Wednesday, March 31, 2010

What Has Happened to This Country?

What the bloody hell is wrong with these dumb-ass liberal, political activist/musician/Hollywood/actor/ “artist” types, who think they can
do anything they want and hide behind the veil of the First Amendment or free expression?

Case in point: You have some black female “singer” (and I use the term loosely), who obviously has tried to make up for her woeful lack of talent by promoting her album in a tasteless form of sensationalistic advertising, by shooting a video of herself stripping down to her birthday suit, in broad daylight, in downtown Dallas at the location where President Kennedy was shot, and pretending to be shot dead on the same spot. This was done in front of a crowd of people, including, no less than, three small children.

Not only do I NOT want to see her ugly, fat ass in a video, I certainly don’t want to see it in public and in a place like Dealy Plaza near the Kennedy memorial. Not only did she not have a permit to do any filming, but she also committed a Class B misdemeanor by stripping naked in public.

I don’t understand why she hasn’t yet been arrested and charged for, at least, indecent exposure, but somebody in Dallas has obviously dropped the ball. This pseudo attempt at some kind of political statement, in conjunction with her “music”, was nothing more than a sad attempt to promote a sub-par singer, whose lack of talent is both pathetic and obvious.

Where is the outrage over this flagrant violation of good taste and the Texas penal code? Is this perhaps because she is black? Can you imagine what would have happened if a white singer had done the same thing at the site where Martin Luther King Jr., was shot? My God, you would have had the Reverend Al and Brother Jessie on every talk show condemning the ‘racist pig’ and calling for him to be drawn and quartered.

For perpetrating this disgusting act and vying for her 15 minutes of fame, she should be arrested, convicted, fined and made to register with all the other sexual perverts.

I will not post the video here, nor any link to it, as I do not want to promote this sorry waste of skin in any way, shape or form.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Myopically Challenged

I read with interest the recent story about the FBI and the ATF raiding and arresting three members of what was referred to as a “Christian militia” group. Now, while I don’t have any sympathies for fanatics of most any flavor, I find it a little disturbing that with all the violence and terror out there that we have to fear, from Muslim terrorists trying to blow up skyscrapers with thousands of people in them, with Mexico ready to explode with drug cartels the size of small armies on our southern borders and with Iran on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, that the resources of the Federal government are instead dedicated to rooting out three fanatic whack-jobs in Michigan. Just proves my suspicions that the current administration consists of nothing more than a bunch of inept amateurs who don’t have a clue. Case in point: While this current President has been in office over a year, he has steadfastly refused to support HIS war in Afghanistan, instead focusing on ramming through socialistic agendas that the public doesn’t want. Only after his recent healthcare victory did Obama even think about visiting Afghanistan, which he now says, of course, is a priority. Obama and his boys are like the Keystone Cops. With people afraid to board airplanes, with the southern border being a powder keg, with allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons and also pissing off our best ally in the middle east, Israel, you have to wonder about the monumental stupidity and myopic waste of time trying to ferret out a couple of guys who like to play army in the woods in Michigan. Just sayin…

Friday, March 26, 2010

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Obamacare's First Victim -- Transparency

By Colin Hanna


As perhaps the most vocal and visible opponents of the health care bill this year, the Tea Party activists are part of a much larger movement that is demanding a level of transparency, integrity and humility from their elected and appointed officials that is new. Transparency may have been the victim in the process by which the House of Representatives passed Obamacare, but it will soon emerge the victor.

Any responsible post-game analysis of the way in which the Democrats managed to get the health care bill through Congress and to the president’s desk must include an assessment of the damage that was done to the democratic process.

The Tea Party movement, like the grassroots activists who were drawn to Obama during the 2008 election, is a symptom of the growing distrust Americans of all stripes have towards the Washington solutions factory. As perhaps the most vocal and visible opponents of the health care bill this year, the Tea Party activists are part of a much larger movement that is demanding a level of transparency, integrity and humility from their elected and appointed officials that is new.

Energized, perhaps even radicalized, by the spread of information from sources beyond the news departments of the three major television networks, this new generation of activists is living proof that Bismarck was half right: the people should neither see their sausages nor their laws being made. He was only half right not because it is bad for the people to see the process but because it is bad for the lawmakers and the professional political class to have their activities held up to public scrutiny.

Many of the modern political rebellions, from the tax revolt of the late 1970s through term limits in the 1990s and even the anti-war demonstrations of a more recent vintage, had in common that they were all a reaction to a political class that would not listen to the demands of the American people. Sometimes the opposition was justified, sometimes not. But it all combined to increase our sense of cynicism about Washington’s ability to understand the problems the nation faces, let alone solve them.

The new technology – the 21st century Internet, cell phones and personal communications devices that include video cameras - and the new platforms like Twitter and Facebook have made possible real-time political activism of consequence. The nearly instant online posting of legislation, searchable text functions, and an increased awareness of how government works have all combined to create an informed electorate that is the bane of the bureaucracy and its instinctive defense of business as usual.

The sunshine they have demanded has also chased away the fog, allowing people to see the inner workings of government in a way that is new to them -- new and unsettling. Above all else they are demanding transparency. They are demanding that politicians put an end to the obfuscation of the process and let the people in.

America remains a representative democracy, it’s true, but one that will only function as the Founders intended if the people actually have the opportunity to see and understand what is going on and petition for the redress of their grievances.

Ultimately there are two parties and two ideologies that are competing for dominance today. The first one trusts the American people and wants the system to be more transparent. The second one does not trust the American people and wants to keep things murky, so that they can continue to produce legislation like the health care bill which, in the immortal words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would have to pass before everyone could know what was in it. When the people clamor for something in a rising cry, as they are now clamoring for transparency, and are denied it by their leaders, they will demand new leaders. Transparency may have been the victim in the process by which the House of Representatives passed Obamacare, but it will soon emerge the victor.

Colin Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Democrats Say Shut Up and Pay Up

By Christian Whiton

Here's how conservatives and moderates can turn Sunday’s vote into the modern left’s final chapter rather than its ultimate triumph.

Sunday’s vote to expand massively the role of government in health care is a hopeful turning point in America—but not the kind President Obama and his Democrats think. Instead, this could represent the best chance since before the 1930s to restore America to its founding principles and reverse the growth of government. The challenge will be in channeling anger at Washington and a likely victory for Republicans in midterm elections into pathways to evolve America’s political dynamic for good.

Since the birthing of Obamacare began, Americans have used every tool at their disposal to signal displeasure at the Democrats’ plans. This included spontaneous protestations at town halls, the formation of the new Tea Party political movement, electing Republicans opposed to Mr. Obama’s plans, and expressing overwhelming disapproval in polls. The message should have been clear: that even though voters fired Republicans in 2006 and 2008, the mandate given to Democrats was not to expand government deeper into every corner of American life. That Democrats proceeded with an attempt to reorder the economy against the wishes of the American people is an act of elitism unparalleled in modern history. Democrats’ message to voters: shut up, pay up, we know better than you.

Revulsion at this—plus a lousy economy that can no longer be blamed on Mr. Obama’s predecessor—are likely to result in Republicans gaining control of one or both houses of Congress this November. There is peril and promise in this. Republicans ought not to play it safe, and instead should advocate a positive agenda, rich in ideas, which accounts for voters’ concerns, including:

1) Replacement of Obamacare with a free-market system that empowers consumers, not bureaucracies.

2) Reform of Congress to make it a citizen legislature, including term limits and an end to gerrymandering congressional districts.

3) Enactment of a flat income tax to revitalize the economy and end Congress’s micromanagement of the economy via a complicated tax code.

4) A requirement for a balanced federal budget.

5) Ending job-killing taxes on investment, including capital gains and dividends taxes.

All of these are unified by a theme of restricting government and expanding the private economy. Each capitalizes on broad disgust at Washington, including polls showing an average 75% disapproval of Congress. They require sustained action at the federal and state level, including amendments to the Constitution.

Why not play it safe and focus solely on repeal of the law passed on Sunday? Direct repeal attempts should go forward on principle, but will be foiled by Mr. Obama’s veto even if the GOP controls Congress after November. Republicans need to offer a set of sharp alternatives that will improve people’s lives and build a sustained political movement. They should go on the offensive against not only Democrats but the assumptions that underlie their policies.

Doing so involves risk. It is always safer to oppose the unpopular than to detail alternatives that will be critiqued. But 2010 offers an opportunity unlike any other before. Analysts looking for comparable elections have invoked the strong Republican years of 1994 and 1978. Instead they should consider 1932. It was in that year of economic depression and perceived capitalist failure that the collectivist, redistributionist dynamic of American politics in the modern era was firmly set. Despite the success of Republican revolutionaries like Reagan and Gingrich, this dynamic has more or less persisted over the long term.

The dynamic holds that government can and should address virtually every problem in society. It also maintains that taking wealth from the more productive and giving it to the less productive is virtuous and effective—all evidence from the past century to the contrary. Ayn Rand best described the apostles of this way of life as “moochers and looters.”

Even though the American people have never endorsed the dynamic when it has been put to them directly, it gained comprehensive acceptance in the media, academia, law, and parts of both political parties. As a result, it justified the move of government into more and more sectors of life. Candidate Obama demonstrated his allegiance to the dynamic during the 2008 campaign when he said he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”

Ironically, the Democrats’ conduct has put this dynamic at risk like never before. Conservatives and moderates can turn Sunday’s vote into the modern left’s final chapter rather than its ultimate triumph. The year 2010 can be looked back upon as our 1932—a new era in America, not just a new chapter.

But doing so will require a complex effort at the federal, state and local level. Congressional Republicans and candidates should pivot to advocating ideas like those above. States should sue the federal government when Congress exceeds the power granted to it by the Constitution. New citizen groups should spring up and object when a state or city council attempts to take on new duties. Efforts to use government to redistribute wealth should be exposed as power grabs at the barrel of a gun—not the acts of virtuous charity they are made out to be. Through steps like this, the collectivist dynamic can be undermined.

Make no mistake, this requires a complex, decentralized effort. It means gambling certain gains in the coming elections for a less certain reordering of America’s political dynamic. But the upside is a republic restored to its original principles and a new prosperity. It is difficult to see how a better opportunity to achieve this will arise.

Christian Whiton was an official in George W. Bush administration from 2003-2009. He is a principal at D.C. Asia Advisory and president of the Hamilton Foundation.

Monday, March 22, 2010

The U.S.S.A

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. The country you knew and loved before yesterday doesn’t exist anymore. You now live in a country where one ruling class of ideologues have successfully started the transformation of this country to be something wholly different than what the founding fathers fought and died to protect. You now live in a country where the concept of a “right” has been bastardized to be anything that will pacify the masses with entitlements and grow government. The country you used to live in valued a right as something that was a condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession that did not infringe on anyone else’s rights, like the right to be free.


Now, you have a “right” to health care, a “right” which only is able to exist because it is secured from others who will be penalized to pay for your “right.” Soon you will probably also have a “right” to a job, even if it detracts from the right of an employer to have the freedom to hire whomever he wants. We have been moving toward the “right” to own a house, whether you can afford it or not, though this “right” has since been temporarily curtailed, as the folly of this “right” caused our society to falter economically. Maybe we should take heed from this little hiccup when granting these kinds of “rights,” which only have life at the expense of others, though the latest “right” to health care we have been bestowed with seems to be of the same ilk.

If you are looking for a yardstick to judge which right is actually valid, and which is not, remember, a true right bestows upon the individual a condition of existence that doesn’t detract from anyone else’s rights. These are natural rights, and are unalienable. However, when someone wants to grant you a “right” which detracts form someone else’s rights, even if it benefits you initially, this is not a right. Moreover, if this action grows the government which granted you this “right,” you can be wholly assured it is not a right. Rather, it is an entitlement, given you by the government, which leaves you dependant on, and subservient to, that same government.

By accepting theses “rights”, you have in essence given up your natural rights, and you have allowed the government to control your existence as it sees fit. Again, welcome to your new country.

For those who do not accept this new country as being valid, the remedy is simple. It has been around for over two hundred years. It is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Quote of the Week

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California , but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."


--Columnist Burt Prelutsky , LA Times

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The Emasculated American Male

In California yesterday, a seven-year-old had to take on the duties of an adult by protecting his family from a home invasion. In Norwalk, Calif., the terrified boy begged emergency dispatchers to send police to his Southern California home where three armed men threatened his parents, according to a recording of the call released Tuesday.


The boy and his six-year-old sister hid unnoticed in the locked bathroom while the suspects threatened his mother and father at gunpoint. "There's some guy who's going to kill my mom and dad," he said breathlessly. "Bring cops. A lot of them! ... And soldiers, too."

When the men found the boy, and realized he had called 911, they fled. They are still at large.

You have to wonder how Daddy felt afterwards, that instead of he being able to defend his family, the task was left to his grade school aged son.

We’ve lost something in this country as a people. There was a day when we stood up for what we believed and ferociously DEFENDED what was precious to us, like our families, our freedoms and our country.

The American male has been emasculated by popular progressive culture, believing it’s wrong to stand up and fight for your beliefs, but rather to be a passive victim, hoping for benevolence from those who would persecute us.

It would probably be a safe bet that this father neither owned a firearm nor probably believed he should. He probably has house insurance, health insurance, flood insurance, car insurance, but no way to ensure the lives of his family from marauding scum who almost certainly would have robbed, raped and possibly murdered his family, had it not been for his young son’s heroic actions.

Some may say, “Hey, it turned out fine and no one got hurt.” True, it did. They may also say, “If the Dad had a gun, it just would have meant he might have been shot going up against three armed invaders.” Also, true. However, I wouldn’t want to go to Las Vegas on the odds that the next time things would turn out to be so lucky. In most cases, people are usually robbed, savaged, and frequently killed during these attacks.

There was a day in this country when gangs of punks would never have considered a “home invasion” style attack on a family, knowing they would probably be met with certain injury or death. That threat still exists in isolated pockets of this country, usually where there are less restrictive gun laws, where law-abiding citizens still have the right to own a firearm AND who still have the right to defend themselves when threatened.

It may sound harsh, but I am of the belief that any parent who refuses to take the necessary precautions to protect his family from such harm, borders on criminal neglect.

Friday, March 5, 2010

And Now for Some Fun

Thank God You're a Man  -  Ads for an Israeli beer called Gold Star  (Click to enlarge)





Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Are the Friendly Skies Not so Friendly?

Here’s another example of a parent who should be removed from the gene pool so he can’t procreate. Seems as though it was “bring your kid to work day” recently at the Air Traffic Control tower at JFK. Some genius brings his elementary school age boy with him, and not only allows him in the tower, but actually lets him go on the air and direct planes in service at JFK.

For about a minute, the father tells the kid what to say to pilots who are in contact with the tower, explaining to the pilots before hand what’s going on. Yes, no one died and nothing bad happened. However, even under the best of circumstances, when they are not distracted by such idiotic nonsense, mishaps happen.

And, before you say, “hey, lighten up,” tell me how you would feel if it was the plane you were on when the ATC’s attention was diverted by this B.S. As a pilot, I know full well how tenuous things are at any given moment, especially in immensely busy airspace like JFK. A moment of distraction is sometimes all it takes to cause a catastrophe.

Even though they all had a good laugh about the incident, both dad, son and a pilot who was “directed” by the fledgling controller, the FAA wasn’t amused, and rightly so. Both daddy and his supervisor were promptly suspended.

The control tower is a highly secure area and the FAA says only licensed controllers are supposed to communicate with planes.

The FAA said it has also barred unofficial visits by friends or relatives to FAA air traffic operational areas while it reviews its policies.

"I have never ever heard a small kid in the tower giving instructions for an airplane to take off or cross a runway or any kind of instructions," said Jim Baker, a retired chief pilot at Delta airlines.

"Pending the outcome of our investigation, the employees involved in this incident are not controlling air traffic, the FAA said in a statement. "This behavior is not acceptable and does not demonstrate the kind of professionalism expected from all FAA employees."

I should think not. What’s next? Do we allow a parent to bring their kid to the nuclear power plant where they work? How about letting junior tag along with dad when he goes to work at NASA, and gets to launch the Space Shuttle? Of course, I could think of one instance where I might agree to letting the kids do daddy’s job. Obama should bring his daughters to work and hand over the reins; they couldn’t do a worse job than he has already.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Cleaning Out the Gene Pool

DATELINE: BUENOS AIRES

A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.

Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.
But their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her dad's handgun missed her vital organs.

Paramedics rushed her to hospital covered in blood when police alerted by worried neighbours discovered the massacre three days later.

The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.

Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

As sad as this story is, because no one likes to hear of the death of a child, I have to consider the removal of these parents as simply a cleaning of the gene pool. I can only hope Al Gore considers the same path.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Liberals Challenge the Validity of The Bill of Rights

Do you get the feeling that the average liberal isn’t smarter than a fifth grader? I doubt they would do well on that show of the same name. Case in point: Even though the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, you have liberals - like in Chicago - who seek to over rule that decision, arguing that it doesn't apply to the 50 states. They actually are asking that certain protections granted by the Bill of Rights not be afforded to citizens of certain cities or states.


I love how liberals apply the concept of a right. We should have a “right” to own a home and a “right” to free health care, both which presume to detract from someone else’s prosperity in order to fund and realize those “rights,” but when it comes to an individual’s right to defend themselves, a right which by itself doesn’t minimize nor detract from anyone else’s inalienable rights, that kind of right should be ruled invalid or restricted.

Do you see why it’s impossible to argue with logic of that kind? Liberals actually see this as being logical. It’s almost impossible to even comprehend the monumental stupidity of this, and wasting time arguing with idiots over these concepts would be as fruitful as trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old; you get absolutely no where.

However, this doesn’t mean you should abdicate your rights either. Currently, there is a case going before the Supreme Court - again – to ensure that your freedoms, as granted by the Bill of Rights, are afforded to all 50 states, and all its citizens. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called "incorporation" but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights--including the Second Amendment--to the states. The case challenges Chicago's restrictive gun law, which is being argued for by groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

An attorney for the person challenging the Chicago law, Otis McDonald, said, "Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history."

I wonder how quickly the left would scream ‘foul’ if certain states or cities decided to circumvent the Bill of Rights in the same way. How about if a state decided that the liberal media’s biased viewpoints were a threat to the American way of life and decided to severely curtail the media’s First Amendment right to free speech in that state? The ACLU would respond so fast it would kill itself tripping over their own feet in the rush to react. However, I’m not aware of any fervor nor action on their part to represent Mr. McDonald in his fight to prevent the city of Chicago from violating his Second Amendment rights.

When weighing the validity of the rights afforded this country, and its citizens, under the precepts of the Bill of Rights, remember it is the Second Amendment that is the teeth of the Bill of Rights. Without the rights afforded you under the Second Amendment, your other rights are only as good as the people who are in power over you at any given moment. When those people decide to restrict your rights, be it a mugger on a street or an autocratic government, it is your ability to defend your rights that keeps them valid.
 



Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic