It seems the parents there do have quite a problem with a science book that proclaims Al Gore to be an "eco-hero".
It can't get much worse than that. But there is more-
Thirty-five school districts are using the seventh-grade science kits this year, including Vicksburg, Otsego and Schoolcraft in the Kalamazoo area.
The book holds up Al Gore as an “eco-hero;” promotes organizations such as Greenpeace and Rainforest Alliance; urges children to persuade their parents to “Vote Green” and buy organic; cautions against new-home construction, the plastics industry and conventional agriculture, and notes “many people believe that it is best for the earth for families to have no more than one child.”
I bet most of those kids in that district don't know the first thing about science past the 101 basics, if indeed that much. Granted, this was a seventh grade text, but that's not really the point. In science, and in practically all other courses, everything in the way of practical knowledge must take a backseat to political correctness and indoctrination. This is the primary if not the sole reason why the US is so far behind the developed world, and beyond, in science, math, and practically every other subject.
I bet if you asked these kids why they shouldn't mix sulfuric and hydrochloric acid they'd probably guess "because it's a bad trip?"
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tea Party Versus the Occupy Scumbags
I have been, so far unsuccessfully, trying to find the joyous news of an Occupy Fargo scumbag who lost his worthless life when he fell off a bridge. Until such time that I can regale you with the specifics of this happy report, enjoy the compare and contrast of this video, in which some Tea Party people risked their lives, or at least a case of severe nausea, by walking into the serpents den that is the Occupy DC protest movement.
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between the two groups. One group, the Tea Party, believes in limited government, liberty, free-markets, and bathing. The other group, the Occupy movement, are various degrees of socialists, fascists, and word on the street is there are a fair number of Ron Paul followers as well. Which if true is possibly the one and only thing the two groups have in common.
Well, aside from the fact that, legally, both are predominantly American citizens, and that the Occupy crowd is also made up of, allegedly, human beings.
H/T Say Anything Blog
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between the two groups. One group, the Tea Party, believes in limited government, liberty, free-markets, and bathing. The other group, the Occupy movement, are various degrees of socialists, fascists, and word on the street is there are a fair number of Ron Paul followers as well. Which if true is possibly the one and only thing the two groups have in common.
Well, aside from the fact that, legally, both are predominantly American citizens, and that the Occupy crowd is also made up of, allegedly, human beings.
H/T Say Anything Blog
Monday, October 10, 2011
Mutiny For The Bounty
The Other McCain shares this video that warmed the cockles of my little heart. After all, the unwitting recipient of the crowd's disdain is the same idiot who supported Obamacare on the grounds that the government has the right to force you to pursue your "constitutional right" to the pursuit of happiness. If you don't believe that, I blogged about it here, where you can also see the video where he makes this outrageous claim.
Therefore, when I saw the Occupy Wall Street hipsters put Democratic Congressional thug John Lewis in his place, my initial thoughts were, well they can't be all bad. Watch the fun as Lewis becomes more and more frustrated. You can almost hear him thinking out loud, "don't these people know who the hell I am? I'm Civil Rights "hero" John Lewis. How dare they say I'm no better than they are!"
When I remember how Lewis was one of a group of Black Congressional Caucus members who one time strolled through a Tea Party crowd and later lied, claiming people in the crowd shouted "nigger" and spat on him, I found myself wondering if this crowd would meet the same criticism. But of course that's not going to happen. After all, this protest, and all the other similar ones across the nation, are supported by the powers that be. Not just by the SEIU and other unions, and by activists such as World Can't Wait and Code Pink. They are also supported by Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats, who disingenuously compare them to the Tea Party. Yes, the Democratic Party supports this nationwide movement, including the Occupy Philadelphia group that recently marched through the streets of Philadelphia carrying a Soviet flag.
So what do they want, this motley crue of Ron Paul supporters, hipsters, and various stripes of progressives and socialists? Well, besides free stuff, that is. They would seem to want a more fair, equitable distribution of the nation's wealth, jobs, better pay, and of course a higher tax rate on all those that they demand provide them with all of these goodies. And of course they want relief from the burdens of those student loans they've been unfairly saddled with. After all, can they help it that there just isn't that great a demand these days for PoliSci, Sociology, Economics, and Anthropology grads?
But although these things might have provided the original impetus, there is very likely much more to it than that.
Sunday on Face The Nation, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain declared, to a teary-eyed Bob Schieffer, that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration by focusing public outrage at the banks, and Wall Street, who by the way overwhelmingly supported the election of Obama in 2008 against John McCain.
All in all, this movement is one that should be welcome, if anything, as a sign of the on-going implosion and disintegration of the left as they stumble through their on-going divorce from reality.
Therefore, when I saw the Occupy Wall Street hipsters put Democratic Congressional thug John Lewis in his place, my initial thoughts were, well they can't be all bad. Watch the fun as Lewis becomes more and more frustrated. You can almost hear him thinking out loud, "don't these people know who the hell I am? I'm Civil Rights "hero" John Lewis. How dare they say I'm no better than they are!"
When I remember how Lewis was one of a group of Black Congressional Caucus members who one time strolled through a Tea Party crowd and later lied, claiming people in the crowd shouted "nigger" and spat on him, I found myself wondering if this crowd would meet the same criticism. But of course that's not going to happen. After all, this protest, and all the other similar ones across the nation, are supported by the powers that be. Not just by the SEIU and other unions, and by activists such as World Can't Wait and Code Pink. They are also supported by Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats, who disingenuously compare them to the Tea Party. Yes, the Democratic Party supports this nationwide movement, including the Occupy Philadelphia group that recently marched through the streets of Philadelphia carrying a Soviet flag.
So what do they want, this motley crue of Ron Paul supporters, hipsters, and various stripes of progressives and socialists? Well, besides free stuff, that is. They would seem to want a more fair, equitable distribution of the nation's wealth, jobs, better pay, and of course a higher tax rate on all those that they demand provide them with all of these goodies. And of course they want relief from the burdens of those student loans they've been unfairly saddled with. After all, can they help it that there just isn't that great a demand these days for PoliSci, Sociology, Economics, and Anthropology grads?
But although these things might have provided the original impetus, there is very likely much more to it than that.
Sunday on Face The Nation, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain declared, to a teary-eyed Bob Schieffer, that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration by focusing public outrage at the banks, and Wall Street, who by the way overwhelmingly supported the election of Obama in 2008 against John McCain.
All in all, this movement is one that should be welcome, if anything, as a sign of the on-going implosion and disintegration of the left as they stumble through their on-going divorce from reality.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Ed Schultz At Half Wits End
This might be one of the most entertaining videos I've ever posted. It shows two leftist idiots from MSNBC going at each other. Ed Schultz is speaking in support of Obama's jobs plan, and Dylan Rattigan is saying it doesn't go nearly far enough. After so long, a frustrated and visibly angry Schultz calls it off.
When far left commie loon Ed Schultz represents the moderate faction of your party, you know you've got real fucking problems. This might well be a foretaste of a serious problem among the American left. Hey, I know how they might resolve their differences. Bullets.
H/T Bluegrass Pundit
When far left commie loon Ed Schultz represents the moderate faction of your party, you know you've got real fucking problems. This might well be a foretaste of a serious problem among the American left. Hey, I know how they might resolve their differences. Bullets.
H/T Bluegrass Pundit
Occupy Portland Finds The Perfect Spokesperson
As we know, the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread across the country, to such diverse places as Washington DC, to Louisville and Lexington Ky, and-Portland Oregon. The following YouTube video is a perfect representation of the kind of folks one might find at such an event. Much thanks to Ace of Spades HQ for digging up this fine specimen of humanity.
Friday, October 07, 2011
The Walking Brain Dead
FilmLadd has a brutal evisceration of Bill O'Reilly, who just cant seem to see the trees for the forest. O'Reilly seems to live in a world where everyone basically has the best of intentions. They're just wrong. Thus, in his world view, George Soros is nothing more than a greedy capitalist, a kind of modern day Robber Baron who manipulates social unrest for his own personal power and enrichment. Barak Obama truly loves America and is a patriot. He just has a skewed ideological vision of what is best for the country and for "the folks".
And the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which has just recently expanded to other areas, including Washington D.C.'s K-Street and even to Lexington Kentucky? They're just a bunch of hippies who want free stuff, or equality, or whatever, but nobody should take them seriously, according to O'Reilly. Soon, these same socialist ideologues will follow in the footsteps of their sixties forebears. They themselves will occupy Wall Street in the form of investment bankers and stock-brokers. They will no longer rail against the system. They will be the system.
It is all too clear however that the repercussions today could be much more serious, with longer lasting implications, and one must wonder to what extent Obama is involved with the movement, albeit in the background, though publicly encouraging such random acts of public protest as resulted in one group taking possession of the Brooklyn Bridge, which in turn necessitated the arrest of more than seventy protestors.
Robert Stacy McCain in the meantime points out another group of allies the sixties hippy crowd never had-the unions, particularly the SEIU, along with myriads of others, including teachers.
It's all a bit murky to me. O'Reilly is correct about one thing. Most of this crowd are gravely disappointed in Obama, whom they feel has let them down, whom they believe has sold out to the Wall Street crowd. In fact, this is true in a sense. He sold out to them during his first campaign. Wall Street by and large donated more money to him than to McCain, more possibly than to any other candidate, Democrat or Republican, in history.
Still, there can be no doubt that Obama wants to shore up his leftist base, and so has no compunction about using weasel words to the effect that the Occupy Wall Street Movement speaks for a large and growing disaffection across the country.
One of the protestors is a man I have had a terse acquaintance with for some time. In fact, Troutsky is on my blogroll. (yes, I have some commies on my blogroll). He certainly has no love lost for Obama or the Democrats. Still, note how the old trout guide waxes poetic in this post about how he is working on the sidelines, or as he puts it, on the periphery, and adds this bit of warning to those unions who don't toe the line.
It's great to see SEIU down at Zucotti Square but I hope someone asks them about California health care workers. Because their union is actively scabbing and trying to break a courageous strike. It is time for honest critique of EVERYTHING, just get it out in the open and talk.
It would seem as though healing the sick and saving lives must, alas, take a back seat to the glorious cause of civil unrest and property theft. So what to make of all of this? If you're out and about on your daily routine to and from work, the store, seeing to business matters, etc., what should you do if you run into a horde of these devoted progressives trying to stick it to the man? What can you do? You certainly have to keep a watchful eye and if possible, take judicious notes. Capture the mayhem on video if at all possible.
And by all means, go armed if you can. Just in case the unthinkable happens.
And the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which has just recently expanded to other areas, including Washington D.C.'s K-Street and even to Lexington Kentucky? They're just a bunch of hippies who want free stuff, or equality, or whatever, but nobody should take them seriously, according to O'Reilly. Soon, these same socialist ideologues will follow in the footsteps of their sixties forebears. They themselves will occupy Wall Street in the form of investment bankers and stock-brokers. They will no longer rail against the system. They will be the system.
It is all too clear however that the repercussions today could be much more serious, with longer lasting implications, and one must wonder to what extent Obama is involved with the movement, albeit in the background, though publicly encouraging such random acts of public protest as resulted in one group taking possession of the Brooklyn Bridge, which in turn necessitated the arrest of more than seventy protestors.
Robert Stacy McCain in the meantime points out another group of allies the sixties hippy crowd never had-the unions, particularly the SEIU, along with myriads of others, including teachers.
It's all a bit murky to me. O'Reilly is correct about one thing. Most of this crowd are gravely disappointed in Obama, whom they feel has let them down, whom they believe has sold out to the Wall Street crowd. In fact, this is true in a sense. He sold out to them during his first campaign. Wall Street by and large donated more money to him than to McCain, more possibly than to any other candidate, Democrat or Republican, in history.
Still, there can be no doubt that Obama wants to shore up his leftist base, and so has no compunction about using weasel words to the effect that the Occupy Wall Street Movement speaks for a large and growing disaffection across the country.
One of the protestors is a man I have had a terse acquaintance with for some time. In fact, Troutsky is on my blogroll. (yes, I have some commies on my blogroll). He certainly has no love lost for Obama or the Democrats. Still, note how the old trout guide waxes poetic in this post about how he is working on the sidelines, or as he puts it, on the periphery, and adds this bit of warning to those unions who don't toe the line.
It's great to see SEIU down at Zucotti Square but I hope someone asks them about California health care workers. Because their union is actively scabbing and trying to break a courageous strike. It is time for honest critique of EVERYTHING, just get it out in the open and talk.
It would seem as though healing the sick and saving lives must, alas, take a back seat to the glorious cause of civil unrest and property theft. So what to make of all of this? If you're out and about on your daily routine to and from work, the store, seeing to business matters, etc., what should you do if you run into a horde of these devoted progressives trying to stick it to the man? What can you do? You certainly have to keep a watchful eye and if possible, take judicious notes. Capture the mayhem on video if at all possible.
And by all means, go armed if you can. Just in case the unthinkable happens.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Grover Norquist Exposed On The House Floor
H/T for the below post goes out to Zilla Of The Resistance, whose tireless and unwavering efforts against radical Islam, including her efforts to expose what she calls "Islamoblow" politicians and other enablers or "Islamocoddlers" deserves special commendation. At this point she may be, in her own smaller way, an even more effective voice of opposition than Pamela Gellar, who a good many people tend to shut out without a fair hearing. I urge all readers of this post to visit Zilla's blog and show her your support.
Is Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform being used by Norquist as a money laundering operation? It seems that there is more than ample reason to believe that to be the case, but if so, the veil seems to be finally lifting. Or possibly unraveling. The question remains, who of all of Norquist's unsavory acquaintances, not the least of whom is convicted felon Jack Abramof, has utilized Norquist's organization for illicit means. The answers might surprise you if you are unfamiliar with the man's history, but the answer would seem to be such groups as CAIR, Hamas, Hebbollah, and the Islamic Brotherhood. It would seem that Grover is a major champion and advocate of the religion of peace.
It has gotten to the point where one Congressman, Republican Frank R. Wolf, just today denounced Norquist on the floor of the House. I won't go into detail, as you can read it all here, but the problems with Norquist seem multifaceted.
For one, he has been a strong supporter of any and all Islamic causes here in the US. That in and of itself need not necessarily be cause for alarm, so long as it is transparent, but if he is using the ATR as a means of funneling money back and forth, and to and from Islamic radical organizations, then it becomes grave cause for concern. But more to the point, he has been a strong influence on GOP lawmakers through the aegis of the ATR's "No New Tax Pledge" which he has hitherto run almost like a protection racket.
First, GOP lawmakers and candidates are pressured to take the pledge, and then bludgeoned without mercy if they show signs of wavering from that pledge in the slightest ways. Unfortunately, this goes way beyond raising taxes. Also forbidden is any serious effort at entitlement reform. Perhaps even more disturbing is Norquist's insistence that any attempt to repeal subsidies or even the more odious forms of tax exemptions currently enjoyed by wealthy individuals and large corporations is also tantamount to breaking the pledge.
The end result would seem to be the wielding of a type of influence that might make George Soros green with ency. Yet, according to the Congressman, this kind of influence is stopping any budgetary reform progress dead in its tracks.
The question remains, who benefits the most from Norquist's influence? Have tax loopholes and exemptions made it possible for some corporations to funnel money to Norquist's organization in large sums? And how is this money being used, and for whose benefit? Are some of our major corporations unknowingly funding organizations whose overall objective and purpose is to supplant Western Civilization and to install shariah law?
And of course, although it wouldn't seem to fall under his purview, Norquist has probably twisted arms insofar as legal efforts on behalf of the Islamic groups he supports. For example, he was a vocal proponent of the Ground Zero Mosques, and has been a staunch opponent of the Patriot Act. He has also been at the forefront of demands for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, in demanding civil rights for even the most heinous of foreign-born jihadists, and has even been an advocate of terrorist fundraisers such as Sami Al-Aryan.
It is a disturbing list of allegations, but if true, Republicans need to cut this millstone from around their neck. Prosecution as well should be forthcoming, but there's the rub. How many people in Congress are just in too deep with Norquist to feel comfortable with any further revelations?
Is Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform being used by Norquist as a money laundering operation? It seems that there is more than ample reason to believe that to be the case, but if so, the veil seems to be finally lifting. Or possibly unraveling. The question remains, who of all of Norquist's unsavory acquaintances, not the least of whom is convicted felon Jack Abramof, has utilized Norquist's organization for illicit means. The answers might surprise you if you are unfamiliar with the man's history, but the answer would seem to be such groups as CAIR, Hamas, Hebbollah, and the Islamic Brotherhood. It would seem that Grover is a major champion and advocate of the religion of peace.
It has gotten to the point where one Congressman, Republican Frank R. Wolf, just today denounced Norquist on the floor of the House. I won't go into detail, as you can read it all here, but the problems with Norquist seem multifaceted.
For one, he has been a strong supporter of any and all Islamic causes here in the US. That in and of itself need not necessarily be cause for alarm, so long as it is transparent, but if he is using the ATR as a means of funneling money back and forth, and to and from Islamic radical organizations, then it becomes grave cause for concern. But more to the point, he has been a strong influence on GOP lawmakers through the aegis of the ATR's "No New Tax Pledge" which he has hitherto run almost like a protection racket.
First, GOP lawmakers and candidates are pressured to take the pledge, and then bludgeoned without mercy if they show signs of wavering from that pledge in the slightest ways. Unfortunately, this goes way beyond raising taxes. Also forbidden is any serious effort at entitlement reform. Perhaps even more disturbing is Norquist's insistence that any attempt to repeal subsidies or even the more odious forms of tax exemptions currently enjoyed by wealthy individuals and large corporations is also tantamount to breaking the pledge.
The end result would seem to be the wielding of a type of influence that might make George Soros green with ency. Yet, according to the Congressman, this kind of influence is stopping any budgetary reform progress dead in its tracks.
The question remains, who benefits the most from Norquist's influence? Have tax loopholes and exemptions made it possible for some corporations to funnel money to Norquist's organization in large sums? And how is this money being used, and for whose benefit? Are some of our major corporations unknowingly funding organizations whose overall objective and purpose is to supplant Western Civilization and to install shariah law?
And of course, although it wouldn't seem to fall under his purview, Norquist has probably twisted arms insofar as legal efforts on behalf of the Islamic groups he supports. For example, he was a vocal proponent of the Ground Zero Mosques, and has been a staunch opponent of the Patriot Act. He has also been at the forefront of demands for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, in demanding civil rights for even the most heinous of foreign-born jihadists, and has even been an advocate of terrorist fundraisers such as Sami Al-Aryan.
It is a disturbing list of allegations, but if true, Republicans need to cut this millstone from around their neck. Prosecution as well should be forthcoming, but there's the rub. How many people in Congress are just in too deep with Norquist to feel comfortable with any further revelations?
Monday, October 03, 2011
Was Rick Perry Wrong And If So, How Exactly?
Rick Perry looks to me like he's on the way out as a presidential contender, and that's probably just as well. The man is a horrid debater. Even in a debate with the Teleprompter Messiah, you need to not come across as tongue-tied for the simple fact it makes you look unsure of your facts, your position, and yourself.
With that out of the way, its really too bad, because I think Perry is getting a bad rap. But its a rap that is resonating in GOP circles nationwide. Here's just one example recently posted in American Spectator from a Republican congressional candidate from North Carolina by the name of Vernon Robinson, remarking at a rally (in front of a Mexican restaurant that is alleged to hire illegal immigrants) regarding Rick Perry's supposed "Amnesty" ideals.
"If Governor Perry's amnesty policy is adopted, it will mark the first time a Texan has surrendered to Mexico in 175 years," continued Robinson. Robinson called for using troops to secure the border, implementing e-Verify, cutting off welfare to illegal immigrants, an end to ballot printed in Spanish and other foreign languages, rescinding birthright citizenship, and restricting the jurisdiction of federal judges who stand in the way.
I'm not sure how much of that Perry would agree or disagree with, but I'll take the governor at his word and assume he sincerely wants to control illegal immigration, meaning like most conservatives he wants to at least slow it to a crawl if not eliminate it all together.
As for me, I find myself agreeing with every single item stated by Robinson. I might be even more hard core than he is. For example, until such time that we can repeal Posse Comitatus and thus put troops on the border (which frankly we should be able to do anyway) we should mandate that our border control agents not only have the right to shoot to kill in self-defense when they are attacked by illegal immigrants at or near the border, but they should be able to shoot them when they are trying to elude capture. If that sounds harsh, bear in mind many of these people are drug smugglers, gang members, and that some even engage in human trafficking. A good rule of thumb is, if you don't want to get shot, don't resist or evade law-enforcement, even if you think you're in the right. Let your attorney sort that out. The Mexican Embassy will appoint you one free of charge and will scream to high heaven in your defense, even if you're a convicted child rapist.
I hope I've made my point. I've been accused of a lot, but being weak on immigration and border security, well that's not one of them. Of course things can change and that might be starting with this post.
My question is, what exactly did Perry say that was so horrible, other than the mangled, garbled, amateurish way he said it?
Let's take it one step at a time. Only instead of looking what he actually said, let's pretend we're Democrats and twist his words around to mean something different than what actually came out of his mouth.
"You Republicans who don't believe in the Texas Dream Act are a bunch of heartless sons-of-bitches"
And of course, as I hope everyone knows, this is not what he said at all. In fact, he wasn't even referring to American citizens, nor specifically Republican voters, in my opinion. What he actually said, to paraphrase him, was "if you don't support giving an education to children who are brought here through no fault of their own, frankly I don't think you have a heart."
This was actually an amateurish and really pretty lame attempt to attack not GOP voters, but GOP politicians and policy-makers who dissent from his views. Where Perry messed up profoundly was in making the mistake of assuming that most Republican voters would agree with him. But he wasn't intentionally attacking them. Perry is not that big a fool. He just hasn't caught on yet that the United States as a country is bigger and more complicated than most things. Including, yes, even Texas.
But conversely, we all screw up when we fail to recognize the unique texture of the Texas landscape. To most of us, illegal immigration is frightening. How many are here, what will be the long-term effects on our culture and society? Will they add an unstoppable horde of supporters to the leftist agenda? It's uncharted territory, to be sure. But Texas to an extent is that territory, and Texans have lived it daily. They have had to deal with the unique problems it poses directly, not as a mere abstract concept.
Seen in this light, I can see Perry's point. Say you have a bunch of kids who have been here since a very young age. Their parents work hard, hidden in the shadows, but in the meantime these kids attend school. Some of them work hard and learn, and make good grades. Some even graduate with honors, as they and for the most part their parents contribute to the culture and society, and don't break the law, other than through the fact that they are here illegally.
Some of these kids have gone on to enter the US military and have fought for their adopted country. Why then should they not be granted a scholarship to attend a Texas University, or allowed to pay in-state tuition, seeing as how Texas is the state in which they have resided, went to school, and worked? Provided they meet the qualifications for attendance, and scholarship, and are willing to work hard, who are we to say them nay? We are always hearing about how we need more doctors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians. Well?
And about this border fence business. Perry is right on that as well. The idea of constructing a fence along the entirety of the Mexican-American border is a non-starter to me. It's grandstanding and demagoguery at best, and anytime I hear someone talk that crap I tend to tune them out. For one thing, are you going to construct a damn fence in the middle of the Rio Grande? Because if you can't solve that challenge then you are faced with the prospect of separating Texas landowners from large portions of their own acreage.
And then, as surely as night follows day, as soon as the fence is built, they will reduce the numbers of border agents, probably by significant amounts. The problem is, you will still need x number of agents or the fence becomes nothing more than a temporary inconvenience. And if you have the number of agents, or national guard troops that you need to make the fence an efficient deterrent, then voila, guess what? Turns out you don't need the damn fence after all, because the same amount of border agents can do the job as good without the fence as with it. Strike that, they can probably do the job even better.
It's like the guy that puts up a high fence around his property. Sure it will keep some people out, all but those that are really determined, and once those determined ones get over, the fence no longer protects you, it protects them. Border agents by and large aren't gifted with x-ray vision. They can't see through the wall any better than the illegals, and if you don't have a hell of a lot of agents, then the illegals will get over. And those that do make it through will be the last ones you would want. And make it through they will, one way or another.
As for the lettuce pickers and the bed-changers, I don't care about them. I want limitations on how many come here, to be sure, and I want those to come here legally, but in the meantime I want to focus our energy and attention on the truly criminal element. If we really, really want to we can get rid of them by shooting them down like the invading army of insurgents that they are in a very real way, if necessary. And make no mistake, that's what they are.
The others we can deal with over time, by initiating a pathway to citizenship for those who have otherwise obeyed the rules and worked whenever possible.
But first we have to secure the borders, in a sensible, realistic way. And a border fence is not going to cut it for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, frankly, I think its intended more as a boondoggle than anything. Just who will build the thing, and how much will it cost. This thing could end up making the Big Dig look like a skateboard park.
So let's all take a deep breath. We have too many important things to worry about. And in fact, this nonsense about a border fence is one of the main things that is holding up progress on actually securing the border. Put the boots on the ground and do everything else sensible that is required to at least slow this problem down to a trickle, and then let's move on from there.
With that out of the way, its really too bad, because I think Perry is getting a bad rap. But its a rap that is resonating in GOP circles nationwide. Here's just one example recently posted in American Spectator from a Republican congressional candidate from North Carolina by the name of Vernon Robinson, remarking at a rally (in front of a Mexican restaurant that is alleged to hire illegal immigrants) regarding Rick Perry's supposed "Amnesty" ideals.
"If Governor Perry's amnesty policy is adopted, it will mark the first time a Texan has surrendered to Mexico in 175 years," continued Robinson. Robinson called for using troops to secure the border, implementing e-Verify, cutting off welfare to illegal immigrants, an end to ballot printed in Spanish and other foreign languages, rescinding birthright citizenship, and restricting the jurisdiction of federal judges who stand in the way.
I'm not sure how much of that Perry would agree or disagree with, but I'll take the governor at his word and assume he sincerely wants to control illegal immigration, meaning like most conservatives he wants to at least slow it to a crawl if not eliminate it all together.
As for me, I find myself agreeing with every single item stated by Robinson. I might be even more hard core than he is. For example, until such time that we can repeal Posse Comitatus and thus put troops on the border (which frankly we should be able to do anyway) we should mandate that our border control agents not only have the right to shoot to kill in self-defense when they are attacked by illegal immigrants at or near the border, but they should be able to shoot them when they are trying to elude capture. If that sounds harsh, bear in mind many of these people are drug smugglers, gang members, and that some even engage in human trafficking. A good rule of thumb is, if you don't want to get shot, don't resist or evade law-enforcement, even if you think you're in the right. Let your attorney sort that out. The Mexican Embassy will appoint you one free of charge and will scream to high heaven in your defense, even if you're a convicted child rapist.
I hope I've made my point. I've been accused of a lot, but being weak on immigration and border security, well that's not one of them. Of course things can change and that might be starting with this post.
My question is, what exactly did Perry say that was so horrible, other than the mangled, garbled, amateurish way he said it?
Let's take it one step at a time. Only instead of looking what he actually said, let's pretend we're Democrats and twist his words around to mean something different than what actually came out of his mouth.
"You Republicans who don't believe in the Texas Dream Act are a bunch of heartless sons-of-bitches"
And of course, as I hope everyone knows, this is not what he said at all. In fact, he wasn't even referring to American citizens, nor specifically Republican voters, in my opinion. What he actually said, to paraphrase him, was "if you don't support giving an education to children who are brought here through no fault of their own, frankly I don't think you have a heart."
This was actually an amateurish and really pretty lame attempt to attack not GOP voters, but GOP politicians and policy-makers who dissent from his views. Where Perry messed up profoundly was in making the mistake of assuming that most Republican voters would agree with him. But he wasn't intentionally attacking them. Perry is not that big a fool. He just hasn't caught on yet that the United States as a country is bigger and more complicated than most things. Including, yes, even Texas.
But conversely, we all screw up when we fail to recognize the unique texture of the Texas landscape. To most of us, illegal immigration is frightening. How many are here, what will be the long-term effects on our culture and society? Will they add an unstoppable horde of supporters to the leftist agenda? It's uncharted territory, to be sure. But Texas to an extent is that territory, and Texans have lived it daily. They have had to deal with the unique problems it poses directly, not as a mere abstract concept.
Seen in this light, I can see Perry's point. Say you have a bunch of kids who have been here since a very young age. Their parents work hard, hidden in the shadows, but in the meantime these kids attend school. Some of them work hard and learn, and make good grades. Some even graduate with honors, as they and for the most part their parents contribute to the culture and society, and don't break the law, other than through the fact that they are here illegally.
Some of these kids have gone on to enter the US military and have fought for their adopted country. Why then should they not be granted a scholarship to attend a Texas University, or allowed to pay in-state tuition, seeing as how Texas is the state in which they have resided, went to school, and worked? Provided they meet the qualifications for attendance, and scholarship, and are willing to work hard, who are we to say them nay? We are always hearing about how we need more doctors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians. Well?
And about this border fence business. Perry is right on that as well. The idea of constructing a fence along the entirety of the Mexican-American border is a non-starter to me. It's grandstanding and demagoguery at best, and anytime I hear someone talk that crap I tend to tune them out. For one thing, are you going to construct a damn fence in the middle of the Rio Grande? Because if you can't solve that challenge then you are faced with the prospect of separating Texas landowners from large portions of their own acreage.
And then, as surely as night follows day, as soon as the fence is built, they will reduce the numbers of border agents, probably by significant amounts. The problem is, you will still need x number of agents or the fence becomes nothing more than a temporary inconvenience. And if you have the number of agents, or national guard troops that you need to make the fence an efficient deterrent, then voila, guess what? Turns out you don't need the damn fence after all, because the same amount of border agents can do the job as good without the fence as with it. Strike that, they can probably do the job even better.
It's like the guy that puts up a high fence around his property. Sure it will keep some people out, all but those that are really determined, and once those determined ones get over, the fence no longer protects you, it protects them. Border agents by and large aren't gifted with x-ray vision. They can't see through the wall any better than the illegals, and if you don't have a hell of a lot of agents, then the illegals will get over. And those that do make it through will be the last ones you would want. And make it through they will, one way or another.
As for the lettuce pickers and the bed-changers, I don't care about them. I want limitations on how many come here, to be sure, and I want those to come here legally, but in the meantime I want to focus our energy and attention on the truly criminal element. If we really, really want to we can get rid of them by shooting them down like the invading army of insurgents that they are in a very real way, if necessary. And make no mistake, that's what they are.
The others we can deal with over time, by initiating a pathway to citizenship for those who have otherwise obeyed the rules and worked whenever possible.
But first we have to secure the borders, in a sensible, realistic way. And a border fence is not going to cut it for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, frankly, I think its intended more as a boondoggle than anything. Just who will build the thing, and how much will it cost. This thing could end up making the Big Dig look like a skateboard park.
So let's all take a deep breath. We have too many important things to worry about. And in fact, this nonsense about a border fence is one of the main things that is holding up progress on actually securing the border. Put the boots on the ground and do everything else sensible that is required to at least slow this problem down to a trickle, and then let's move on from there.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Warren Buffett-Snake Oil Salesman And All-Around Fraud
I want to preface this post by stating, I am sick and tired of hearing about how Warren Buffett pays a lesser percentage of tax on dividends than his secretary pays in income tax. That's only to be expected, as capital gains are taxed at fifteen percent. But what is really irritating as how he portrays this as being so unfair to his poor hapless secretary.
This is not a woman who works in some obscure small town doctor or lawyer's office, or some struggling regional business.
This is the secretary of WARREN FUCKING BUFFETT!!! I have no doubt whatsoever that she makes well up into six figures in salary, probably enough to put her well into the upper income bracket. And that's before you start factoring in other compensation, probably a generous end of the year bonus, birthday bonus, shares of stock, etc. This is not a woman who is just making it.
In the meantime Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been in negotiations with the feds as to how much back taxes they owe. The hypocrisy knows no bounds, but don't tell MSNBC that. If you tell them Buffett should release his tax returns, they will call you a Buffett Birther.
Now, Buffett is conducting a scam to inflate the price of Hathaway stock, by announcing a buy-out for up to ten percent above the current price, on the grounds the current stock doesn't reflect what he insists is the company's real value. Alice Schroeder, who has had dealings with the so-called Oracle From Omaho, also hints that this might be a ploy to simply drive up the stock, after which Buffett might decide not to re-purchase after all.
Incidentally, Schoeder once wrote a book about Buffett, who told her when there were two conflicting accounts as pertains to any subject, to always use the version least favorable to him. Then he cut off all contact with her for painting him in an unfavorable light.
This is the kind of man we are suppose to listen to when he advises us to raise taxes on the rich, ie anyone, person or business, who makes more than 250,000 dollars a year.
Two possibilities, either one or both of which might explain this phenomenon.
1. The government has something on Buffett
2. Buffett wants certain businesses to lose their stock value so he can snatch them up.
It's one of the two, and probably both. I would almost be willing to bet my life on number two.
In the meantime, if Warren is really that upset that he isn't paying his fair share, here's a couple of things he can do.
1. If you're really in charge of Berkshire Hathaway, stop haggling with the feds. Pay them what they say you owe. Would they lie to you?
2. Here's an even better idea. There are a plethora of charities, some of which do good work, and some of which are struggling, that could always use a shot in the arm, an infusion of quick, ready cash, hell, a respected spokesman (note, better move fast on that one).
Just a few I can think of off the top of my head. Salvation Army, ASPCA, Boys And Girls Club, Make A Wish, Children's Hospital, The Red Cross, The Boy Scouts.
Granted, not all charities are good, some have a mixed record, some are wasteful of their donations. You can ferret those out, I'm sure. Even the worst of them couldn't be any more wasteful than the federal government.
But of course, Warren Buffett couldn't care less about fairness and government efficiency. There's something else up, and you can bet the main beneficiary, in the long run, will always be Warren Buffett.
This is not a woman who works in some obscure small town doctor or lawyer's office, or some struggling regional business.
This is the secretary of WARREN FUCKING BUFFETT!!! I have no doubt whatsoever that she makes well up into six figures in salary, probably enough to put her well into the upper income bracket. And that's before you start factoring in other compensation, probably a generous end of the year bonus, birthday bonus, shares of stock, etc. This is not a woman who is just making it.
In the meantime Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been in negotiations with the feds as to how much back taxes they owe. The hypocrisy knows no bounds, but don't tell MSNBC that. If you tell them Buffett should release his tax returns, they will call you a Buffett Birther.
Now, Buffett is conducting a scam to inflate the price of Hathaway stock, by announcing a buy-out for up to ten percent above the current price, on the grounds the current stock doesn't reflect what he insists is the company's real value. Alice Schroeder, who has had dealings with the so-called Oracle From Omaho, also hints that this might be a ploy to simply drive up the stock, after which Buffett might decide not to re-purchase after all.
Incidentally, Schoeder once wrote a book about Buffett, who told her when there were two conflicting accounts as pertains to any subject, to always use the version least favorable to him. Then he cut off all contact with her for painting him in an unfavorable light.
This is the kind of man we are suppose to listen to when he advises us to raise taxes on the rich, ie anyone, person or business, who makes more than 250,000 dollars a year.
Two possibilities, either one or both of which might explain this phenomenon.
1. The government has something on Buffett
2. Buffett wants certain businesses to lose their stock value so he can snatch them up.
It's one of the two, and probably both. I would almost be willing to bet my life on number two.
In the meantime, if Warren is really that upset that he isn't paying his fair share, here's a couple of things he can do.
1. If you're really in charge of Berkshire Hathaway, stop haggling with the feds. Pay them what they say you owe. Would they lie to you?
2. Here's an even better idea. There are a plethora of charities, some of which do good work, and some of which are struggling, that could always use a shot in the arm, an infusion of quick, ready cash, hell, a respected spokesman (note, better move fast on that one).
Just a few I can think of off the top of my head. Salvation Army, ASPCA, Boys And Girls Club, Make A Wish, Children's Hospital, The Red Cross, The Boy Scouts.
Granted, not all charities are good, some have a mixed record, some are wasteful of their donations. You can ferret those out, I'm sure. Even the worst of them couldn't be any more wasteful than the federal government.
But of course, Warren Buffett couldn't care less about fairness and government efficiency. There's something else up, and you can bet the main beneficiary, in the long run, will always be Warren Buffett.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The Christie Curse
There are at least five good reasons to dislike Chris Christie but he added icing to the cake last night in his address from the Reagan Library when he spoke the ineffable words "compromise". Those words which should never be spoken by any Republican who wishes to be taken seriously by the base, especially when spoken in connection with the terms "Democrats" and "Congress".
It bodes ill for the future of the nation when its leaders can't learn from the mistakes of the past. If you loved John McCain, you should love Chris Christie. On the other hand, maybe not. McCain was probably on balance more conservative. Of all the current aspirants for the Republican nomination, none are as liberal as Chris Christie. That includes Jon Huntsman, who at least opposes gun control.
Yet, the GOP establishment loves this guy. They won't leave him alone. I wouldn't swear to this, but I think they've even threatened him. They are that convinced that he is some sort of savior. But he's their savior, not the savior of the country, or the constitution. They want somebody to watch their own backs and guard their own asses. They want one of their own.
I want to make it clear, I admire Chris Christie, to a point, as governor of New Jersey. But that's where he should stay, where he can do the most good. Continue to put New Jersey on a sane fiscal setting, in a way that will last way past his tenure. Continue to take on the unions, fight for sane fiscal policies. Reform the state pension system and the schools. Do all those things that have made him a household word.
And then he should retire. He should avoid national office at any level. The last thing the nation needs is another national republican who supports gun control, is a believer in anthropogenic climate change, a support in comprehensive immigration reform, and is politically correct when dealing with matters pertaining to the encroaches of Islam in our society.
Whoever wins the nomination will automatically be beset with pleas-make that demands-to put Christie on the ticket. He or she should avoid doing so. Not just avoid, they should flat out refuse.
Its time for the Republican voters to take control of the Republican Party. If we can't do that, or won't do that, then nothing is ever going to change. It will just be one moderate squish after another, and year after year of Democrats demanding twice what they really want and then "compromising" to get everything they really do want. Before long, there won't be anything left worth compromising over.
It bodes ill for the future of the nation when its leaders can't learn from the mistakes of the past. If you loved John McCain, you should love Chris Christie. On the other hand, maybe not. McCain was probably on balance more conservative. Of all the current aspirants for the Republican nomination, none are as liberal as Chris Christie. That includes Jon Huntsman, who at least opposes gun control.
Yet, the GOP establishment loves this guy. They won't leave him alone. I wouldn't swear to this, but I think they've even threatened him. They are that convinced that he is some sort of savior. But he's their savior, not the savior of the country, or the constitution. They want somebody to watch their own backs and guard their own asses. They want one of their own.
I want to make it clear, I admire Chris Christie, to a point, as governor of New Jersey. But that's where he should stay, where he can do the most good. Continue to put New Jersey on a sane fiscal setting, in a way that will last way past his tenure. Continue to take on the unions, fight for sane fiscal policies. Reform the state pension system and the schools. Do all those things that have made him a household word.
And then he should retire. He should avoid national office at any level. The last thing the nation needs is another national republican who supports gun control, is a believer in anthropogenic climate change, a support in comprehensive immigration reform, and is politically correct when dealing with matters pertaining to the encroaches of Islam in our society.
Whoever wins the nomination will automatically be beset with pleas-make that demands-to put Christie on the ticket. He or she should avoid doing so. Not just avoid, they should flat out refuse.
Its time for the Republican voters to take control of the Republican Party. If we can't do that, or won't do that, then nothing is ever going to change. It will just be one moderate squish after another, and year after year of Democrats demanding twice what they really want and then "compromising" to get everything they really do want. Before long, there won't be anything left worth compromising over.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Questions From A Concern Troll
I recently deleted a comment from a probably by now former reader, who then sent me a bunch of follow-up posts which Intense Debate didn't post to my blog, although I got the e-mail notifications for them. I decided I'd take the time to answer them, in the order in which I got them. The first comment, incidentally, the one that I deleted, was something about why did I never post about paganism, instead of my "stupid political beliefs", so I'll answer that one first.
Answer-I just post about whatever is on my mind at any given time. And frankly, you should bear in mind that pagans do have lives beyond rituals and spells. Many of us are politically active. Some of us are even socially active, believe it or not. We have girlfriends/boyfriends, children and other family members, friends from all walks of life and belief systems, jobs and careers, school, etc. We like to read, listen to music, watch television and movies. In short, there's really no reason for us to stand out in a crowd.
However, there's a grave misconception that pagans are all liberals and progressives, some maybe even socialists. While that is true of the majority, probably even the vast majority, there are more than you might think that are conservative, and there are quite a few who are libertarian.
I don't actually consider myself a straight down the line conservative, but I am a staunch Federalist, a believer in limitations on the power of the federal government to those powers enumerated by the constitution, and everything else should be the purview of the individual states. That's the way the founders intended it to be, and nothing has happened in all this time to warrant any kind of change in that regard, certainly without going through at least the Amendment process, or without holding a new constitutional convention.
As such, I consider myself a strict constructionist. You don't need a university educated professor or attorney to explain to you or to "interpret" what the constitution means. It means exactly what it says, with some allowances for changes in the definitions of certain words over the years, such as, uh, "regulated" as pertains to the Second Amendment. (A hint, it doesn't mean government control.)
Anyway, I feel I owe it to conservative and to an extent libertarian pagans to make sure I get the word out there, that we are not all America-hating, leftist, Christian bashing, big government control advocates or tree-hugging environmental freaks who want to fundamentally transform America into a European style quasi-socialist nanny state powered completely by wind turbines and solar panels.
Perhaps I should have explained this at the time instead of deleting his post with the cursory explanation that "there's no freedom of speech on my blog".
His reply-
Very American of you.
In fact, it is very American. The government does not have any legitimate authority to prevent me from engaging in any kind of speech, or of hearing it. However, I am under no obligation whatsoever to listen to it either, or to subject my readers to it, and I certainly am under no obligation to take abuse from anyone just because they personally find my views objectionable. You have the same right. If you don't like what I say on this blog, simply don't read it.
But really though, do you ever write about Paganism?
Very rarely. What's to write about? There's only so much you can write before you become repetitive. If you don't believe me, check out the myriad of books on the subject of Wicca, or this and that brand of paganism. Once you've read one book by Silver Ravenwolf or Scott Cunningham, you've pretty much covered the gamut of everything anybody else has or will write. There's only so many ways you can describe casting a circle that's going to be unique. I'd rather concentrate on doing something good as opposed to adding to the volume of pablum. On my sidebar, I have a two part series on the god Pan called "Pan-A God For All Nature's Children, Parts One and Two". It's listed, with some other posts, under the heading of "Ancient Rites And Rants (And Immortal Bullshit)". It's probably my most read post, so maybe I should do more of them. But really, if you're not feeling it, what's the point? I've also done some archaeological posts, for example another two-part series, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Revisited.
And there have been others, but really, here's another point. If I did post more about paganism, pagans would be the last ones who would like it, because well, let's say it definitely wouldn't be politically correct if I gave a true pagan perspective, that is to say as I see it, on some of let us say certain issues of the day. Note, I said MY true pagan perspective. To put it a tad bit more concisely, its one thing to exercise tolerance and acceptance of certain things, its another thing all together to act like its positive behavior or healthy and should be applauded, encouraged, or taught in public schools to innocent children. Do I really need to go further? And believe me, that's just one example. There could be many, many more.
And do you realize these Christian batshit insane candidates hate your religion?
So what? A lot of people hate things they don't understand. More than likely though, assuming they have an opinion about it at all, it amounts to pandering to one segment of their base, based on the assumption that they hate it.
In the meantime, a good many independents, and conservative Democrats especially, hate it as well, or at least are highly suspicious of it, which means if I were you, I wouldn't count on Democrat candidates doing a whole hell of a lot to make things any better for you. Oh, and by the way, the liberal Democrats? Well, most of them think you're full of shit. You don't really think they see you in a much better light than they do those knuckle-dragging superstitious Bible thumpers, do you? They might treat you a little better to your face, but they're still condescending. Just don't forget to go to the polls.
Doesn't matter what Republicanism stands for. These people, these individuals, hate Paganism.
This is a good one. All that matter, to this person, is paganism. Nothing else matters, and nothing any party or ideology might stand for matters. I think that's a pretty sad statement. A pagan shouldn't concern himself or herself with what policies a candidate or party fights for or promotes, we should base our votes solely on how they feel, allegedly, about pagans and paganism.
So Republicans allegedly hate, hate, hate, HATE Pagans and Paganism, so it shouldn't matter to me that Democrats want to tax and regulate me to death, and appoint judges that are going to whittle away every constitutional right I have, including the right to bear arms.
Got'cha.
That really speaks for itself, and doesn't really deserve a further response.
It's really pathetic that you think they don't.
Isn't it so great that liberals and progressives never paint their ideological opponents with a broad brush? They just don't believe in that, you see.
Rick Perry especially would like Paganism wiped out of America.
Oh, so I see there are varying degrees of anti-pagan bigotry, and Perry is allegedly at the forefront. So is it possible some of them don't actually hate pagans at all? No, silly me, of course not.
Would you convert if he asked you to?
Nope, not even if I was a Perry supporter. I'm actually a Palin supporter, and believe it or not, I wouldn't do it for her either. Or for anybody else.
I do have to cut guys like this some slack, because they actually believe, literally, that Republicans are out on a mission to destroy Paganism, or deny them their first amendment rights in some obscene, untoward, and even unconstitutional way. They are not, but you can't convince them otherwise.
So what are you going to do? Me, I think I'll light a candle and some incense and call out to Athene for more wisdom, because I do need more of it. Of course, it helps if you're open to it.
Answer-I just post about whatever is on my mind at any given time. And frankly, you should bear in mind that pagans do have lives beyond rituals and spells. Many of us are politically active. Some of us are even socially active, believe it or not. We have girlfriends/boyfriends, children and other family members, friends from all walks of life and belief systems, jobs and careers, school, etc. We like to read, listen to music, watch television and movies. In short, there's really no reason for us to stand out in a crowd.
However, there's a grave misconception that pagans are all liberals and progressives, some maybe even socialists. While that is true of the majority, probably even the vast majority, there are more than you might think that are conservative, and there are quite a few who are libertarian.
I don't actually consider myself a straight down the line conservative, but I am a staunch Federalist, a believer in limitations on the power of the federal government to those powers enumerated by the constitution, and everything else should be the purview of the individual states. That's the way the founders intended it to be, and nothing has happened in all this time to warrant any kind of change in that regard, certainly without going through at least the Amendment process, or without holding a new constitutional convention.
As such, I consider myself a strict constructionist. You don't need a university educated professor or attorney to explain to you or to "interpret" what the constitution means. It means exactly what it says, with some allowances for changes in the definitions of certain words over the years, such as, uh, "regulated" as pertains to the Second Amendment. (A hint, it doesn't mean government control.)
Anyway, I feel I owe it to conservative and to an extent libertarian pagans to make sure I get the word out there, that we are not all America-hating, leftist, Christian bashing, big government control advocates or tree-hugging environmental freaks who want to fundamentally transform America into a European style quasi-socialist nanny state powered completely by wind turbines and solar panels.
Perhaps I should have explained this at the time instead of deleting his post with the cursory explanation that "there's no freedom of speech on my blog".
His reply-
Very American of you.
In fact, it is very American. The government does not have any legitimate authority to prevent me from engaging in any kind of speech, or of hearing it. However, I am under no obligation whatsoever to listen to it either, or to subject my readers to it, and I certainly am under no obligation to take abuse from anyone just because they personally find my views objectionable. You have the same right. If you don't like what I say on this blog, simply don't read it.
But really though, do you ever write about Paganism?
Very rarely. What's to write about? There's only so much you can write before you become repetitive. If you don't believe me, check out the myriad of books on the subject of Wicca, or this and that brand of paganism. Once you've read one book by Silver Ravenwolf or Scott Cunningham, you've pretty much covered the gamut of everything anybody else has or will write. There's only so many ways you can describe casting a circle that's going to be unique. I'd rather concentrate on doing something good as opposed to adding to the volume of pablum. On my sidebar, I have a two part series on the god Pan called "Pan-A God For All Nature's Children, Parts One and Two". It's listed, with some other posts, under the heading of "Ancient Rites And Rants (And Immortal Bullshit)". It's probably my most read post, so maybe I should do more of them. But really, if you're not feeling it, what's the point? I've also done some archaeological posts, for example another two-part series, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Revisited.
And there have been others, but really, here's another point. If I did post more about paganism, pagans would be the last ones who would like it, because well, let's say it definitely wouldn't be politically correct if I gave a true pagan perspective, that is to say as I see it, on some of let us say certain issues of the day. Note, I said MY true pagan perspective. To put it a tad bit more concisely, its one thing to exercise tolerance and acceptance of certain things, its another thing all together to act like its positive behavior or healthy and should be applauded, encouraged, or taught in public schools to innocent children. Do I really need to go further? And believe me, that's just one example. There could be many, many more.
And do you realize these Christian batshit insane candidates hate your religion?
So what? A lot of people hate things they don't understand. More than likely though, assuming they have an opinion about it at all, it amounts to pandering to one segment of their base, based on the assumption that they hate it.
In the meantime, a good many independents, and conservative Democrats especially, hate it as well, or at least are highly suspicious of it, which means if I were you, I wouldn't count on Democrat candidates doing a whole hell of a lot to make things any better for you. Oh, and by the way, the liberal Democrats? Well, most of them think you're full of shit. You don't really think they see you in a much better light than they do those knuckle-dragging superstitious Bible thumpers, do you? They might treat you a little better to your face, but they're still condescending. Just don't forget to go to the polls.
Doesn't matter what Republicanism stands for. These people, these individuals, hate Paganism.
This is a good one. All that matter, to this person, is paganism. Nothing else matters, and nothing any party or ideology might stand for matters. I think that's a pretty sad statement. A pagan shouldn't concern himself or herself with what policies a candidate or party fights for or promotes, we should base our votes solely on how they feel, allegedly, about pagans and paganism.
So Republicans allegedly hate, hate, hate, HATE Pagans and Paganism, so it shouldn't matter to me that Democrats want to tax and regulate me to death, and appoint judges that are going to whittle away every constitutional right I have, including the right to bear arms.
Got'cha.
That really speaks for itself, and doesn't really deserve a further response.
It's really pathetic that you think they don't.
Isn't it so great that liberals and progressives never paint their ideological opponents with a broad brush? They just don't believe in that, you see.
Rick Perry especially would like Paganism wiped out of America.
Oh, so I see there are varying degrees of anti-pagan bigotry, and Perry is allegedly at the forefront. So is it possible some of them don't actually hate pagans at all? No, silly me, of course not.
Would you convert if he asked you to?
Nope, not even if I was a Perry supporter. I'm actually a Palin supporter, and believe it or not, I wouldn't do it for her either. Or for anybody else.
I do have to cut guys like this some slack, because they actually believe, literally, that Republicans are out on a mission to destroy Paganism, or deny them their first amendment rights in some obscene, untoward, and even unconstitutional way. They are not, but you can't convince them otherwise.
So what are you going to do? Me, I think I'll light a candle and some incense and call out to Athene for more wisdom, because I do need more of it. Of course, it helps if you're open to it.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Bristol Palin Versus The Queen Of The Rodeo
This altercation between Bristol Palin and some homosexual at a bar would probably be blamed on Bristol, for approaching the guy to begin with, if the entire video hadn't captured the entire incident in context. Bristol was out with the film crew and staff of her new reality series. She took a turn on the mechanical bull, when the homo shouted "your mother's a whore" and "did you ride Levi like that" and something else equally stupid and banal. Bristol confronted the guy afterward and made him look like the stammering, spitting, bigoted fool most progressives really are deep down, and not so deep down.
My advice to the Queen of the Rodeo-It gets better. Who knows, maybe soon they'll invent a mechanical bull with a dick it can cram up your ass. Until such time, stay in the closet, fag. You're an embarrassment to the human species.
H/T Billy Hallowell of The Blaze
UPDATE-According to The Other McCain this jizz-gurgling faggot is a Trig-Truther who is a fan of Levi Johnston. Moreover, his name is Stephen Hanks and he owns a talent agency called Stephen Hanks Management Inc, and he represents Michael Vartan, who has appeared in the recently cancelled series "Hawthorne" with Jada Pinkett Smith. The number of the agency is 323-656-1884.
Not only does McCain have a picture of Hanks with Levi Johnston, a commenter produced his Lockerz account where he expresses his, uh, fondness for ol' Levi, who I'm sure reciprocates that fondness, in every possible way.
My advice to the Queen of the Rodeo-It gets better. Who knows, maybe soon they'll invent a mechanical bull with a dick it can cram up your ass. Until such time, stay in the closet, fag. You're an embarrassment to the human species.
H/T Billy Hallowell of The Blaze
UPDATE-According to The Other McCain this jizz-gurgling faggot is a Trig-Truther who is a fan of Levi Johnston. Moreover, his name is Stephen Hanks and he owns a talent agency called Stephen Hanks Management Inc, and he represents Michael Vartan, who has appeared in the recently cancelled series "Hawthorne" with Jada Pinkett Smith. The number of the agency is 323-656-1884.
Not only does McCain have a picture of Hanks with Levi Johnston, a commenter produced his Lockerz account where he expresses his, uh, fondness for ol' Levi, who I'm sure reciprocates that fondness, in every possible way.
Herman Cain's Breakout Night
Without going into a lot of detail, I name Herman Cain the winner of tonight's Fox-Google debate in Orlando, Florida, with Rick Santorum coming in a close second.
But in all honesty, the person who will probably come out best in this debate is the man I put in the number three position, Mitt Romney.
I'd have to put Gingrich at fourth, Bachmann at fifth, and Perry at sixth. Rounding out the rest of the field, I put Paul at seventh, Huntsman eighth, and Gary Johnson at ninth for his debut debate performance.
The person who might have knocked the wind out of Perry's sails, maybe permanently, wasn't Bachmann or Mitt, but Santorum, who made it plain he wasn't letting Perry skate on his policy of subsidizing university educations for children of illegal immigrants when American citizens are obliged to pay the full amount. He was also as tough as you'd expect on foreign policy and social issues, not backing down from any challenges.
Still, I have to give the overall victory to Cain, who offered a compelling story of a stage four cancer survivor, who succinctly made the case that, had he been obliged to seek treatment under Obamacare, he would not be alive today. He also made a better case for his 9-9-9 Plan, and his advocacy for the "Chilean Model" retirement system.
Unfortunately, this is probably the last stand for Michelle Bachmann. She made a big mistake focusing on Perry, which she did to great effect during the last debate. Tonight it was expected. She would have been better advised to concentrate on Romney who, though he is in second place behind Perry in most recent polls, is still trending upward, gaining on Perry to within the margin of error in most of these polls.
But she did not focus on Romney, nor did anyone else, except Perry of course, and that is a big mistake. Mitt is sailing through while also leading the others in the charge on Perry. In doing so, Mitt is looking every inch like the leader he's trying to portray himself as. It's a smart strategy, because the way things stand, Mitt will regain front-runner status within the coming weeks.
Paul did an admirable job of explaining his position regarding the border fence "locking us in". Unfortunately, his explanation is inapplicable to the modern age of electronic wire transfers, a world where not even organized crime syndicates carry their cash in trunks across the borders. But at least his stand didn't sound quite as nutty.
Gary Johnson got probably the biggest laugh of the night when he said his neighbors two dogs had created more shovel ready jobs than had Obama. But let's face it, Johnson, Paul, and more than likely Huntsman are basically distractions, and I commend the good sense of Thad McCotter for recognizing the reality and ending his ill-advised bid.
I still hold out hope Palin will enter the fray. If she does, it will quickly evolve into a two person race between her and Mitt Romney. And the sooner all the others drop out, the sooner Sara turns Mitt into a two-time loser.
But for the time being, if just for this night, Herman Cain, and to a lesser extent Santorum, proved their mettle tonight.
But in all honesty, the person who will probably come out best in this debate is the man I put in the number three position, Mitt Romney.
I'd have to put Gingrich at fourth, Bachmann at fifth, and Perry at sixth. Rounding out the rest of the field, I put Paul at seventh, Huntsman eighth, and Gary Johnson at ninth for his debut debate performance.
The person who might have knocked the wind out of Perry's sails, maybe permanently, wasn't Bachmann or Mitt, but Santorum, who made it plain he wasn't letting Perry skate on his policy of subsidizing university educations for children of illegal immigrants when American citizens are obliged to pay the full amount. He was also as tough as you'd expect on foreign policy and social issues, not backing down from any challenges.
Still, I have to give the overall victory to Cain, who offered a compelling story of a stage four cancer survivor, who succinctly made the case that, had he been obliged to seek treatment under Obamacare, he would not be alive today. He also made a better case for his 9-9-9 Plan, and his advocacy for the "Chilean Model" retirement system.
Unfortunately, this is probably the last stand for Michelle Bachmann. She made a big mistake focusing on Perry, which she did to great effect during the last debate. Tonight it was expected. She would have been better advised to concentrate on Romney who, though he is in second place behind Perry in most recent polls, is still trending upward, gaining on Perry to within the margin of error in most of these polls.
But she did not focus on Romney, nor did anyone else, except Perry of course, and that is a big mistake. Mitt is sailing through while also leading the others in the charge on Perry. In doing so, Mitt is looking every inch like the leader he's trying to portray himself as. It's a smart strategy, because the way things stand, Mitt will regain front-runner status within the coming weeks.
Paul did an admirable job of explaining his position regarding the border fence "locking us in". Unfortunately, his explanation is inapplicable to the modern age of electronic wire transfers, a world where not even organized crime syndicates carry their cash in trunks across the borders. But at least his stand didn't sound quite as nutty.
Gary Johnson got probably the biggest laugh of the night when he said his neighbors two dogs had created more shovel ready jobs than had Obama. But let's face it, Johnson, Paul, and more than likely Huntsman are basically distractions, and I commend the good sense of Thad McCotter for recognizing the reality and ending his ill-advised bid.
I still hold out hope Palin will enter the fray. If she does, it will quickly evolve into a two person race between her and Mitt Romney. And the sooner all the others drop out, the sooner Sara turns Mitt into a two-time loser.
But for the time being, if just for this night, Herman Cain, and to a lesser extent Santorum, proved their mettle tonight.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Joe McGinness, Democrats, And Other Passive Aggressive Racists
Joe McGinness has written an allegedly tell-all book about the life and times of Sara Palin that is hard to take seriously as anything but a slander tome, but on the other hand, what if it is true? What if Sara Palin did have some kind of brief fling with a black college basketball star between twenty and thirty years ago? What if she, Todd and some friends really did snort coke in the woods from the bottom of an oil drum? What if she wasn't the best of mothers in the early days of her marriage, and was in fact such a lousy cook she could "burn water"?
The point seems to be, in part, that Sara Palin is a hypocrite, and we can't overlook the obvious inference that Republican conservatives, especially Christians and members of the Tea Party, should be especially aghast at such sordid tales of her past. Naturally, we might all want to rethink her standing in the movement, and by no means should we want her to be the standard bearer for the Republican Party in 2012. That much is pretty obvious.
Conservatives are of course up in arms over what they consider slander, and Robert Stacy McCain has gone to the point of posting a tongue-in-cheek drive for his readers to contribute to what he calls the Todd Palin Defense Fund, in the event Todd gives McGinness one, or more, maybe several well-deserved ass-whuppins.
It was a joke, of course, but that didn't prevent humorless liberals from disingenuously deeming it a serious threat. This was the reaction from such stalwart liberal sites as Slate, as well as penultimate Palin basher and Trig Truther Andrew Sullivan.
In reality, the Todd Palin Defense Fund was a cleverly and satirically disguised yet open call to contribute to SaraPac, which as the name implies is a PAC set up by Sara Palin to promote conservative causes, issues, and candidates.
Lost in all the hullabaloo is the question, who cares if all this is true? I for one could care less if Palin had an affair with Rice, the black college basketball player in question, or a one night stand, or for that matter ten minutes in a locked stall in a public bathroom. As for the cocaine use, how is that different from Obama's own admitted use of cocaine and marijuana?
Liberals would answer that it demonstrates that Palin is a hypocrite, but that is true only if these things are on-going. Anybody can change their lifestyle, and adopt a set of values that are a complete turnaround from their old life. All that proves is that they have grown up and matured, and want to live a more positive life. Being married and having children tend to do that to people, at least in some cases, especially if you come to realize your old lifestyle amounted to a road to nowhere.
McGinness and his defenders say more about themselves than they do the Tea Party or for that matter about Palin. Why should they assume conservatives should be so up in arms at the idea Palin might have had a brief fling with a black man? This is the most obvious sign of racist projection I have ever seen, and for Democrats that's saying something.
This is a party that promoted and defended slavery, and then Jim Crow, and who to this day think of the black race as a group of people who are so inferior they require the beneficence of the federal government to protect them and even to support them. Taken to its natural extreme, it won't be long before the feds start sending government employees out to all the government housing projects to cook their meals, clean their houses, and wash their clothes, with the taxpayer picking up the tab.
On the other hand, suppose some conservatives are offended at the alleged relationship between Palin and Rice. How does it follow they would vote for a man who is the product of a mixed race relationship? A man whose mother was a noted white commie bitch, and whose father was a black commie Muslim. A man who has been mentored by commies and anarchists all his life and who has the audacity to hope that he can fundamentally transform America into what would possibly amount to a third world commie hell hole if he could have his way, or at the very best, a second rate quasi-socialist European style nanny-state.
I don't know about anybody else, but methinks I'll stick with the white chick in this case. Ironically, if Palin does decide to run, and wins the Republican nomination, she might have Joe McGinness to thank for netting her an extra three or four percent of the black vote over and above the roughly ten percent that typically vote Republican.
You know. The ones Democrats insist are "Uncle Toms". You see, back in the old days, Democrats used to force black folks in the South to vote Democrat. Then, they threatened them with the rope and the whip.
Now they merely bribe them with welfare, food stamps, drugs, and rat infested tenements while making sure the general black population is disarmed and at the relative mercy of black thug gangs, and by ratcheting up the rhetoric to make it impossible for big city police departments to do their jobs in such a way as might interfere with this national protection racket. All the while of course making sure black folks understand they just can't make it in life without the "help" of Democrats and their appointed straw bosses and house Negroes. You know, like Obama.
No, Democrats sure don't mind fucking black people. They've been doing that for going on two hundred years. Here for the last forty years or so, they've just been kissing them first.
The point seems to be, in part, that Sara Palin is a hypocrite, and we can't overlook the obvious inference that Republican conservatives, especially Christians and members of the Tea Party, should be especially aghast at such sordid tales of her past. Naturally, we might all want to rethink her standing in the movement, and by no means should we want her to be the standard bearer for the Republican Party in 2012. That much is pretty obvious.
Conservatives are of course up in arms over what they consider slander, and Robert Stacy McCain has gone to the point of posting a tongue-in-cheek drive for his readers to contribute to what he calls the Todd Palin Defense Fund, in the event Todd gives McGinness one, or more, maybe several well-deserved ass-whuppins.
It was a joke, of course, but that didn't prevent humorless liberals from disingenuously deeming it a serious threat. This was the reaction from such stalwart liberal sites as Slate, as well as penultimate Palin basher and Trig Truther Andrew Sullivan.
In reality, the Todd Palin Defense Fund was a cleverly and satirically disguised yet open call to contribute to SaraPac, which as the name implies is a PAC set up by Sara Palin to promote conservative causes, issues, and candidates.
Lost in all the hullabaloo is the question, who cares if all this is true? I for one could care less if Palin had an affair with Rice, the black college basketball player in question, or a one night stand, or for that matter ten minutes in a locked stall in a public bathroom. As for the cocaine use, how is that different from Obama's own admitted use of cocaine and marijuana?
Liberals would answer that it demonstrates that Palin is a hypocrite, but that is true only if these things are on-going. Anybody can change their lifestyle, and adopt a set of values that are a complete turnaround from their old life. All that proves is that they have grown up and matured, and want to live a more positive life. Being married and having children tend to do that to people, at least in some cases, especially if you come to realize your old lifestyle amounted to a road to nowhere.
McGinness and his defenders say more about themselves than they do the Tea Party or for that matter about Palin. Why should they assume conservatives should be so up in arms at the idea Palin might have had a brief fling with a black man? This is the most obvious sign of racist projection I have ever seen, and for Democrats that's saying something.
This is a party that promoted and defended slavery, and then Jim Crow, and who to this day think of the black race as a group of people who are so inferior they require the beneficence of the federal government to protect them and even to support them. Taken to its natural extreme, it won't be long before the feds start sending government employees out to all the government housing projects to cook their meals, clean their houses, and wash their clothes, with the taxpayer picking up the tab.
On the other hand, suppose some conservatives are offended at the alleged relationship between Palin and Rice. How does it follow they would vote for a man who is the product of a mixed race relationship? A man whose mother was a noted white commie bitch, and whose father was a black commie Muslim. A man who has been mentored by commies and anarchists all his life and who has the audacity to hope that he can fundamentally transform America into what would possibly amount to a third world commie hell hole if he could have his way, or at the very best, a second rate quasi-socialist European style nanny-state.
I don't know about anybody else, but methinks I'll stick with the white chick in this case. Ironically, if Palin does decide to run, and wins the Republican nomination, she might have Joe McGinness to thank for netting her an extra three or four percent of the black vote over and above the roughly ten percent that typically vote Republican.
You know. The ones Democrats insist are "Uncle Toms". You see, back in the old days, Democrats used to force black folks in the South to vote Democrat. Then, they threatened them with the rope and the whip.
Now they merely bribe them with welfare, food stamps, drugs, and rat infested tenements while making sure the general black population is disarmed and at the relative mercy of black thug gangs, and by ratcheting up the rhetoric to make it impossible for big city police departments to do their jobs in such a way as might interfere with this national protection racket. All the while of course making sure black folks understand they just can't make it in life without the "help" of Democrats and their appointed straw bosses and house Negroes. You know, like Obama.
No, Democrats sure don't mind fucking black people. They've been doing that for going on two hundred years. Here for the last forty years or so, they've just been kissing them first.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Promised Land
It finally occurred to me there may have been a rhyme and a reason for Obama's Israeli policy all this time. It goes something like this-Let's help the Palestinians, Iran, and radical Islamic groups wipe Israel off the map. If we move slowly but steadily, not only can we curry favor with the Arab street, we can blame it on Bush, Republicans, and Christian conservatives as we can bring all the Israeli survivors to America where they really belong, to join in with all the other Jews who typically vote Democratic by a margin of almost three to one.
Ah, but last night, with the election of Bob Turner to the Congressional seat formerly held by Geraldine Ferraro, Chuckie Schumer, and Anthony Weiner, a seat which has been solidly Democratic since 1923, it might be a sign of a kind of change the Obama Administration had never foreseen. Especially since it wasn't even close. Republican Turner beat Democrat David Weprin by something like 54 to 46 percent.
A clear message not only to Obama, but to the Democratic Party in general which has taken the Jewish vote for granted for far too long. What could this mean?
It was more than just a Jewish backlash, of course, there was also outright dissatisfaction with Obama's handling of the economy. Turner in fact made the election more about Obama than he made it about Weprin, whom at last accounting had not only not conceded the race, but was seemingly in hiding.
But that hasn't prevented other Democrats, such as Rep. Lynn Wolsey of California, from doubling down on the stupid.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) stressed that it was important for Democrats to not cave in on pieces of either Obama’s jobs plan or the [Congressional Progressive Caucus's] job-creation agenda.
“Half a loaf is not enough in the United States of America,” Woolsey said. “The whole proposal is what we must have now.”
Not only are independents and conservative Democrats becoming wide awake to the dangers posed by this renegade regime and its communist infiltrated political party, but so are interest groups that were formerly reliable Democrat votes. The following video by Ladd Ellinger is an example of the anger of a growing number of Jewish voters towards the Democrat regime.
Another special election for a seat in the House of Representatives election was won by the Republicans last night as well, this one in Nevada.
A commenter on another blog summed it up best-
SOB's-2 HOFFA-0
And this might be just the beginning. With this election last night, New York might possibly have come into play for the general election.
Ah, but last night, with the election of Bob Turner to the Congressional seat formerly held by Geraldine Ferraro, Chuckie Schumer, and Anthony Weiner, a seat which has been solidly Democratic since 1923, it might be a sign of a kind of change the Obama Administration had never foreseen. Especially since it wasn't even close. Republican Turner beat Democrat David Weprin by something like 54 to 46 percent.
A clear message not only to Obama, but to the Democratic Party in general which has taken the Jewish vote for granted for far too long. What could this mean?
It was more than just a Jewish backlash, of course, there was also outright dissatisfaction with Obama's handling of the economy. Turner in fact made the election more about Obama than he made it about Weprin, whom at last accounting had not only not conceded the race, but was seemingly in hiding.
But that hasn't prevented other Democrats, such as Rep. Lynn Wolsey of California, from doubling down on the stupid.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) stressed that it was important for Democrats to not cave in on pieces of either Obama’s jobs plan or the [Congressional Progressive Caucus's] job-creation agenda.
“Half a loaf is not enough in the United States of America,” Woolsey said. “The whole proposal is what we must have now.”
Not only are independents and conservative Democrats becoming wide awake to the dangers posed by this renegade regime and its communist infiltrated political party, but so are interest groups that were formerly reliable Democrat votes. The following video by Ladd Ellinger is an example of the anger of a growing number of Jewish voters towards the Democrat regime.
Another special election for a seat in the House of Representatives election was won by the Republicans last night as well, this one in Nevada.
A commenter on another blog summed it up best-
SOB's-2 HOFFA-0
And this might be just the beginning. With this election last night, New York might possibly have come into play for the general election.
Monday, September 12, 2011
The Aftermath Of 9/11-How Did It Change Us?
The attacks of September 11, 2001, changed us in ways we never could have ever foreseen. But did it really change us that much? Yes and no.
In the immediate aftermath, we all joined hands as a nation. We were solidly united, for an all too brief period. Democrat and Republican leaders joined hands on the steps of the Capitol in a show of unity and solidarity, in an attempt to instill hope and to encourage us as a nation to pull together, to overcome the tragedy, and to move towards justice, yes, but also healing. The eyes of the world were on us, and it seemed like almost everyone was in our corner.
It didn't last.
Some people say we lost our innocence as a nation that day. That was a lie. We as a nation lost our innocence on the day we signed the Constitution. Within that document was embedded the compromise that allowed slavery. It was a necessary compromise at the time, one that could not be avoided. We eventually abolished slavery by means of the amendment process embedded in the same constitution that allowed the institution of slavery. It took two thirds of a century and a bloody, divisive war, but we ended it. We made things right. But we were not innocent.
And then we lived for another century with the shame of Jim Crow. We ended that as well, finally. We made that right, and are still making it right. But we are not innocent.
We sat silently as Andrew Jackson, the President we now honor on the twenty dollar bill, conducted the brutal savagery against the Cherokee Indians known as the Trail of Tears. We have yet to make that right, though we have tried. We have not yet come close to healing that wound. We are not innocent.
And even today, there is the on-going brutal holocaust of abortion, with untold millions of innocent babies snuffed out in the wombs of the mothers that should nurture and protect them, a happenstance that we have allowed through some misguided notion of privacy rights and individual liberty. There are those who fight valiantly to make the wrong right.
Throughout all of these, and other wrongs, we debated and fought, and tried to make things right. And we did make things right when we could. We will always strive to make things right. That is our nature as a people, as a country. But sometimes, in trying to help, in trying to do the right thing, we still sometimes make mistakes and do the wrong thing. We are not a bad people, or an evil nation, quite the contrary. We are the greatest people, and nation, on the face of the earth, in all of history. But we are not perfect. We are not innocent.
We have tried to right all of our wrongs, to the best of our abilities, though seldom united even during those times when we agreed there must be change, we would still debate over the best way to bring about that change.
But when all is said and done, the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, despite its original inherent flaws, is the greatest document of liberty the world has ever produced, or is likely to ever produce.
We have saved the world, at least three times over. We have a spirit that we have, instilled from our beginnings, an inherited culture that speaks to a deep rooted desire to make the world a better place, a free place, where all people can be free from tyranny, can be free to pursue their dreams, where people live and raise their families and instill in them those same values-the desire to make the world a little bit better for the next generation than it was for ourselves.
That may have all changed. A lot may have changed. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking we were ever innocent.
What we are is a hopeful people, a good people, with values and morals, and a love for liberty. At least, that's what we have been.
But we have also been a divided nation. That is the inherent nature of a constitutional republic such as ours. All too often, we have glossed over our differences. We felt we could always come to an agreement eventually. A compromise. We could always work things out, some way or another.
That's what 9/11 changed. We no longer have the capacity for working things out, for compromise. 9/11 was a wound to the heart, mind, and spirit, and the wound is still raw and sore.
Instead of uniting us, 9/11 has if anything heightened our divisions. Now we notice them more and more, on matters that at one time we would have deemed unimportant, inconsequential. Now we see, maybe they weren't so simple, or minor, after all.
More and more now, Americans have started to solidify their differences.
The left now sees they aren't going to be able to gradually phase in their socialistic visions for the future of America. Where once the resistance was small though sturdy, that resistance has over the course of the last decade grown larger, stronger, and much more intense. The left has responded by becoming ever more agitated, ever more determined, ever more abusive in its hateful rhetoric.
The right now sees they can not compromise with those who want to change the nature of their country. And so they too have become ever more determined, ever more strident in their opposition to the left's manipulations and provocations.
The ruling elites, for their part, have gradually started to realize they can not take the gullibility of the American people for granted. It's no longer good enough to talk the talk. The minute they are honored with an elective office, they are expected to walk the walk. Some have adapted with more or less varying degrees of grace and sincerity, in the face of constant derision and berating, sometimes downright hostility, not from followers of the opposition party so much as from their own constituencies. They know the people are sick of the status quo, and when they see fresh faces from main street mingling with the good old boys (and girls) from the Ivy League and legal profession, they know they are in the midst of a sea change that could easily wash them away like yesterday's tide.
And the media, which once leisurely supported the ruling class by fiat, all the while pretending to be objective and non-partisan, while in reality being anything but that, is now faced with the dilemma of their own growing irrelevancy.
Even our gods and goddesses of the entertainment world are feeling the pressure, the glaring light and withering heat of derision, as more and more of them start to wonder why films that once would have been box office hits are avoided in droves.
It is a brave now world of anger, outrage, and despair. Yet, it is also a world of hope for the future. And it is up to all of us as to which one will eventually prevail. Do we have the patience, the intestinal fortitude, to see it through to the end? Or will we eventually give up hope, return to the status quo? The elites hope we eventually do just that. I hope we do not.
That, my friends, is the true legacy of 9/11.
Ironically, it might well prove to be the best damn thing that ever happened to us.
But one thing we can never do is sit on the sidelines and hope for the best.
Those days are gone forever.
In the immediate aftermath, we all joined hands as a nation. We were solidly united, for an all too brief period. Democrat and Republican leaders joined hands on the steps of the Capitol in a show of unity and solidarity, in an attempt to instill hope and to encourage us as a nation to pull together, to overcome the tragedy, and to move towards justice, yes, but also healing. The eyes of the world were on us, and it seemed like almost everyone was in our corner.
It didn't last.
Some people say we lost our innocence as a nation that day. That was a lie. We as a nation lost our innocence on the day we signed the Constitution. Within that document was embedded the compromise that allowed slavery. It was a necessary compromise at the time, one that could not be avoided. We eventually abolished slavery by means of the amendment process embedded in the same constitution that allowed the institution of slavery. It took two thirds of a century and a bloody, divisive war, but we ended it. We made things right. But we were not innocent.
And then we lived for another century with the shame of Jim Crow. We ended that as well, finally. We made that right, and are still making it right. But we are not innocent.
We sat silently as Andrew Jackson, the President we now honor on the twenty dollar bill, conducted the brutal savagery against the Cherokee Indians known as the Trail of Tears. We have yet to make that right, though we have tried. We have not yet come close to healing that wound. We are not innocent.
And even today, there is the on-going brutal holocaust of abortion, with untold millions of innocent babies snuffed out in the wombs of the mothers that should nurture and protect them, a happenstance that we have allowed through some misguided notion of privacy rights and individual liberty. There are those who fight valiantly to make the wrong right.
Throughout all of these, and other wrongs, we debated and fought, and tried to make things right. And we did make things right when we could. We will always strive to make things right. That is our nature as a people, as a country. But sometimes, in trying to help, in trying to do the right thing, we still sometimes make mistakes and do the wrong thing. We are not a bad people, or an evil nation, quite the contrary. We are the greatest people, and nation, on the face of the earth, in all of history. But we are not perfect. We are not innocent.
We have tried to right all of our wrongs, to the best of our abilities, though seldom united even during those times when we agreed there must be change, we would still debate over the best way to bring about that change.
But when all is said and done, the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, despite its original inherent flaws, is the greatest document of liberty the world has ever produced, or is likely to ever produce.
We have saved the world, at least three times over. We have a spirit that we have, instilled from our beginnings, an inherited culture that speaks to a deep rooted desire to make the world a better place, a free place, where all people can be free from tyranny, can be free to pursue their dreams, where people live and raise their families and instill in them those same values-the desire to make the world a little bit better for the next generation than it was for ourselves.
That may have all changed. A lot may have changed. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking we were ever innocent.
What we are is a hopeful people, a good people, with values and morals, and a love for liberty. At least, that's what we have been.
But we have also been a divided nation. That is the inherent nature of a constitutional republic such as ours. All too often, we have glossed over our differences. We felt we could always come to an agreement eventually. A compromise. We could always work things out, some way or another.
That's what 9/11 changed. We no longer have the capacity for working things out, for compromise. 9/11 was a wound to the heart, mind, and spirit, and the wound is still raw and sore.
Instead of uniting us, 9/11 has if anything heightened our divisions. Now we notice them more and more, on matters that at one time we would have deemed unimportant, inconsequential. Now we see, maybe they weren't so simple, or minor, after all.
More and more now, Americans have started to solidify their differences.
The left now sees they aren't going to be able to gradually phase in their socialistic visions for the future of America. Where once the resistance was small though sturdy, that resistance has over the course of the last decade grown larger, stronger, and much more intense. The left has responded by becoming ever more agitated, ever more determined, ever more abusive in its hateful rhetoric.
The right now sees they can not compromise with those who want to change the nature of their country. And so they too have become ever more determined, ever more strident in their opposition to the left's manipulations and provocations.
The ruling elites, for their part, have gradually started to realize they can not take the gullibility of the American people for granted. It's no longer good enough to talk the talk. The minute they are honored with an elective office, they are expected to walk the walk. Some have adapted with more or less varying degrees of grace and sincerity, in the face of constant derision and berating, sometimes downright hostility, not from followers of the opposition party so much as from their own constituencies. They know the people are sick of the status quo, and when they see fresh faces from main street mingling with the good old boys (and girls) from the Ivy League and legal profession, they know they are in the midst of a sea change that could easily wash them away like yesterday's tide.
And the media, which once leisurely supported the ruling class by fiat, all the while pretending to be objective and non-partisan, while in reality being anything but that, is now faced with the dilemma of their own growing irrelevancy.
Even our gods and goddesses of the entertainment world are feeling the pressure, the glaring light and withering heat of derision, as more and more of them start to wonder why films that once would have been box office hits are avoided in droves.
It is a brave now world of anger, outrage, and despair. Yet, it is also a world of hope for the future. And it is up to all of us as to which one will eventually prevail. Do we have the patience, the intestinal fortitude, to see it through to the end? Or will we eventually give up hope, return to the status quo? The elites hope we eventually do just that. I hope we do not.
That, my friends, is the true legacy of 9/11.
Ironically, it might well prove to be the best damn thing that ever happened to us.
But one thing we can never do is sit on the sidelines and hope for the best.
Those days are gone forever.
Remember
Courtney from GrEaT sAtAnS gIrLfRiEnD will never let you down. Leave it to her to find the perfect feminine expression of the shock, despair, and grief of 9/11.
No Words
Smitty from The Other McCain has the perfect instrumental song in commemoration of 9/11. I say perfect because the song, called Ten Words by Joe Satriani, is actually an instrumental track with no words at all. Just Joe's feelings about the events of 9/11 aa expressed through his guitar virtuosity.
When you stop to think about it, words just do not suffice.
When you stop to think about it, words just do not suffice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)