Thursday, July 30, 2009
" ....The impending vote on Sotomayor has confronted the GOP with a political dilemma. Many senators are torn between their desire to please a conservative based (sic) that opposes Obama's nominee and a fear that doing so could alienate Hispanic voters, a fast-growing part of the electorate."
Wow, what an idea. Let's create, and then pander to, voter blocks. Right On, Right On, Right On. Let's get people thinking of themselves first as Blacks, Mexicans, Hispanics, Germans, short, fat, handicapped, males, straights, homosexuals, etc ..... and then we can pit them against each other so they vote their separate identities. Now, if we can just couple this with getting the various "groups" to grovel and grunt and use the political system to get "their" piece of the pie, then we will really be able to manipulate things.
So, then, is this is what we have been reduced to? We have Supreme Court nomination decisions being based on race, not on qualifications or espoused ideology? What? If you are Hispanic you get a free pass???
Wouldn't want to alienate the Hispanics?? If that would indeed alienate the Hispanics, then sounds to me like the people being alienated are racist in that they think that race matters. Also sounds to me like the people that do not want do do any alienating are being racist too in that their decision about a nominee is indeed race based.
What's next, having to put a handicapped person on the SC because they are handicapped? After that, a demand for a justice that has red hair and freckles? I mean, it is clear that redheaded freckled people are discriminated against in judicial appointments.
Talk about the dumbing down of America.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
I was thinking about the government’s increasing encroachment on my economic choices and wondering how to protect my property from the government. Suddenly, I woke up and smelled the coffee as my brain was animated to think "Wait a minute! Wasn’t our government set up to protect property rights? Indeed, can not freedom, and life, and indeed many of the other "rights" that we had to embody in a Bill of Rights be considered "property" - in the abstract at least.
At any rate, when I feel that I must protect my property, my life, my liberty, my freedom, against the government that is supposed to protect it, then something is very wrong. Indeed, I realized that the more I fear the government’s threat to my property, the farther along we are on the path from safety to danger, from republic to statism, from freedom to tyranny.
Then I read this from Barney Frank at the National Press Club today:
"I've had people come to us and complain, "Well, if you do that, I can't make any money." The answer is that's not my job. We're not here to help you make money. We are here to help have a system in which you will make money as an incident of your providing funds to those who will use it productively."
Huh? I am supposed to make money for someone else? And double Huh? You get to dictate that I use MY property in a manner YOU consider productive?
So you say. Sorry, but no. Your job is to safeguard my property rights, not decide who gets my property.
#1 This then causes the bumper sticker I saw the other day to come into clear focus, for it said, "Fear the Government that Fears Your Guns" .... And all the little kiddies think (or are taught) that the 2d amendment was/is about hunting and target practice.
#2 There is a difference between the government belonging to the people, and the people belonging to the government. I think we know which of these philosophies the Revolutionary War was fought over. Shame on Mr Frank and shame on anybody that says "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
The real thing that needs to be said is, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for YOURSELF."
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ever wonder if a 96 year old Supreme Court Justice, or any judge, or any current Supreme Court nominee, writes their own opinions?
Begs the question, doesn't it, of exactly whose ideas and whose opinions are being pushed.
Another point to make is that on those 900 page bills that are being pushed as coming out of nowhere (TARP I), the fact is that they do not come out of nowhere. Make no mistake, THAT thing was in its 899'th page of draft way before Bush and Paulson went on their binge of hysteria to try and sell a "crisis".
Same goes for the stimulus/porklus, ObamaCare, and yes my friends, even the Patriot Act.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
President Barack Obama said Wednesday he didn't know what role race played in the incident [arrest of William Gates] but added that police in suburban Boston "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates even after he offered proof* that he was in his own home.
Obama said:"I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry**. "Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three - what I think we know separate and apart from this incident - is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately***, and that's just a fact."
He also said federal officials need to continue working with local law enforcement "to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias."
Ah yes, and Gibbs says Obama was not calling the police stupid. Just more evidence that Obama’s presidency is not about healing racial divisions, but stirring them up. There is no evidence that this arrest was caused by profiling, indeed the very arrest report document indicates a charge of disorderly conduct, and that the conduct occurred after the initial incident, and that it took place outside the home.
Obama is stupidly blathering on about something he knows little about. Looks like Obama is the one engaging in racial profiling. This is just an excuse for him to advance his own political – not even agenda, but his own political bias. He’s still wanting reparations.
"Oh, magnificent Obama, we hang on your every word. Speak, Lord, for thy worshippers heareth. We long to drink in your opinion on anything that catches your attention, your every stray thought and passing impression; imprint upon us thy thought, thy feeling, thy very personhood."
What a skit for Saturday Night Live!
So many *'s, So little time.
* Showing a drivers license with an address that matches the address of the home when you are being questioned, while an indica of possible ownership, does not prove that you own the home. Is the guy divorced from the wife, the one that may now own the home? Is he breaking in because he has intent to murder his spouse (who has locked him out)? Is he a renter? Has he sold the home and not yet changed the driver's license??? Sheeesh.
** No, most of us would NOT be pretty angry [at being asked to prove up who we were]. We would thank the police for being vigilant and responsive to reports of possible burglary to our homes, and laud them for their quick acts to make sure that it was not an unauthorized person (impostor) in our homes.
*** Disproportionately to what? Are there other disproportions that are disproportionate because of causal things other than the proportion?
~your little gadfly Seneca
"What Roosevelt did in altering the American government's aspirations for its citizens is capture [in] the second bill of rights better than anywhere [sic], Government's aspirations for its citizens"
Government's aspirations for its citizens?!! What the &^@*(!!!
1. The government is not a being with aspirations, not a father figure who will take care of me.
2. I am not "its" citizen. It does not own me. I own it.
3. Therefore I don't want the government to have any aspirations for me. I have aspirations for it, to curtail its power.
The entire premise of Sustein's statement is an assault on my liberty -- before we even start talking about the abomination referred to as the second bill of rights. Indeed, the premise [a government having aspirations and a government that possesses citizens] is exactly an encapsulation of the ideology of today's mainstream Collectivist.
Just for the record, what was really happening was that Roosevelt was trying to use the governmental machinery to impose HIS aspirations on those he considered to be HIS citizens.
Seneca's Comment: Oh No, it looks like I have created a monster. Cato and I have debated the various meaning(s) and consequence(s) of the ideology contained in my statement "What's Mine is Mine". This of Cato's seems to embody the sentiment very well.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
" ...Megan McCain, (daughter of John McCain) isn't too fond of Joe the Plumber. "He should stick to plumbing," she said. Meghan McCain has always done her best to prove that, sometimes, the apple does fall far from the tree. And now, she’s at it again. During a recent interview with Out Magazine, the 24-year-old Republican openly dismissed the importance of Joe the Plumber, the everyman character on which her father John McCain’s campaign hinged."Joe the Plumber -- you can quote me -- is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing," she said. The young political powerhouse remains focused on revitalizing the GOP and proudly voicing her belief on gay marriage.
Yeah, well, good luck with that! Just another example of someone who just doesn't get it. Joe the Plumber may be a fool, or may not be. But it's the IDEA embodied in his conversation with Obama that resonates with conservatives. So does gay marriage. So let's see how many people she draws to a speech as she "revitalizes" the party, compared to Palin.
As for the gay marriage thing and the syntactical aberration that such a word combination is, Seneca has ridden that pony here.
As for revitalizing the GOP, she is doing nothing but trying to further its march to toward the liberal left, indeed THAT is the reason why the GOP is losing ground - because they, for years, starting with George Bush I, have tried to win votes by presenting themselves, not as Republicans but as a different version of Democrats! Thank you very much, my good sir, but if I have a choice of voting for a 1/2 Democrat and the real thing, I will vote for the Democrat.. vote for someone else ... or sit out completely. Sheeesh, did they [the GOP] not learn anything when Perot kept the Bush I from a 2d term?
By the way , Seneca tells me that if the GOP wants to "revitalize" the party here is the beginning of the platform that it should take:
Creed of the New Republicans
What's mine is Mine; What's yours is Yours ...and, most important of all ... What's Mine is Not Yours - regardless of how much better a place/use you think you can find for my money than I can, and regardless of how "in need" you think you are, or how "in need" you think somebody else is.
We the members of the New Republican Party understand that the way for a person to fight poverty is to WORK; understand that the role of government is not compassion, further understand that the that "I", depends on "ME", not other people;
and are disgusted with the entitlement society that has grown like a cancer through America. By entitlement we mean not only the personal entitlement but the corporate entitlement that has infected the country over the last 50 years. We also have the view that NOBODY is entitled to my property - nor am I entitled to theirs and that using the power of the government to rob me of mine so as to give to another is a moral crime.
Friday, July 17, 2009
In an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes, Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.
Hold on. You mean the health-care plan is a business strategy to avoid bankruptcy? Silly me -- I thought it was about taking care of sick people.
These people are morons! First, Keynesian spending has never been known to work. You tell me that it worked for Roosevelt. Oh really? Then are we to look forward to seven years of depression with 25 % unemployment? Second, health-care spending cannot possibly bring in more net revenue. You are adding expenses when you broaden coverage. But then, Obama was never about revenue. Remember when he was reminded that cutting capital-gains taxes would increase revenue, but responded that "fairness" (rich people paying more) was his objective?
This is worse than gambling. At least when you gamble you take money and bet it on something that might bring in money. But this is like hitting your mom up for money to invest at the track - and then instead, spending that money boozing with your friends. These legislators show classic signs of addition: foolish risk, denial, lying, destructive behavior.
Monday, July 13, 2009
From the article ....
Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he [Atty General Holder] is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months.
That’s right Mr Holder. Decline to prosecute Black Panthers wielding a baton at a polling place and instead investigate Bush officials for trying to protect us?!! And oh, it is such a hard decision for you – you are wrestling so hard with it! Somehow I doubt this.
His wife ... grew up in the Deep South under Jim Crow—her sister, Vivian Malone Jones, integrated the University of Alabama—and has a fierce sense of right and wrong. At a recent dinner in a leafy corner of Bethesda, Malone drew a direct line from the sins of America's racial past to the abuses of the Guantánamo Bay detention center. Both are examples of "what we have not done in the face of injustice," she said at one point, her Southern accent becoming more discernible as her voice rose with indignation.
A direct line from racial injustice to Guantanamo? Heavens, with this logic, all national injustice leads to Guantanamo! But what do we expect as everything with these people is about race. What is this – payback time for Whitey? I’ll use their own words: You won. Now get over it and grow up.
Some admit their preference that she stay in Alaska and forget about any national ambitions."I am of the strong opinion that, at present day, she is not ready to be the leading voice of the GOP," said Todd Harris, a party strategist who likened Palin to the hopelessly dated "Miami Vice" -- something once cool that people regard years later with puzzlement and laughter.
"It's not even that she hasn't paid her dues. I personally don't think she's ready to be commander in chief."....."I can't tell you one thing she brought to the ticket," said Stuart K. Spencer, who has been advising GOP candidates for more than 40 years.
Yep, that's your problem -- you can't tell one thing she brought to the ticket. But I can, and so does the GOP base.
She's brought ideas and policies, Period. Palin may or may not "be ready to be commander in chief," she may or may not have what it takes to be president. But, until Republican leaders understand her appeal of her ideas* , and field whomever they want that also espouses those ideas, they will, perpetually, never get it -- and the party will continue to be marginalized.
But what I suspect, however, is that it is precisely her ideas, and not her preparedness, that so dismays her GOP detractors - and it is precisely her ideas and the audience they receive from voters that makes then fearful, for if these ideas catch on then the GOP and "politics as usual" will be anything but usual.
*That the role of government is to take a minimalist approach and stay out of the lives of the people.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Recently, large demonstrations have taken place across the country, protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests .....
Let's say I break into your house (aka your country) . Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I say that I am hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house). Using the logic of these protesters I tell you that:
You are Required to let me stay in your house.
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.
You are Required to Educate my kids.
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, (except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. And oh yeah, I get a free education, whereas you have to pay your own way through college .
And what a deal it is for me ... and you have no right to deny me my American Dream paid for at your expense, because if you do assert such a right, I will pull out the race card and play it for all it is worth!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to make sure your forms are in MY language - I need to understand them.
~ Sent in by Tom
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Well my good friends and fellow citizens, not only do we know this without having to be told by the Messiah, but we also know that such damage to the family can then itself lead to the coming into adulthood of a damaged man who will later damage the country and liberty. So then, is it here where we find the reason that Obama is off-center and charging pell-mell over the abyss with us all in tow???
Says another article about Obama on knoxnews.com "He implored fathers everywhere - and the kids when they're older - to be involved in the lives of their own children."
Tell me now, WHY, just why, should I be involved, for it is YOU that are involving yourself in every aspect of my family and indeed are trying to take over my role.
Why should I bother to hold a job, if I can get the government to rob others so as to pay me money.
Why should I save money to cook breakfast for my kids, for if I drink it all up at the liquor store, I know that the government will give my kids breakfast and lunch?
Why should I bother to teach my kids morals, when my lack of teaching begins to show, I can just claim race or some disadvantaged "youtism" and get free housing or food or a host of other giveaways?
For those neural network kind of people out there, the question is stated as "Why should I do XYZ if in sum there is attenuated negative back-propagation?
Remember, it takes a Village -- NOT!
In today’s news briefing, Kinsolving asked, “Historian Victor Davis Hanson cites what he terms, ‘The president’s politically correct canard that the Renaissance was fueled by Arab learning, and the president’s statement that abolition of slavery and civil rights in the U.S. were accomplished without violence,’ as two of seven presidential errors.
Question: Does the White House believe Dr. Hanson is wrong? Or do you believe your speechwriters and the president made some mistakes?” ....
Gibbs' response? “I’m not familiar with the work of the esteemed historian. I haven’t seen it. I can assure you that not knowing who this historian is, I’ll put my money on our speechwriters.”
Cato's Points of Order Here:
1. Gibbs doesn't know who Hanson is????? Only the most well-known historian of the conservative opposition. You'd think Gibbs would know, but, then again, liberals exist in their own insular world, it seems.
2. Not knowing, he does not want to find out, but unthinkingly prefers his speechwriters over Hanson. Political speechwriters over an accomplished historian?
3. But most tellingly, the reputation of this or that historian over this or that speechwriter is irrelevant. No need to appeal to reputation. Find out yourself.
Unfortunately Gibbs does not want to find out the facts -- which are independent of the historian, who merely brings the facts to our attention. The "work of the esteemed historian" that is at issue is not his interpretation, or marshalling of an argument, but pretty cut-and-dried factual information that can be checked -- or at least examined.
But Gibbs wants to "put money on" his speechwriters! What? Are we rolling dice here? This administration is being run by a bunch of ignoramuses who have no idea how foolish they look to those outside the bubble. Just more evidence of inexperience in high places - the "best and brightest" that have no idea what they are doing.