IDs run so high. Witness this ad for Jo-Ann, a retail chain that sells stuff for people who sew, etc.
A discount for seniors age 60 or older. A Photo ID required for proof of age!
What are we to make of this? Do women lie about their age hoping to prove they are older than they appear? Is the store trying to "disenfranchise" customers from taking the discount by setting the hurdle too high? Do modern women so frequently appear younger than their actual age that you cannot hope to accurately judge ages by appearance? Or, does this simply enable a woman to discreetly show her proof of age to a cashier without announcing it to others in line?
Most likely the truth is that all this talk about the need for a photo ID being burdensome is just nonsense.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Dumb or Dumber?
Among the dumb ideas being talked about in this presidential election is that of the candidate's likeability. Likeability??? Who cares?
Imagine you wanted to hire a pilot to fly your new jet plane, Would you look for a person with training and experience? Or a likeable person.
Electing a president is hiring a CEO for the country; a Commander-In-Chief for all the military; someone to represent you on the world stage; someone to oversee the world's largest economy. Are you looking for someone with skills? Or a likeable person?
Personally, I would prefer a tough-as-nails guy who would put up with no nonsense! I wouldn't care if he was widely disliked, if he had the skills to do the job. I already have friends, I am not looking for a new buddy!
Let's consider recent experience in the world of CEOs. Steve Jobs was a co-founder at Apple. Steve built an amazing company - which subsequently fired him. Apple went into decline, until they persuaded Jobs to return. He did, and he re-built Apple into the richest company in the world.
Steve Jobs was reported to be an insensitive, unfriendly guy who belittled people. But, he knew how to make a better, more salable product; he knew how to market his products; he knew how to manage a company.
One story told about Jobs was what happened after his staff had just built a new I-phone or I-pad. Jobs was said to have looked at the shiny, new device and said it was too big. The engineers insisted it could not be made smaller. Jobs tossed the item into an aquarium - a fish tank. Aghast, his technical experts watched the device sink to the bottom. Immediately, bubbles started rising to the surface.
Jobs said, "See, there was air inside. Make it smaller!"
Speaking about likeability in a president is neither dumb or dumber. It is the dumbest!
Among the dumb ideas being talked about in this presidential election is that of the candidate's likeability. Likeability??? Who cares?
Imagine you wanted to hire a pilot to fly your new jet plane, Would you look for a person with training and experience? Or a likeable person.
Electing a president is hiring a CEO for the country; a Commander-In-Chief for all the military; someone to represent you on the world stage; someone to oversee the world's largest economy. Are you looking for someone with skills? Or a likeable person?
Personally, I would prefer a tough-as-nails guy who would put up with no nonsense! I wouldn't care if he was widely disliked, if he had the skills to do the job. I already have friends, I am not looking for a new buddy!
Let's consider recent experience in the world of CEOs. Steve Jobs was a co-founder at Apple. Steve built an amazing company - which subsequently fired him. Apple went into decline, until they persuaded Jobs to return. He did, and he re-built Apple into the richest company in the world.
Steve Jobs was reported to be an insensitive, unfriendly guy who belittled people. But, he knew how to make a better, more salable product; he knew how to market his products; he knew how to manage a company.
One story told about Jobs was what happened after his staff had just built a new I-phone or I-pad. Jobs was said to have looked at the shiny, new device and said it was too big. The engineers insisted it could not be made smaller. Jobs tossed the item into an aquarium - a fish tank. Aghast, his technical experts watched the device sink to the bottom. Immediately, bubbles started rising to the surface.
Jobs said, "See, there was air inside. Make it smaller!"
Speaking about likeability in a president is neither dumb or dumber. It is the dumbest!
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Assault On The Constitution
Part Three: The Right To Bear Arms
There is nothing unclear about the 25 words of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty simple, "...shall not be infringed." Like all of The Constitution, written so the average U.S. citizen could read and understand it.
Because of gradual changes in the meaning of words, some now believe that the word "militia" applies only to an Army sustained by the government. Obviously that was not the definition on March 4, 1789, when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Americans had witnessed Washington's defeat of the British, by commanding a ragtag band of patriots with their own muskets, and volunteer soldiers formed into regiments in various states. Washington had to work tirelessly to get Congress to fund payment to his citizen soldiers.
Most anti-gun people somehow believe that if they legally banned all guns it would stop gun crimes. With an estimated 100 million privately owned guns in America, that would be impossible to achieve. Mad men shoot up college campuses, work places of every description, shopping malls, darkened theaters and on and on, The gun haters immediately call for an outright ban or stricter regulations on guns. But people who mean to do harm with their guns would never surrender their weapons.Why would criminals, or madmen, obey that law and no others?
The anti-gun crowd has not been successful at changing the Constitution, largely because it would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of all state legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention. After proposing an amendment, three-fourths of all states must then ratify the amendment.
But the argument over the word 'militia' is now rarely held, There is another way to trump The Constitution and the gun grabbers have latched on. Article VI of The Constitution says "all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United states, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Bingo! Adopt the UN Small Arms Treaty and the 2nd Amendment is gone.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama continue to work hand-in-glove with the UN to pass the "Programme of Action Against Small Arms" Treaty.
Patriotic Americans cannot permit the Administration to sneak this one by.
Senator Rand Paul (R., KY) is fighting it. Follow his efforts here
Native Americans here in the Western States used to call the coyote "the Trickster". We have coyotes in the White House. Watch them closely.
Part Three: The Right To Bear Arms
There is nothing unclear about the 25 words of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty simple, "...shall not be infringed." Like all of The Constitution, written so the average U.S. citizen could read and understand it.
Because of gradual changes in the meaning of words, some now believe that the word "militia" applies only to an Army sustained by the government. Obviously that was not the definition on March 4, 1789, when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Americans had witnessed Washington's defeat of the British, by commanding a ragtag band of patriots with their own muskets, and volunteer soldiers formed into regiments in various states. Washington had to work tirelessly to get Congress to fund payment to his citizen soldiers.
Most anti-gun people somehow believe that if they legally banned all guns it would stop gun crimes. With an estimated 100 million privately owned guns in America, that would be impossible to achieve. Mad men shoot up college campuses, work places of every description, shopping malls, darkened theaters and on and on, The gun haters immediately call for an outright ban or stricter regulations on guns. But people who mean to do harm with their guns would never surrender their weapons.Why would criminals, or madmen, obey that law and no others?
The anti-gun crowd has not been successful at changing the Constitution, largely because it would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of all state legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention. After proposing an amendment, three-fourths of all states must then ratify the amendment.
But the argument over the word 'militia' is now rarely held, There is another way to trump The Constitution and the gun grabbers have latched on. Article VI of The Constitution says "all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United states, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Bingo! Adopt the UN Small Arms Treaty and the 2nd Amendment is gone.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama continue to work hand-in-glove with the UN to pass the "Programme of Action Against Small Arms" Treaty.
Patriotic Americans cannot permit the Administration to sneak this one by.
Senator Rand Paul (R., KY) is fighting it. Follow his efforts here
Native Americans here in the Western States used to call the coyote "the Trickster". We have coyotes in the White House. Watch them closely.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Assault on The Constitution
Part Two: Freedom of Religion
If I said that "they" are re-writing The Constitution, you may say "No. It has to go through a long process before you can amend The Constitution." You would be wrong.
Consider the first amendment - the opening shot in the Bill of Rights. The first 16 words are: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Even President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to a Baptist group in Danville, CT, responding to their complaint that Jefferson, unlike Presidents Washington and Adams, had failed to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.
Jefferson's letter, the source of the "Wall of Separation" nonsense, also said "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an executive is the head of a national church, ..."
In 1777, Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which established freedom of religion in the Commonwealth. Although the document was not adopted as Virginia state law for nearly a decade, it was one of Jefferson's proudest life accomplishments.
I don't know what Jefferson meant with his reference to "the head of a national church", But it is clear that the "Wall of Separation" was simply Jefferson's opinion.
In America, we have the practice of "common law" Not being a lawyer, I may not know the correct details, but my understanding is that Common Law means we reference decisions by previous courts when deciding cases with like circumstances.
Previous to Jefferson, Washington and Adams both felt it was proper to declare a day of prayer and fasting. None of these opinions were by a "court". But if the idea of Common Law is to apply, why does not the Washington and Adams practice take precedence?
But, all of this is moot because The Constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law..."
The "re-writers", however pounced on Jefferson's wall of separation - NOT a part of The Constitution - and proclaim it to mean there can be no reference to religion on any government property, city, county, state or federal.
If that is not amending The Constitution, what is?
Part Two: Freedom of Religion
If I said that "they" are re-writing The Constitution, you may say "No. It has to go through a long process before you can amend The Constitution." You would be wrong.
Consider the first amendment - the opening shot in the Bill of Rights. The first 16 words are: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Even President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to a Baptist group in Danville, CT, responding to their complaint that Jefferson, unlike Presidents Washington and Adams, had failed to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.
Jefferson's letter, the source of the "Wall of Separation" nonsense, also said "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an executive is the head of a national church, ..."
In 1777, Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which established freedom of religion in the Commonwealth. Although the document was not adopted as Virginia state law for nearly a decade, it was one of Jefferson's proudest life accomplishments.
I don't know what Jefferson meant with his reference to "the head of a national church", But it is clear that the "Wall of Separation" was simply Jefferson's opinion.
In America, we have the practice of "common law" Not being a lawyer, I may not know the correct details, but my understanding is that Common Law means we reference decisions by previous courts when deciding cases with like circumstances.
Previous to Jefferson, Washington and Adams both felt it was proper to declare a day of prayer and fasting. None of these opinions were by a "court". But if the idea of Common Law is to apply, why does not the Washington and Adams practice take precedence?
But, all of this is moot because The Constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law..."
The "re-writers", however pounced on Jefferson's wall of separation - NOT a part of The Constitution - and proclaim it to mean there can be no reference to religion on any government property, city, county, state or federal.
If that is not amending The Constitution, what is?
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Assault On The Constitution
Part One: Freedom of Speech.
The following ad is all over our local newspaper's online edition.
So, what's this all about? Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association explained it clearly in a column which appeared in the August, 2012 issue of American Rifleman magazine. Plain and simple it is another attempt by Progressives/Liberals to revise, re-write and reject the U.S Constitution.
In 2010, the Federal Election Commission ruled that group speech by corporations is not protected as free speech by the first amendment. A group called Citizen's United sued the FEC and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court overruled the FEC. Chief Justice Roberts said "The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox or the lonely pamphleteer" Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people"
Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass), then introduced House Joint Resolution 88, calling for a People's Rights Amendment to The Constitution. The text of the proposed amendment would say "people, person or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities."
Under this amendment, anyone who tried to exercise his or her constitutional rights collectively with other people would be "subject to such regulations as Congress deems reasonable."
Now the cause has been taken up in the U.S. Senate. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), said "I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment."
Think about that! Did the Founding Fathers draft the 1st Amendment to permit falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, or print pornography?
Remember the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"! The prohibition is solely on Congress.
It is difficult to believe that this proposed amendment will ever meet the requirements for amendments as spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution. Unless, of course, people who rarely pay attention to the Constitution allow it to be slipped through in the dark of night.
Watch for any news of attempts to "overturn Citizen's Rights". Then fight to preserve our constitution.
Part One: Freedom of Speech.
The following ad is all over our local newspaper's online edition.
So, what's this all about? Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association explained it clearly in a column which appeared in the August, 2012 issue of American Rifleman magazine. Plain and simple it is another attempt by Progressives/Liberals to revise, re-write and reject the U.S Constitution.
In 2010, the Federal Election Commission ruled that group speech by corporations is not protected as free speech by the first amendment. A group called Citizen's United sued the FEC and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court overruled the FEC. Chief Justice Roberts said "The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox or the lonely pamphleteer" Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people"
Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass), then introduced House Joint Resolution 88, calling for a People's Rights Amendment to The Constitution. The text of the proposed amendment would say "people, person or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities."
Under this amendment, anyone who tried to exercise his or her constitutional rights collectively with other people would be "subject to such regulations as Congress deems reasonable."
Now the cause has been taken up in the U.S. Senate. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), said "I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment."
Think about that! Did the Founding Fathers draft the 1st Amendment to permit falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, or print pornography?
Remember the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"! The prohibition is solely on Congress.
It is difficult to believe that this proposed amendment will ever meet the requirements for amendments as spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution. Unless, of course, people who rarely pay attention to the Constitution allow it to be slipped through in the dark of night.
Watch for any news of attempts to "overturn Citizen's Rights". Then fight to preserve our constitution.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
"2016" and a prediction
At the end of the film, the crowd broke into spontaneous applause. Is that common with movies today? I remember the old days at drive-ins when young couples despaired the end of the movie without caring much about its content.
I am glad the film was not blatantly partisan. We were able to recommend it to some of our Liberal leaning friends as being factual, informative - not hate-filled.
It was the first time I had been in a movie theater for at least 15 years. Movies are so full of whispers and explosions that my hearing aids nearly self-destruct - never mind that the subject matter has no appeal.
Earlier in the week, we had seen numerous TV spots for "Last Ounce of Courage" and I had told Joanna I also wanted to see that film. Then, my astute little wife made a brilliant observation... "Hollywood has figured out how to get the Conservative dollar." Wow!
And what a good thing that will be. In fact, it could save our nation!
Consider talk radio. I did talk radio before Rush Limbaugh or the other current stars were born. We talked about the city not mowing the weeds on city owned property. We talked about potholes, the weather, and whatever other mundane local subject we stumbled upon. And we faded into oblivion.
Then came the Conservative talkers. Suddenly they were syndicated on hundreds of stations. Suddenly millions of people were hanging on their every word. What role did their considerable power of persuasion play in the generation of the Tea Party Movement, in which millions of Americans seemed to suddenly realize they had been electing and trusting politicians who betrayed them?
I remember 1941 through 1945, my early teens. America entered World War Two just after my 13th birthday. The first movies I saw were war action movies. They so filled me with patriotic fervor that the first thing I did after my 17th birthday was to enlist in the Army. And guess what... 67 years later that patriotic fire has not cooled one degree.
For generations, our youth has been fed Liberal pap by all of the entertainment industry. Look at the Viet Nam era. Unlike 1945, when a 17-year-old's only wish was to qualify for the U.S. military, America's young men fled to Canada to avoid that honor.
So, while Hollywood's only real interest may well be the dollar, if that drives them to produce honest films with conservative principles, I hope they make lots of them! Then perhaps young Americans will again be inspired by America, as were The Greatest Generation.
"2016 The Movie" opened in Las Cruces theaters Friday and Joanna and
I went to the 2:30 p.m. showing. It was not a huge theater, still nearly every
seat was filled. Lots of seniors, but at 2:30 on a Friday afternoon, all schools
are in session, many working folks are still working, and I doubt the choice of
the film had all that much to do with the age of the crowd.
At the end of the film, the crowd broke into spontaneous applause. Is that common with movies today? I remember the old days at drive-ins when young couples despaired the end of the movie without caring much about its content.
I am glad the film was not blatantly partisan. We were able to recommend it to some of our Liberal leaning friends as being factual, informative - not hate-filled.
It was the first time I had been in a movie theater for at least 15 years. Movies are so full of whispers and explosions that my hearing aids nearly self-destruct - never mind that the subject matter has no appeal.
Earlier in the week, we had seen numerous TV spots for "Last Ounce of Courage" and I had told Joanna I also wanted to see that film. Then, my astute little wife made a brilliant observation... "Hollywood has figured out how to get the Conservative dollar." Wow!
And what a good thing that will be. In fact, it could save our nation!
Consider talk radio. I did talk radio before Rush Limbaugh or the other current stars were born. We talked about the city not mowing the weeds on city owned property. We talked about potholes, the weather, and whatever other mundane local subject we stumbled upon. And we faded into oblivion.
Then came the Conservative talkers. Suddenly they were syndicated on hundreds of stations. Suddenly millions of people were hanging on their every word. What role did their considerable power of persuasion play in the generation of the Tea Party Movement, in which millions of Americans seemed to suddenly realize they had been electing and trusting politicians who betrayed them?
I remember 1941 through 1945, my early teens. America entered World War Two just after my 13th birthday. The first movies I saw were war action movies. They so filled me with patriotic fervor that the first thing I did after my 17th birthday was to enlist in the Army. And guess what... 67 years later that patriotic fire has not cooled one degree.
For generations, our youth has been fed Liberal pap by all of the entertainment industry. Look at the Viet Nam era. Unlike 1945, when a 17-year-old's only wish was to qualify for the U.S. military, America's young men fled to Canada to avoid that honor.
So, while Hollywood's only real interest may well be the dollar, if that drives them to produce honest films with conservative principles, I hope they make lots of them! Then perhaps young Americans will again be inspired by America, as were The Greatest Generation.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
O'Reilly
I agree with FNCs superstar Bill O'Reilly often. Some times I strongly disagree.
Recently, Bill asserted that you must notify the FBI when taking flying lessons, but not if you buy a machine gun or a bazooka. That was such a foolish misstatement it has been thoroughly refuted by Doug Giles and others.
More recently, Bill said "Marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution." Well, Mr. O'Reilly, marriage is not an enumerated right in the Constitution. But, have you read the Ninth amendment? It states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(Thank the Founders for the precious 9th amendment! Without it there surely would be books - no, libraries full of books - telling us all the things we could NOT do because those things were not enumerated in the Constitution!)
Then, Bill, take a look at the Tenth Amendment which says that powers "...not prohibited by it (The Constitution) to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Since marriage is not prohibited by the Constitution, it automatically becomes a protected right. Further, if any states wish to prohibit same-sex marriage, that right is reserved to that state and is protected by the Constitution.
Or, if I personally believe only in traditional marriage, I as a "people" enjoy Constitutional protection for that right.
The Founders did not write the Constitution to be a complex legal document. They wanted it to be a document that could be read and understood by every citizen of the United States. And with great genius, they succeeded!
Sadly, they did not provide a way to make us read it!
Monday, July 09, 2012
WHY...
Today in Qatar, camels ride around on trucks. Qatar is the richest nation, per capita, on earth.
Qatar has a skyline of spectacular, modern buildings and more are going up every day. What happened in Qatar?
It was discovered that Qatar is sitting atop a huge deposit of natural gas. With no green concerns, Qatar busted their butts to retrieve their natural gas and develop a way to market this asset. The results are nearly unbelievable!
Meanwhile, in America, where natural gas deposits are immeasurably larger than those under Qatar, where oil is more plentiful than in Saudi Arabia, and coal reserves are by far the greatest in the world... our infrastructure is crumbling. Americans are out of work in unprecedented numbers, our national debt is staggering.
Pundits fuss that more drilling would not lower the price of gas at the pump. Who cares? Follow the Qatar plan... put people to work! Produce coal, oil, natural gas and sell it on the world market. It is the way to pay off the debt, reduce unemployment, bring our standard of living back up where it belongs!
And, just as important, making America energy independent once more will make America more secure.
Why isn't anyone shouting about this? Are they afraid of environmentalists? Are they afraid of the green lawyers? Do people actually want to see America decline? Where is the leader who will take this bull by the horns?
doesn't anyone talk about this?
Qatar is a tiny spit of a nation, a little thumb of desert land protruding off the east coast of Saudi Arabia. One generation ago, citizens of Qatar lived in tents, rode around on camels and struggled to subside.
Qatar has a skyline of spectacular, modern buildings and more are going up every day. What happened in Qatar?
It was discovered that Qatar is sitting atop a huge deposit of natural gas. With no green concerns, Qatar busted their butts to retrieve their natural gas and develop a way to market this asset. The results are nearly unbelievable!
Meanwhile, in America, where natural gas deposits are immeasurably larger than those under Qatar, where oil is more plentiful than in Saudi Arabia, and coal reserves are by far the greatest in the world... our infrastructure is crumbling. Americans are out of work in unprecedented numbers, our national debt is staggering.
Pundits fuss that more drilling would not lower the price of gas at the pump. Who cares? Follow the Qatar plan... put people to work! Produce coal, oil, natural gas and sell it on the world market. It is the way to pay off the debt, reduce unemployment, bring our standard of living back up where it belongs!
And, just as important, making America energy independent once more will make America more secure.
Why isn't anyone shouting about this? Are they afraid of environmentalists? Are they afraid of the green lawyers? Do people actually want to see America decline? Where is the leader who will take this bull by the horns?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
