Master of Disguise

14 Monday May 2012

Posted by in Socialism, The 2012 Presidential Election Season, The Obama Presidency

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Forward.

The word can be taken to mean several things when used as a presidential campaign slogan. On one hand, it could mean that the president has experienced a few bumps, has learned from those bumps, and is pressing on. On the other, it could mean “go forward exactly as we’ve been going.” I’d tend to agree with the latter in the case of Barack Obama’s long awaited 2012 campaign slogan.

Obviously using “Hope & Change” 16 trillion dollars, 8.1 % unemployment, and double the number of people on food stamps later wasn’t going to fly, so the most “historical” president since, well, EVER, had to come up with a new slogan. The result of undoubtedly dozens of think-tank members in closed-door meetings pooling their intelligence to come up with a slogan that is nothing short of epic?

“Forward.”

At first glance this honestly seems a little lackluster. “Lame,” if you will.  I mean, for one so self-absorbed you’d think this president and his posse could come up with a little better than that, now wouldn’t you?

As always with this presidency, never underestimate. In this case, what on the surface appears to be a rather lazily created, haphazard and frankly boring campaign slogan is historically just a smidge more than that. Ok, a LOT more. A few tasty morsels (the research and compilation of which I sadly cannot take credit):

Translation: “Forward to the victory of Communism!”

Translation: “Under Lenin’s Banner- Forward to Victory!”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Translation: “FORWARD!”

Translation: “FORWARD!”

Gosh, that MUST be a coincidence. After all, it’s only been used OVER and OVER again throughout the history of communist and socialist regimes in efforts to insert a certain “positivity” into the propaganda of the movements.

Oh, but we can’t have people focusing on THAT, now can we? Heavens no. So, after a quick scrub-scrub of all radical, communist, socialist, etc. ties to the slogan “forward” from the Wikipedia entry, the President comes out (no pun intended, hehe) to unveil the results of his personal “evolution” on the topic of gay marriage. Remember, when a liberal changes his or her position, they’ve “evolved,” but when a republican changes his or her position, the left is quick to call them a flip-flopper. . .but who’s keeping track.

One has to stop and ponder- “Does he really think we’re that stupid?” Does he really think that by vocalizing his support of gay marriage, Americans will suddenly forget that gas now costs them triple or quadruple what it used to; that going to the grocery requires a few more winces as the debit card is swiped; that future plans have been halted or eradicated completely as a result of the worst economy since the Great Depression? Nice try.

Oh and by the way, it might help to know some of your base just a bit more, Mr. President. I can’t wait to see you explain your way out of this one to some of your Hispanic and African American supporters. While this happens to be one of your “flavor of the week” campaign strategies, quite a few in the aforementioned voting blocs happens to think it’s a big deal.  Keep blowing that smoke into mirrors, Mr. President. . . Romney’s poll numbers thank you.

Attitude Reflects Leadership

21 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by in The Obama Presidency

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Many of you have more than likely seen the movie, “Remember the Titans.” Those of you who have seen it remember the movie for the end result- the unlikely coming together of teammates; but more importantly, of human beings. It is an amazing true story.

There is a particular exchange between characters in the movie that remains imprinted on my mind to this day. Julius, a black student, and Gerry, a white student (the team’s captain), are forced by their coach to sit down and learn about each other in the hopes that bonding between teammates would help to topple the wall of color that divided the team. Words get heated for a moment as the two argue about each others’ actions and responsibilities on the field. Gerry reprimands Julius for what he perceives to be a poor attitude. Julius responds simply, “attitude reflects leadership. . . captain.”

Each individual is, at the end of the day, responsible for his or her own actions. To blame a superior for every action of a subordinate is simply ludicrous. However, each of us in our own inherent sinfulness and selfish ways is more likely to take the road most traveled (in very non Robert Frost-esque fashion); that is, to take the easy way in life. Therefore, if a superior does little to curb this behavior and even less to promote hard work and ethical behavior, one can expect certain lack-luster or even shameful results from the subordinates.

I’m speaking of recent national scandals including but certainly not limited to: the shameful carrying on of GSA officials and employees, the absolutely reprehensible behavior of certain Secret Service members in Cartagena, Colombia, the administration’s reaction (lack thereof) to the horrendous behavior of the New Black Panther Party and other racially-charged protests in light of the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting, and the recent Project Veritas exposure of painfully obvious voter fraud in Washington D.C.

GSA employees partied it up in Las Vegas, and then made videos mocking other exploits on the taxpayer’s dime. The Secret Service, (arguably one of the most elite protection services IN THE WORLD) whose day-to-day responsibilities include protecting the most powerful office on the planet, found itself with certain members who hired prostitutes while in Colombia with the president. Then, of course, there are the members the New Black Panther Party (this is the same group that intimidated voters in PA; the same group that Attorney General Eric Holder refused to prosecute) which spewed racial epitaphs and violent threats that included a bounty set on George Zimmerman. . .and the president responds with “If I had had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin”? Finally, in Washington D.C. within Attorney General Eric Holder’s own precinct, a young (white, I might add) man was able to waltz in to a polling station, claim he was Eric Holder, and the the poll worker couldn’t have cared less about whether or not the young man could produce an ID proving he was who he said he was before handing him a ballot. The list goes on for miles. (By the way, it’s been Eric Holder himself who has fought Voter ID extensively. . . how ironic! But that’s another story.)

Is the president and his administration entirely responsible for the GSA Vegas bash and subsequent videos, the Secret Service prostitutes, the bounty set on George Zimmerman, and the irresponsible polling station worker? Of course not. But the president and his administration make appointments to leadership positions within such entities as the GSA and the Secret Service and supervise those leadership roles even if they haven’t made the initial appointments. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, if the President chose to interject himself in the fray, it should have been to reprimand the behavior of the riotous NBPP, and not to further exploit the racial divide as he did. In the case of the D.C. voter fraud, he and his administration have spent quite a bit of time and money fighting voter ID on the fallacious argument that it is racially charged. .  .meanwhile no attention is given to the fact that that D.C. polling station is just one of thousands upon thousands across the country, and that D.C. polling station worker’s attitude is indeed not an anomaly.

It’s very simple.

Attitude reflects leadership. . . Mr. President.

Unprecendented Ignorance: Barack Obama, the Supreme Court, and the Affordable Health Care Act

03 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Founding Principles, Health Care, Socialism, The 2012 Presidential Election Season, The Obama Presidency

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.”

Unprecedented, Mr. President? What exactly do you think the Supreme Court is there to do, other than to serve as a check and balance to the other branches of government? I hate to break it to you, but Marbury v. Madison kinda sorta happened 209 years ago. You know, that pesky piece of history otherwise known as the first time the Supreme Court declared a law “unconstitutional.” It established “Judicial Review.” Oh by the way, didn’t you attend Harvard Law, enjoy a stint as editor of the Harvard Law Review, and later on teach law at the University of Chicago? Were you sick the day that class was taught?

Aside from your gross lack of historical knowledge, are you or are you not insinuating that as long as Congress (in this case, YOUR party) passes something, it is a) automatically Constitutional, and b) challenging it in the Supreme Court automatically constitutes judicial activism on the part of “unelected officials.”

So, what are you saying, Mr. President? Call me crazy, but it appears before my young eyes that you’ve attempted to usurp the role of the courts by declaring that this law is unquestionably constitutional and should not be challenged; you’ve questioned the validity of the Supreme Court by insinuating that they are nothing more than a cluster of unelected officials playing political chess on high; and insinuated that Congress’ vote (rather, a nonpartisan, shove-it-down-our-throats-kicking-and-screaming vote on a piece of legislation an overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t want) should never be questioned. . . all in the matter of a few words.

You’re certainly one to talk about unelected officials. In three years you’ve managed to shove quite a few unelected officials (“czars,” if you will) into more nooks and crannies of your crony administration than most presidents ever do; than again- you’re not most presidents.

You chide conservatives for complaining about judicial activism while supporting the striking down of this bill? We’ll suspend reality for a moment and assume that your premise is correct; that is, that the Supreme Court’s potential declaration that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional is “judicial activism.” Under than same light, why then does Justice Elena Kagen get a pass? Does her participation in the planning of the defense of this horrid law prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court, and then her refusal to recuse herself from this case, not constitute ACTIVISM personified?

I suppose we should not be surprised at any of the aforementioned, because when a man makes statements like the following, it can only be assumed he’s got nothing but disdain for the very document he took an oath to uphold:

“But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time. . . and in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot.” 

Of course in this particular case he was responding to a question about the racial situation at the time of the Constitution’s writing, but when asked to further explain these “flaws,” he does not go into detail.  Regardless, his comments on his frustrations with the court system and the separation of powers make his rigid, far left ideology glaringly obvious:

“I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, the court … engaging in a process that essentially is administrative.” 

ISN’T THAT DELIGHTFUL?

No wonder he had such scathing words for the Supreme Court and the role they play in deciding the constitutionality of legislative ventures. Me thinks (as do some of America’s most trusted voices in conservative radio) that someone (gasp) leaked the Supreme Court’s decision to the president, and Mr. President ain’t none too pleased. You see, the Supreme Court already took a preliminary vote on the Health Care Law after the arguments came to a close, but this decision is not to be released to the public until June, when the opinions have been written. Incidentally, a justice could technically change his or her vote when the final opinion is decided. I’d hate to be that one swing vote justice right now.

You see, all this “checks and balances” junk is just one of many roadblocks that the Founders so wisely put in place to guard against men just exactly like Barack Obama himself. This doesn’t sit well with a man who, by every indication, would gladly take all the reins and have at it, completely unleashed and unchecked.

Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Racial Right

29 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Freedom, Race, Slavery

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Let me pose the following questions:

Are we not all Americans?

Are we not all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

No matter if Caucasian or African; Hispanic or Asian; short or tall; male or female; young or old. . . are we not all Americans in this nation? As such, are we not all afforded justice under the law, ESPECIALLY in the eyes of the Federal Department of Justice?

When I look up at my TV and see an angry mob of New Black Panther Party members shouting racial epitaphs behind leader Mikhail Muhammad, announcing that a bounty has been set for George Zimmerman to be brought back to them dead or alive. . .I am appalled. This is mob rule.

And once again, the Department of Justice is silent. Eric Holder holds his tongue. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised, based on his past approach with what the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a “virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers.” Remember when the New Black Panther Party was caught on camera clearly intimidating voters in Philly back during the 2008 election? Holder’s response to Democratic activist Bartle Bull’s comments that it “was the most serious act of voter intimidation that he had witnessed in his career” was a shocking “think about that, when you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.” In other words, it doesn’t matter that the folks in Philly were victims of voter intimidation, because in the end they were white. . . and since African Americans have suffered discrimination in the past; well, that absolves the New Black Panther Party.

Isn’t it comforting that the most powerful man at the Department of Justice is there to ensure justice is carried out . . . so long as you fit the correct racial category? And furthermore, isn’t it comforting to know that in turn the President must also feel the same, as I nor anyone else I know heard so much as a peep from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue after Holder made those insipid, incendiary comments after the 2008 elections? Is that not just as awful; that is, to suggest that since one race was once oppressed, that this somehow validates (or decriminilizes) the oppression of or bigotry towards another? Two racial wrongs most assuredly do not make a racial RIGHT.

Like the cherry on top of this awful situation, we then see the President point out that “if he had had a son, he would have looked a lot like Trayvon.” SO WHAT? What does this lend to the case? What does this do but continue to race-bait the issue? I know full well what the president meant by it; that all black people are potential targets. . . even the son of a president.

Murder, sadly, is an everyday occurrence both in this nation and around the world. It is heartbreaking; it is horrible; and I wish that it could be eradicated forever from this earth. The sad reality of our human existence is that murder and other violent crimes DO happen to every race, and for those actions we have a judicial system through which people are punished for their crimes. For individuals such as the NBPP to take the law into their own hands; even worse- to take it into their own hands while sparking racially-charged mobs across this nation will not result in justice; rather, it will result in INJUSTICE.

Where are the riots and the mobs for the hundreds of other people of all races, backgrounds and creeds killed or hurt on a daily basis in this country? Why here? Why now? Most recently, what about the shooting deaths of the 2 British men in Sarasota, Florida at the hands of 17 year old Shawn Tyson, who after failing to acquire any money from the two during his attempted robbery of the same, simply shot the men dead. Where’s the president today, as the young African American man was convicted of this heinous crime?Where is the media, where are the crowds, WHERE ARE THEY? I ask you.

I’ll tell you why. Because we have a man in the White House and a nation-wide following that subscribes to the idea that the “white people” (interestingly in Zimmerman case, he happens to be of Hispanic origin) must pay. That is, that the Caucasian race must be made to pay for the sins of their ancestors. “Too extreme a conclusion,” you say? Read Barack Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father,” and then we’ll talk. The sentiment simply oozes from the pages.

Here’s the deal. I know I’ve got ancestors who harbored racial prejudices. AND THEY WERE WRONG. And while it doesn’t excuse it, I challenge you, however- FIND ME A CULTURE WHERE IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. I challenge you a second time- find me a culture or a nation that from its inception realized that something was wrong with the ownership of humans and put things in motion to do something about it. READ THEIR OWN WORDS and you will see the struggle that many of the Founders wrestled with as they contrasted the social norms of their day with the new-found realization that the phrase “ALL men are created equal. . .” rang hollow when it was realized that slavery (a practice that had been around for centuries up centuries globally) stood in stark contrast to those words. I challenge you- find me a culture or a nation that has done so much to try and repair the horrible atrocities of prejudice and racism. I challenge you again to find another nation where a movement tantamount to Civil Rights (a la Martin Luther King Jr: “. . .where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”) happened and was successful in the manner in which it was here. I heard someone tell me just yesterday that they felt that we haven’t come very far since the Civil rights movement. Oh REALLY? Show me segregation. Show me a school where someone is not admitted based on their race. Show me a place of employment where someone is not considered because of their race. If anything, there is a hyper-political correctness when it comes to assuring that no minority is “offended.” Keep in mind, by the way, that it wasn’t just African Americans who were once treated badly. I remember the talk show host Sean Hannity referring to a sign he has in his office from the days of his father and grandfather that reads “Irish Catholics Need Not Apply.” His people (which incidentally comprise some of my ancestry as well) were discriminated against terribly. You don’t see him (or me!) standing in the streets cursing the world over it. WHY? Because we are past those days; and it didn’t happen to him, and it didn’t happen to me. And even if Hannity chose to make a public scene out of the discrimination against his ancestors, I can guarantee that it loud cries of “foul” would ensue from the Sharpton-Jackson crowd. . . because apparently the African American race has a monopoly on the history of discrimination, and how DARE a white person suggest that his or her culture had once been treated badly.

Back to the Zimmerman case and the New Black Panthers- I am tired of this group, the likes of Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson using tragedies such as this terrible shooting as an excuse to punish ME and other non-African Americans for the sins of the past. I am not a racist, and I am tired of it being implied that I am. While I do acknowledge that there are still racists in this nation today, they are a fringe. They certainly do not constitute a majority. I would like to present the idea that the “race card” exists in the large way that it does today primarily because people like the New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and THIS PRESIDENT keep bringing it up. Incidentally, the reason why so many on the Left are convinced that this president is disliked by the Right simply because of the color of his skin is because this administration and so many of its admirers use any and every opportunity to make the case that it is so! It couldn’t possibly be because of policy, now could it; no, that doesn’t fit neatly into Barack Obama’s distorted world of social justice; justice, that is, justice as long as you belong to a minority. Once again, read his book and the words simply jump from the page.

Punish hatred and racism where it is found, but to toss law and order aside and blame an entire swathe of people for the ills of its ancestors is simply wrong, and frankly dangerous. Such hatred must stop, for if it doesn’t. . . I genuinely fear for my country.

The U. S. of A Double Standard

15 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Freedom, The Obama Presidency, Economy

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Once upon a time, we lived in a nation where laws and freedoms did not vary with the currents of race, religion, gender, or political party. Just a few generations ago the likes of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks (among many others) fought to ensure that this was entirely so. In just a few short years (while the process as a whole has been slowly percolating since the age of the Progressive Era) this nation has become something our Founders would struggle to recognize. Today we live in a country where the president can, with an utterance (usually directed at fawning press members) demand that Catholic institutions provide birth control despite the fact that this runs directly contrary to their religious beliefs. Practically in the same breath and with the simple stroke of a pen he granted a permit to a tribe of Native Americans in Wyoming. . . which allows them to kill our treasured national bird, the bald eagle, to be used specifically in a religious ceremony. (Never mind that the government already bends over backwards for this particular tribe, by keeping a stash of “bald eagle parts” on hand, available upon request.)

You’ll note the difference here. One group, the Catholics, constitute a so-called “majority.” The second, the Native Americans, comprise a “minority.” In both cases the law is abused or even circumvented completely to show marked deference to one and marked disdain for the other. Let’s add a piece to this mix. One of the loudest voices on the liberal left is that of environmentalists and radical animal activists groups (think Greenpeace and PETA) whose members as a whole dedicate their time to pitching incessant hissy fits over everything from rare field mice to some odd strain of prairie grass. I’m not talking “Animal Humane Society here,” I’m talking “throw fake blood on people wearing fur.” Moving on. Out of respect for one of his largest voting blocs, the president killed the Keystone Pipeline project, scoring him major points with the green lobby. (While we’re on the topic, I suppose there wouldn’t be a desire to socialize the oil industry in there somewhere. . . would there? Just watch this video of Maxine Waters unequivocally stating no less. Wow, and this was way back when we were debating ANWR.) Meanwhile, the president allows the killing of a bird that was not only just recently (and just barely) taken off the endangered list, but as previously established, this breed of fowl merits just a smidge more respect than the average field crow. . . I mean, after all, the thing is our national SYMBOL. Where’s the pandering to the environmental/animal activist groups on this one? Cricket. Cricket. Oh that’s right, while the environmentalists/animal rights crowd is still a valuable voting bloc for the president, in this case minority trumps the enviro-crowd. By nixing the pipeline he scores double brownie points, because not only did he pander to the enviro-crowd, but in doing so he deprived the United States of a major source of much-needed oil; oil that will now likely go to China. (Another people “oppressed” by Western culture. . .)

What a perfectly orchestrated web he weaves. I suppose while discussing the president’s double standards when it comes to oil, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention Petrobras. Ah, Petrobras. Just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? As you all well know, while the President placed a moratorium on U.S. off-shore drilling after the BP disaster in 2010, he gushed that we’d (the U.S. A.) would be Petrobras’ “best customer” after the U.S. Export-Import Bank “ issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount.” By the way, I’ve gotta believe that the inhabitants of the White House were just giddy with joy when that ol’ BP rig busted, spewing that hated black gold all over the Gulf. FINALLY there would be a “good” reason to shut down a major portion of that nasty, racist, imperialist industry. After all, it’s so BAD for the environment. Of course, when the Brazilians are doing it, it’s A-Okay! Again, note the minority vs. majority; “oppressed” versus “oppressors” double standard. Frankly, I don’t care what Petrobras is doing, as long as we’re not giving them money we should be using on our OWN oil exploration.

Here’s the thing. This president has spent his entire life steeping himself in the belief that there are certain groups of people in the world who find themselves in their particular predicaments because of so-called “imperialist” powers; namely, the United States. One only need to read his book, Dreams From My Father, right after you read Dinesh D’Souza’s book The Roots of Obama’s Rage and you’ll see my point. Or, if extensive reading isn’t your thing, Google the term “Obama Apology Tour,” and you’ll find various accounts of this president’s international visits in which he has all but outright apologized for the United States’ very existence. Bowing to Saudi kings is always a nice touch as well, as was returning the bust of Winston Churchill to England and gifting their QUEEN with incorrectly formatted DVDs. DVDs? How thoughtful.

The moral of the story is this: whenever the President and his administration pull something that makes your jaw drop in amazement, look for the pattern. Rich vs. Poor; Minority vs. Majority. . .pitting American against American. What a presidency.

Say Cheese: Star Tribune Edition

03 Saturday Mar 2012

Posted by in Voter ID

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, ,

I was reminded once again this past week that I am very, very human. As such, very, very susceptible to mystery viruses whose sole source of entertainment must undoubtedly be to see me flat on my back for days at a time, accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Translation? What you’re about to see should have gone up a days ago. Ah, such is life.

On the heels of my writing a blog piece on the silliness of Voter ID opposition, I came across the following opinion submission in the Star Tribune. Well, if we’re being honest, it is more aptly titled “The Star Tribune: Minnesota’s Finest Liberal Rag.” Oh well. Every once in a while I come across some redeeming quality within its pages. . . oh fine, who am I kidding. . . I get a kick out of the weather guy’s antics in print, and that’s about it. Anyway, please turn your attention to the letter entitled: “Focus on the motive of the effort being made”

Click here to read the section: VOTERID

Naturally I couldn’t let that one slide. I fired off the following response:

To the reader who sent in the opinion entitled “Focus on the motive of the effort being made” (2/24):

How very callously you toss around the phrase “Voting is a burden that a lot of people would just as soon not bother with.”

I realize that you are free to hold this opinion, and for that I am thankful. I would now like to express mine. With that flippant statement my mind is immediately taken to places where voting is something only heard of but never experienced; to places where to vote is to “reelect” a dictator; to places where expressing a staunch political opinion can be hazardous to one’s health. Here we have a precious gift; a gift that was purchased with the signing away of the lives and sacred honor of our forefathers; a gift that has been preserved by the blood, sweat and tears of our brave men and women in uniform. I should know- I am honored to count some of them as my family. This gift is the freedom to vote; the freedom to play a part in the politics of this great nation. To count it as trite appalls me. To your original point, I close with the following. To ask that one prove one’s identity so that one’s vote may be protected from fraud is not irrational, unattainable, racist, bigoted, insensitive, or the like. It is simply common sense. While I listen to the plethora of complaints that Voter ID supposedly “tramples” on citizens’ rights and “suppresses” votes, (which I incidentally count as hogwash) what about the right of a person to assure that his or her vote remains HIS or HERS? It has less to do with a party or parties who think that Voter ID will garner additional votes, and more to do with the fact that votes “cast” by dead people, felons, double voters, and illegal aliens negate the whole point of an election for EITHER party.

Incidentally, you stated that it takes thousands of votes to steal an election, thus inferring that whatever voter fraud exists cannot possibly affect an outcome. Might I remind you of certain razor thin election results where the winner claimed victory with just a few hundred votes? Every vote does in fact count.

Lastly, if voting is such a burden to you, please, DON’T!

Do you suppose they published that one?

Insert cricket noise here.

Say Cheese!

21 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Voter ID

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

,

I pose a simple question to you, my valued blog readers. It’s a question that seems so simple, yet so many have turned this question’s topic into a convoluted, illogical pile of silliness that I really wish didn’t merit mentioning. It’s tantamount to arguing incessantly that 2+2 in fact DOES equal 19.

I’m going to hold off on the question for just a moment, however, while I give you some food for thought. Consider the following:

A photo ID is needed to open a bank account. . .

and society utters not a peep in protest.

A photo ID is needed on the campus of a college. . .

and society utters not a peep in protest.

A photo ID is needed to board an airplane. . .

and society utters not a peep in protest.

A photo ID is needed when one uses a debit/credit card or writes a check. . .

and society utters not a peep in protest.

A photo ID is needed to operate a vehicle. . .

and society utters not a peep in protest.

So here’s the question:

Why, pray tell, when it is suggested that one be required to present a photo ID before voting, society (the American Left, that is) lets out instantaneous screams of RACISM! BIGOTRY! INSENSITIVITY TO THE POOR! INSENSITIVITY TO THE IMMIGRANT! INSENSITIVITY TO THE ELDERLY!

The list goes on.

The state of Minnesota is currently weighing the possibility of requiring photo ID to vote, and recently this measure has moved one step closer to getting on the ballot in November. Proponents of the measure present an obvious case:

-Close to 100 people voted twice in 2008, with thousands of additional cases still in question.

-Thousands of deceased individuals appeared on voting records; some were shown to have “voted,” yet records indicate they had died prior to the election in question.

-Close to 100 felons were listed as newly registered to vote prior to the 2008 election.

-Investigations of the 2008 voting records indicate that over a thousand felons voted.

-Many counts of ID “vouching” have been proven to be fallacious. “Vouching” means that I could walk into a polling station and vouch that my non-citizen acquaintance (whom I’ve paid to come and vote the way I tell him) is in fact Joe Schmoe, a lifelong resident of these here United States.

-Several non-citizens were registered to vote prior to the 2008 elections, and with the aforementioned lapses in voting security, it is entirely conceivable that they could have voted.

(This data is courtesy of Minnesota Majority. To view the report, please click here.)

Each and every time a vote is cast in one of these shady measures, YOUR vote as a law-abiding, legally-eligible-to-vote citizen is devalued. Simply consider the razor-thin margins of certain election results in which just a few hundred votes tipped the scales. The 2008 election in which now Minnesota senator Al Franken won his seat illustrates it beautifully. Up until the wee hours of that election day, then Senator Norm Coleman was winning by a very, very slim margin. Al Franken ended up winning by slightly over 300 votes, and the eventual arrival at that result is something still debated today. Long story short, if your vote is negated by the person who was paid to vote in the opposite direction, what right do you have as a citizen? Your vote has been effectively stolen. Yet are those who raise charges of racism, bigotry, and insensitivity concerned with YOUR right as a voting citizen?

I want someone to verbalize in complete sentences containing no bumper sticker catch phrases and no beating around the bush, HOW requiring a photo ID to simply confirm that you are who you say you are, is RACIST? Or bigoted? Or insensitive? Of course, they make the claim it’s racist because the impoverished population often consists of several minority groups, and the impoverished might not have drivers’ licenses as they likely do not own a car. Or they can’t afford a license, or an ID. They make the claim that it’s bigoted because it’s an “obvious” attempt to suppress votes that the proponents of Voter ID don’t agree with by keeping those people from the polls. (Of course paying people to vote a certain way is fine, right?) They make the claim that it’s insensitive because (insert the wide-eyed, pitiful looking cat from the movie Shrek here) “what about all the homeless people, and the elderly?”

I return to my original argument. What about all the legitimate voters whose effectiveness as a voter is stolen from them by individuals who are not lawfully able to vote? Where do they fit in?

It’s a simple fix. We’re talking about a piece of plastic a few inches by a few inches. I don’t think figuring out how to make photo ID available to Minnesotans who don’t have one is rocket science.

I hate to give more attention to this than I absolutely have to, but recently a group called Minnesota Majority put out an image emphasizing how easy it is to commit voter fraud:

While I think Minnesota Majority was somewhat careless in their usage of this image; that is, they must understand that the valid arguments for Voter ID would be infinitely overshadowed by the insipid, ever flowing stream of race-cards, where is the controversy here? Naturally, there’s a giant stink being made about the fact that there’s a man in Mariachi (a Mexican tradition) garb, and an African American in prison garb. GASP.

Here’s the deal, kidlets. Current law makes it unequivocally clear that each of the figures (i.e. the dead, the fictitious, the non-citizen, the felon, etc.) in this image CANNOT vote. Could Minnesota Majority have chosen a less offensive nationality to represent the non-citizen immigrant population? What ethnic group could Minnesota Majority have chosen to represent the felon that would have proven less offensive? I hate to break it to you, but the majority of immigrants to this country are Hispanic. Specifically, Mexican! (that’s Pew Research data) This is not a bad thing! It’s just the way things currently are. A hundred years the foreign-born non-citizen population was entirely different. Get over it. And I hate to break it to you, but sadly there are felons from every ethnicity, including (shhhhhhh!) African Americans! Goodness. The razor-thin skin of the population in this country just kills me. It’s not racism or bigotry that’s represented in this image, it’s reality! The reality here is, of course, that even if the image looked like this:

the very same people screaming that the first image means those who want Voter ID are racist and bigoted, would find SOME way to make the same claims here.

Naturally, Minnesota Majority had to do something about the outrage, so they’ve tailored the image to cater to the “hypersensitive:”

This image should be a crowd pleaser, since the offending figures are now “white.” Because while pointing out that there are black people in prison and Hispanic non-citizens in this country is “terribly offensive,” pointing out that there are white people in prison, and white non-citizens is A-okay. As Charlie Brown would say, Good Grief.

In all seriousness, it gets exhausting, really, having to be told time and time and time again that because I’m white, conservative, and Christian, I’m a racist, bigoted, xenophobe. Always an intellectual treat. The funny thing is that the issue of Voter ID isn’t a Republican or Democrat concept; it should simply be common sense. Mary Ramirez goes to the polls to vote exactly ONE time as Mary Ramirez; it seems only logical that aside from bringing in a bill with my mailing address on it and pointing to my name on a list, I should really be asked to unequivocally affirm that I am who I say I am. Simple, yes- yet I’ve just spent over a thousand words trying to make the case that this is just. . .

LOGICAL.

To Whom Much Is Given. . .

04 Saturday Feb 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a Comment

“To whom much is given, much will be required.” Those are words from the Gospel of Luke, and were recently used by our President at the National Prayer Breakfast. While Luke would probably scoff at the idea of his (rather, God’s) words being used as a means through which to prop up the concept of redistribution of wealth, that’s just exactly what our president just did.

In context, however, this Biblical passage could be far more adequately affixed to his position as President of the United States of America than to the economic and social controversy of how much the most successful in this nation should pay in taxes.

In Luke’s gospel, Jesus wasn’t even discussing money exclusively in the excerpt that the president so brazenly lassoed for his own political purposes. Rather, Jesus was talking about the Christian’s responsibility to use his or her blessings and gifts for the good of the kingdom of the Lord. Let’s look at that section in context, shall we?

“And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful.  And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (Luke 41-48).

In other words, if you are blessed more than others with talents, abilities, monetary stability, etc. etc., more will be expected of you in the context of furthering the kingdom of God than those who are otherwise less fortunate in any of these areas. More is expected in this regard of the healthy, financially stable, talented young man than the sickly, elderly, less financially stable old man. Again- all in the context of the kingdom’s work.

Am I supposed to pretend I see the reference to taxation for the redistribution of wealth here, much like the people in the children’s tale “The Emperor’s Clothes” pretended to see a wonderful garment when in fact the man was completely naked? Furthermore, why would Jesus contradict himself by injecting himself in matters of government/taxation when just a few verses earlier he made it clear that that wasn’t the point of his being on earth? For those who aren’t familiar with this particular chapter of Luke, I’ll explain. I find it amusing that the President conveniently left out a fascinating exchange in Luke 12 between Jesus and a man in the crowd. This man obviously didn’t feel that he was getting his fair share of the family money, and was whining about it in a fashion eerily similar to the Occupy Wall Street children, whining about how they “deserve” the money of the execs on Wall Street and elsewhere:

Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” (Luke 12:13-14)

Isn’t it INTERESTING is that Jesus shuts the man down by saying that he’s not going to get involved in earthly disputes over wealth. How intriguing.

Going back to the verses at hand, financial abundance is part of the “responsibility” Jesus is discussing here and as such, Jesus is reminding those who are blessed monetarily to use their blessings in a manner which best serves the kingdom of God. What’s important to remember here is that Jesus said nothing of a proposal that the government demand a higher percentage from the rich. Being charitable with one’s blessings IS being a good steward of one’s blessings! That’s FINE, but again, who said anything about taxation? The president took Jesus’ words and hijacked (yeah, I said it) them for his own political ideology.

If the President is going to quote Scripture, let’s focus on the 10 commandments for a moment. “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal.” What is demonizing the rich simply for having more, and in turn taking more from them than others, than covetousness and “soft” theft? Let me be clear- I am not anti-taxes. I do not view taxation as stealing from the American people; nonetheless, I think that it is unfair to ask one group of people to give a higher percentage for the exact same programs as someone who pays a minimal percentage, or as we’ve uncovered recently, NO percentage! I do view a progressive income tax as wrong. I believe that Americans should be asked to contribute the exact same percentage (which for the wealthy, would be a HIGHER quantity than the poor) for the exact same government programs.

Of course, when you see yourself as a modern day Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the President and those who agree with him do not view themselves as coveting or stealing. Though even in that analysis the President would be wrong. The Robin Hood figure, despite methods I may not approve of per se, wasn’t stealing from the rich merchant or the rich farmer. Rather, when King Richard departed for the Crusades and left his brother, Prince John in his place, John instituted no less than martial law. John and his men took unlawfully from the people, far and beyond what the law under Richard stated. The Robin Hood figure was simply returning the unlawfully taken goods. I have, however, digressed.

If it’s true that Jesus expected more of the rich than of the less fortunate, and that’s a central component of the President’s so-called Christian faith, how are his charitable donations doing? Oh that’s right. In the year prior to running for the presidency, the Obamas gave just 6 percent (or roughly $240,000) of their 4.2 million dollar combined reported income. Now, don’t get me wrong, $240,000 is no paltry sum, but when “to whom much is given, much will be required” they can only afford to cough up 6%? That is, by the way, a vast increase as compared to before he started toying around with a run for the presidency. Prior to this, he donated far less; at times just barely 1 percent. A quick rundown:

And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the President has paid a penny more in taxes than was legally required. That IRS donation fund is still waiting for his extra check. After all, shouldn’t he live what he preaches? You’d think, but when you believe that you are in fact just a bit higher than the rest of mankind, I suppose just talking about it fulfills one’s responsibility. Oh and Vice President Biden is even better. He gave a whopping average of $369 a year in charitable contributions in the decade prior to his vice presidency. His tax returns from the year the article was written (2008) topped $300,000.00, including $71,000.000 in royalties. How posh. Of course, they upped their game big time in the election year, giving a staggering $995.00. Whew. I’m just overwhelmed with their generosity. But he and the president sure would like the chance to give with YOUR money!

As my wise father pointed out, if Obama really believes what he said in his heart, why does he need a law to force himself and others to be charitable? What was stopping him from being an example and paying his fair share in taxes and in charitable donations? For that matter, what is fair? Is it 30%? 40%? 60%? Or as his father once said, “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (Dinesh D’Souza: The Roots of Obama’s Rage, 2010.)

It’s a shame that more of the American people are not familiar with the story of Davy Crockett. Let me rectify that now. During his time in the House of Representatives, a bill came up that would have set up a fund of public dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. As worthy as the cause may have been, Crockett recognized that it was not the government’s place to obligate the American taxpayer to foot the bill for a charity that they deemed worthy. He famously stated:

“Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

He went on to discuss his reasoning behind his opposition. Most importantly, he ended his speech with the following words:

“I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” (The Life of Colonel David Crockett: Edward S. Ellis, 1884)

In other words, he got the bill defeated, and then stood up and took out his own wallet to help the widow.

I realize that we’ve discussed many things here today, but in the end, my point is simply this: Mr. President, push your agenda according to its principles, and don’t put words in Jesus’ mouth in an effort to make it look like it’s somehow unchristian of us to suggest that your policies are fallacious, and doomed to the exact same fate as each place around the world that they’ve been tried.

And lastly, Mr. President, you’ve been given much power, and with it, much responsibility. How have you used them? Maybe I should asked the millions of unemployed or underemployed Americans. Or the thousands and thousands of failed businesses. Or the millions of unborn Americans already saddled with the debt that you once called “unpatriotic.”

You choose.

American’s Food Stamp Presidency

19 Thursday Jan 2012

Posted by in Budget Debates, Capitalism, Economy

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In Monday night’s Fox News/WSJ debate, Fox News‘ Juan Williams “challenged Gingrich for his statements calling President Obama a ‘food stamp president’ and advocating that kids learn the work ethic by doing, for instance, janitorial work at schools. Gingrich has thrived throughout the debate season on combat with moderators and Williams was straying into his wheelhouse. A righteously ticked Gingrich referred to Williams as ‘Juan,’ and proceeded to light up the auditorium in the most memorable moment of the night.”

More specifically, Williams zeroed in on the “food stamp president” comment for which Gingrich has come under fire and insinuated that it was racist to make such a claim:

“Speaker Gingrich, you said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools,” Williams asked. “Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?”

So, calling President Obama a Food Stamp President is “insulting” to black Americans. That’s convenient. He (Newt) has simply made the factual claim that under this president more food stamps have been given out (to ALL ethnic groups) than during any other presidency. WHAT, pray tell, is racist about that? Williams brought up race. Newt never said anything of the sort. Frankly, those who make the case that such a statement is racist or at minimum insensitive towards African Americans are in fact revealing their own misguided belief that African Americans receive the majority of the food stamps. Incidentally that just simply isn’t true. According to the the USDA, as reported by Fox News:

“The information available showed 34 percent of recipients were white, while 22 percent were black and 16 percent were Hispanic.”
Even if it were true that African Americans receive more food stamps than other groups, HOW is slamming the president for doing a dismal job on the economy (as more food stamp distribution would indicate in ANY presidency) RACIST? If the case for racial discrimination is to be made, it should be levied against the Democrat party and liberal policies that for GENERATIONS have kept so many African Americans and minorities in general exactly where they are economically. It is true, however, that minority groups combined receive more Food Stamps than white Americans. Minorities, but particularly African Americans vote Democrat, especially with the recent shift of the Hispanic vote. Incidentally, did you know that there are actually Democrat Party Voter Registration tables at some naturalization ceremonies? Oh yeah. Click here to read more. Back to the point- it’s rather imperative that the Democrat party keep that voting bloc in tow to continue winning elections. How is this done? It’s done by continuing push for all of these social welfare programs to then be in the position to give these as handouts, and by making the case that conservatism and the GOP just wants to take it all away in a discriminatory fashion. As we’ve pointed out at least in the Food Stamp case, minorities receive the majority. The theory is that no one would in their right mind would vote out someone who keeps padding massive welfare programs that they then benefit from, especially if they’re told that the opposing party only plans to throw minorities and Grandma under the bus. I’m not insinuating that there are not legitimate cases for the various forms of welfare assistance. I’m simply saying that far too much attention is paid to churning out more social programs and far less attention paid to facilitating a stable environment in which jobs can be creating, which brings me to Newt’s point.

Newt’s point in the broader sense (that is, beyond food stamps alone) is that rather than continue to make this an entitlement nation whose citizens are continuously reaching their hands out for the next government goody, why not find ways to get ALL Americans back to work to become productive, contributing members of society. Is that, or is that NOT a decent idea? By the way, before someone accuses me otherwise, I am no insinuating that African Americans or any other minority is “lazy.” I am simply pointing out the fact that rather than encouraging ways to get Americans back to work, the Left loves to encourage ways to keep them OUT of work and ON the government dole. Yeah, I said it. Oh, and for that matter, so did the former Speaker of the House. No, not Newt. Nancy Pelosi once made this comment in reference to federal dollars meant to stimulate the economy: “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” Oh, ok. And those annoying jobs. . . .those just get in the way of you dragging along an entire swath of the American population, right Nancy?

Here’s the skinny. The Left seems to think (or at least they propogate the idea) that those who live in poverty are there because of some elitist group of white males running the show, finding ways to directly abuse minorities, women, etc. etc. Therefore, the concept of bashing the distribution of food stamps is seen as offensive, because they people supposedly don’t have a choice. Through that lens, therefore, Juan Williams’ insipid comment makes some sense. Is that really true, however? Isn’t it just a bit more reasonable to make the claim that the president and Congress have done a dismal job with this economy, and the resulting growth in the need for Food Stamps and other social programs are a direct indication of the same? I’d think so, but for the left-wing media types, this sort of logic just doesn’t fly. It’s much, much easier to run straight to the race card.

By the way, Juan, isn’t calling the suggestion that poor children could do janitorial work at schools to build work ethic “offensive,” in turn particularly “insulting” to America’s janitors? Whoops.

Venture or Vulture?

15 Sunday Jan 2012

Posted by in Capitalism, Economy, The 2012 Presidential Election Season, The Obama Presidency

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

We must be very, very careful how we finish out this primary season. We must be careful that we are not simply stocking the war chest of attack-ad ideas of the Obama Campaign strategy brain trust. In other words, let’s not make David Axelrod’s job easier.

The problem? Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.

I’m gonna give it to you short and sweet.

Capitalism involves risk. In fact, quite a bit. It is, in essence, sticking your neck out, with the hope that if you don’t tank, you’ll achieve great success. Therein lies the given that there is the fairly good chance that you will indeed tank. Again, capitalism is all about the freedom to take that risk with the hope of doing well!

Enter Bain Capital.

That’s just exactly what they did and presumably still do, folks.  Very briefly defined, as a venture capital firm, they came in with the company-in-question’s consent, to invest in the company. Bain could wield certain levels of control over the company as part of that investment (depending on the situation), and in return would seek to see profit from their investment. (For a more in-depth definition of what Bain does specifically, click here) Furthermore, it was in Bain’s best interest to help the company do WELL, as this would in the end make their financial risk worth-while as well. There were times, however, that there was just no fixing the company. Sometimes, Bain would buy the company and it would be dismantled and sold off.  Remember, Bain or any other venture capital firm is not in the business of charity. It is in the business of Bain. And that’s fine! That is capitalism. If the risk was was too great, they pull out of the whole deal, and according to Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, this makes Bain a heartless job-killing machine. Or “vulture,” as Perry has commented.

Using that same logic, couldn’t the same be said of every single individual investor  who chooses to risk his or her own money in the stock market, and when it becomes apparent that their investment no longer benefits them, they pull out, without care or concern for the individual that their pull-out affects? Mmhmm.

May it be made perfectly clear that these musings are not intended to support Mitt Romney nor Bain Capital, rather to simply point out that by criticizing Romney’s time at Bain Capital, Gingrich and Perry and everyone else who jumps on that bandwagon is setting capitalism (and for that matter, the eventual GOP nominee’s campaign, whoever that may be) up, whether they realize it or not. Think about it. One of two things can happen. Either the Left goes “See??? SEE??? That’s what WE’VE been saying for years! Big, filthy capitalist pigs are the reason why our country stinks.” In other words, the whole concept of free enterprise is dragged through the mud, and we’ve handed the Left the rope with which to do it. OR, because of Romney’s attempts to defend himself, in which he recently said (in sum) that it’s no different than what the Obama administration did with GM & Chrysler, an entire swathe of the Obama administration’s follies is rendered untouchable since it is apparently “on par” with what Romney did. In other words, if Romney is in fact the nominee, he can’t very well go after Big Government intervention (which is STARKLY different from Bain’s activity) after equating it to his own actions, now can he? Nope.

Not only does this argument ruin any effort to point out that the administration’s meddling in GM & Chrysler among others was wrong, but it sets up the premise that it was RIGHT! It must be made very clear here that private intervention in business as Bain did is done at the REQUEST of the company. What the government did, however, was decide that certain companies needed intervention and they just DID it. No questions asked- they just DID it. And in the process,  people lost jobs, privately owned dealerships were closed, and the government’s hand will likely never leave that industry. No wonder people jokingly refer to GM as Government Motors.

My point is simple. Bain may or may not be a stand-up business.  Mitt Romney may or may not be the right guy for the presidency. I’ve got my own opinions on that. That’s not really my point, however. My point is that the whole concept of venture capitalism is being equated to something that it is not, and in doing so, the certain GOP candidates are effectively shooting themselves and capitalism itself in the foot. After all, are we not supposed to be the party of the Free Market?

And besides. . . with a record of enough flip-flops to fill a beach-side surf shop, there are plenty of things that would better merit one’s investigative time when it comes to Mitt Romney.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.