All three commenters agree that the tragic story of Trayvon Martin’s death is high on emotion and short on facts. There are many things that America’s news media seemed to get wrong when it came to informing our public. As of the time this conversation was recorded, there had been rallies and riots and even rewards for the capture of George Zimmerman, but there were still very few facts, and many questions had gone unanswered.
Kira, Ai, and Alex talk about the media’s shortcomings, the senselessness of the the tragedy, and the opportunism of people who have been involved in controlling the conversation. Listen to this compelling trialogue as three of CDN’s contributors discuss one of the most polarizing and tragic issues facing us right now.
[mp3player config=fmp_jw_widget_config.xml file=http://conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ai-Kira-And-Alex-Discuss-Trayvon-Martin-March-24th.mp3]
Found this in a post that said Trayvon would still be alive, if “he was a white kid”. If you comment, please do so respectfully. No vulgarity and no racism.
“This is not about black nor white, but of right and wrong. Had Trayvon Martin been a white kid walking home in the rain he would still be alive. That makes this an act of racism, which is both very sad and wrong. They need to put Zimmerman behind bars.“
In the “Trying To Have It Both Ways” department, President Barack Obama announced in Cushing, OK, on Thursday, March 22, 2012, that his administration expedited the permit for the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline. He also said that his administration is pro-drilling, and that his administration had opened “millions” of acres of federal land to increased oil production.
“On Thursday, the president will reiterate his administration’s commitment to expediting the construction of a pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf of Mexico, relieving a bottleneck of oil and bringing domestic resources to market,” a White House official said.
Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said, “There is only a minor, routine permit needed for this leg of the project. Only a desperate administration would inject the President of the United States into this trivial matter. The President’s attempt to take credit for a pipeline he blocked and personally lobbied Congress against is staggering in its dis-ingenuousness. This portion of the pipeline is being built in spite of the President, not because of him.”
Regarding Obama’s overall energy policy, “I think it’s, if you keep at it, it’s a process that improves continually,” spokesman Jay Carney said. “We’ve already seen our reliance on foreign imports decline in the last three years. [An economic recession will do that.] We’ve already seen an increase in domestic oil production. [But the increase was in spite of Obama’s efforts. None of the increase came from government controlled lands.] We’ve already seen increases in renewable energy production.” [And we’ve seen an increase in tax payer subsidized renewable energy company bankruptcies.]
According to a survey released by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans are more willing to support more offshore drilling, which suggests that backing for alternative energy sources (that dominate Obama’s energy strategy) has narrowed. I could find nothing in the MSM mentioning that fact.
Believe it or not, the MSM is trying to give Obama cover. According to one source (CNN): “Despite all the gasoline price rhetoric, high gasoline prices aren’t hurting as much as they used to. In 1981, when oil prices spiked following the Iranian Revolution, gasoline represented nearly 5% of the nation’s spending, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In 2011, only 3.7% of spending went to gas, even though prices averaged at their highest level ever that year. In 2008 gas prices were in the news when they hit their all time high, yet spending on gas totaled only $12 more per week in 2008 than in 2010, according to numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That $12 per week is roughly the same amount that Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) figures show people spent on ‘pets, toys, hobbies and playground equipment.’ For the average American household, which has an income of over $62,000 a year, the increase in gas prices represents a relatively small portion of total spending.” That sounds like a lot of MSM double-talk. What all of that has to do with 2012 gasoline prices is beyond me.
But that’s just my opinion.
President Obama gave a hot mic supplication to departing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Putin should give him more “space” and “flexibility” on such national security issues as Anti-Ballistic Missile defense. According to Obama, this will be his “last election,” after all.
Of course, any mention of this eye-popping exchange outside the credentialed press will be spun by Pravda West as mere blog fodder for de-contextualized right-wing hysterics. Well, comrades, let’s at least make sure our hysterics are properly contextualized, shall we?
The exposed convo between the two outgoing presidents runs as follows and was originally reported by Jake Tapper of ABCNews:
President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”
President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”
President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”
The exchange runs more like a series of Twitter replies between BFFs than a serious high-ranking discussion on national security. It’s time we start rummaging through Barack Obama’s closet to see what kind of Russian connections we can find.
Alright, a boatload of Матрёшкu, some empty Stoli bottles, and a Russian mail order bride catalogue… hmm. Okay, here’s the good stuff:
- After unsurprisingly attractive female Russian spy Anna Chapman is captured by American counter-intelligence, the Obama administration releases her spy ring in exchange for… a carton of black market Pall Malls? No, but close. The Russkies’ release of four accused spies… who aren’t even Americans. No blabbing about a suspected mole in the NSA, no blue prints revealing Russia’s ABM countermeasures, only a foxy photo spread in Russian Maxim in exchange! Men, I think we got the better end of that bargain, don’tcha think? Meoww!
- Russian President Medvedev engaged in drunken saber-rattling with the demand that America remove Theater Wide Defense from Europe. This was despite the Obama administration’s supine proposals to “cooperate” with the Russians on certain aspects of missile defense. Yes, and maybe swimmers in the South Atlantic should cooperate with sharks over the issue of what’s for dinner?
- The most belligerent Noble Peace Prize winner in world history has pledged to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. No, seriously. Obama proposed a good faith sacrifice in this quixotic crusade to make a unilateral cut of our nuclear weapons by up to 80%. This would put our stores below even Chinese levels, let alone Russian stockpiles. Who else is for a “flexible” second term? Hands, anyone?
- The president conceded disputed oil-rich territory in the North Pacific and the Arctic to the Russians. According to bilateral treaties with the Russians going back to 1867, the United States had developed a claim to islands off the coast of Alaska. One is tempted to dub this “Obama’s Folly,” but it is hard to imagine any unforeseen upside in the deal. Unless Russia secretly conceded to allow Obama free reign on the world’s algae supplies.
- Russian billionaire Alexei Mordashov, ranked in the top 50 on Forbes’ wealthiest people in the world at around $19 billion net worth, applied to the Department of Energy for a green subsidy to assist with Government Motors manufacturing. According to Investors Business Daily, Mordashov was given a $773 million loan to produce special high-quality steel, already available in ample supply, for the disastrously unmarketable Chevy Volt.
- Despite Russia’s arming of Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, who has bloodily repressed a domestic uprising, the administration has remained remarkably quiet. The same might be said of the Russians’ assistance of the Iranian nuclear
weaponsenergy program at Bushehr. In fact, the Russians’ human rights violations and jeopardizing of international security might be the only matters this garrulous president will keep quiet about.
The dirty laundry list could go on, but the sane have already come to the conclusion that something is amiss in the Oval Office. After all, if you had taken a vodka shot for every time the president double-crossed America, you’d be drunker than a Russian sailor on payday.
If it turns out that the Wikileaker was right that the Russians got the best president money could buy, one could hardly color a prescient observer with a surprised face. Obama has been more supine than a Romanian gymnast while bending over backwards for ‘Vlady Daddy’ (“he likes to pahty, he don’t start trouble, he don’t botha nobody”).
The problem with the president having a man-crush on Putin is you can take the man out of the KGB, but you can’t take the KGB out of the man. And as far as the Kremlin is concerned, it is sure starting to look a lot like Obama is “our man in Washington.”
You can call this crazy, but the proper response is that the things our president is doing are crazy.
Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and OwntheNarrative and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.
Public-school employees and teacher unions are better than they think they are. They don’t have to strangle parent’s free choice in how they educate their children. Public-school teachers have within them the ability to be great educators. I would like to suggest a way for them to live up to their highest potential.
The problem is the system they are trapped in. Too many teachers have become more concerned with their economic security than with realizing the best within them. This attitude is typical of many government employees. I should know, because many years ago I once worked for the City of New York, for three years.
When the City first hired me, I was young and eager. I intended to give the job my best efforts. However, I soon realized that little was expected of me. I saw the lazy attitudes of my fellow workers who had the security of tenure. Since I am only human like everyone else, I started to become like my fellow employees.
I soon realized that if I did passable work and did not make any waves, I would advance up the civil-service salary ladder just for showing up at the job. My supervisors did not make me work harder or become more competent. To make more money, I only had to grow old on the job. I quickly noticed that when I worked harder or came up with innovative ideas, I did not get paid more. I also saw that when I slacked off in my work or enthusiasm, I did not get paid less.
As a result, I gradually, insidiously, started to die inside. My spirit, initiative, and the best within me started to die. Most employees will act the same way under a similar system of rewards or punishment. If a person is not rewarded for trying harder or doing better, if he is not punished for being lazy or incompetent, most of us, myself included, become mediocre employees just putting in our time. By remaining a government employee, every undiscovered talent and possibility I had within me was being smothered in the stifling, undemanding atmosphere of government employment.
Why didn’t my government employers demand more of me? Because government agencies never go out of business–they are monopolies that stay in business whether or not they do a good job. These agencies get paid from taxes, not from individual “customers” they are supposed to be “serving.”
The public is forced to deal with civil-service employees of the Post Office, Social Security Office, or local Board of Education because these government agencies have no competitors.
Worse, government employees know this. These monopoly agencies get their “customers” by force. They do not need your consent when they take your tax money or make you wait in line to see them. So if government employees or supervisors know their agency can never go out of business, if they are not afraid of being fired for incompetence, there is little incentive to work harder or innovate.
The same psychology applies in government (public) schools. No matter how bad the public schools are, they don’t go out of business. The educrats just ask for more tax money to “fix” what they think is wrong, and the schools stay open for another fifty years, wrecking our children’s education.
In a free-market school, such things don’t happen. A private school that didn’t teach children how to read would soon lose parent’s confidence. Parents would remove their children from the school, and the school would soon be out of business. End of story.
In government schools, no matter how bad a teacher or principal is, it is almost impossible to fire him because of tenure. That would never happen in a free-market school. If students do badly because of incompetent teachers, parents will complain to the owner. The owner will quickly remove a teacher if he doesn’t improve his performance, because the owner could lose parent-customers if he doesn’t. End of story.
But government schools entrench mediocre education without hope of improvement precisely because the schools can’t go out of business and tenure protects bad teachers or principals. These schools and teachers are not accountable to parents, their true customers. That’s why so many public schools give a third-rate education to our kids.
So I offer this challenge to teachers and their unions. If you think your government schools do as good a job as private or religious schools, have the courage of your convictions, and prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of strangling parent’s freedom of choice, prove to us that you could do better.
How? Here’s a suggestion. Use your multi-millions of dollars in union dues to buy the government schools and run them as private schools, the way former Soviet Union employees bought the factories they worked in. Let us privatize the government (public) schools. Let the teacher unions buy every public school in the country. Instead of being government employees, teachers will then be shareholders in school companies they will own, like Microsoft shareholder-employees who became millionaires from their stock options.
When you, the unions and teachers, buy the schools, you will then complete with every other private school in the free-market. There will be no more compulsory-attendance laws that force parents to give you their children. There will be no more compulsory school taxes that pay your salaries.
You will complete on a level playing-field, like every other private business has to compete. You will have to prove to parents, your new customers, that you deserve to get their business and educate their children. You will have to be better than your competitors. If you teach well, you will succeed. You may even make a fortune in profits from your private schools, and congratulations if you do. If you don’t teach well, you will go out of business, as you should. Parent-consumers will decide your fate.
That being said, I predict that most of you would do great. I believe that once your unions bought the schools, your attitude and your lives would change remarkably. You would soon discover that your school’s success depended on your hard work, competence, and innovation. Fierce competition in the free market would force you to work smarter and harder and become great educators.
I believe that public-school teachers have not even begun to live up to their highest potential. All you need is to understand that the free market, rather than being your imagined worst enemy, can be your best friend.
So here’s the challenge–if you love to teach, if you think you are good educators, if you care about giving quality education to our children, prove it in the real world. Put your money where your mouth is. Pit your best against the best the free market has to offer.
Teachers, you especially will benefit from a totally free-market education system. There will be so many new schools opened, so much fierce competition for competent, innovative teachers, that teacher salaries will skyrocket.
K-12 education today is a $500 billion market, because most parents consider education as their first priority for their children. There is a huge, pent-up demand for your skills, creativity, and dedication. As a result, your incomes will rise dramatically. Your status as teachers will rise with parents as they see the new vigor and quality you bring to your profession. You will be respected and in great demand. By the way, did you know that the best private teachers in Japan are so in demand that they can earn as much as star Japanese baseball players?
So here’s the challenge I offer you. Live up to the best within you in a free-market education system, or let the best within you shrivel up in a government-run public school.
To mayors in cities across America, I extend this challenge to you. Stop wasting our children’s time and billions of our tax dollars on futile programs to “improve” the government schools. Politicians have been trying to “improve” these schools for the last fifty years, and the schools have only gotten worse. The public-school system is beyond repair because government is not the solution, it is the problem.
Instead, push to privatize the public schools in your cities. Push to get government out of the education business, once and for all. Challenge teachers to live up to their highest potential. Challenge them to consider the life-giving breath of a free-market education system. They will eventually thank you for it.
* * *
Joel Turtel is an education policy analyst and syndicated columnist. He is also the author of Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children” and The Welfare State: No Mercy For the Middle Class.
Email: [email protected], Article Copyrighted © 2012 by Joel Turtel.
Over the last few days more and more people have been asking me to comment on the Trayvon Martin case. I intentionally held back for a while. I wanted to wait for all the facts to come to light before I added my voice to the fray. We still don’t have all the facts, but unfortunately most people aren’t waiting for the facts to enflame an already spiraling situation. Here are some my thoughts on this tragic situation. You may not agree with me; I may not agree with you…but is there a way to civilly disagree while pursuing true justice at the same time? I hope. I hope.
Racism in America is an emotionally explosive subject not well-disposed to cool, rational discussion. The tragic shooting of a young man in Florida named Trayvon Martin has given rise to passionate calls for massive protests by all-too-familiar civil rights activists. The professional traders in racial antagonism claim to speak for a monolithic block called “the black community,” which presumes there can never be any long-term reconcilement between individual citizens of all skin colors in a truly diverse and racially tolerant American society. Such a future would assume unity around something other than race, such as a shared vision to promote the value of freedom, so vital to our country’s prosperity and generosity of spirit.
The radical left has successfully used race to distract Americans from the worthy goal of liberty, because its underlying animation is power. The rationale for such power may be to transform the world into a more equitable and socially just place; but the power to create such an imagined world entails the power to destroy the old one. The relics of the past world must therefore be swept away in the public mind, the left believes, so that mankind can be reformed; and if the Enlightenment philosophy that provided the germ of emancipation proved too potent in laying to waste the sources of oppression, then statists must erect new shibboleths to spur social tensions, thus providing their radical leftist associates with the opportunity to posture themselves as our emancipators. The shackles of state dependency and repression are nonetheless hammered out in the heat of our incendiary social conflict.
For this strategical maneuver to be successful, leftists must constantly level charges that the ‘white right’ is intrinsically and irredeemably racist. These accusations are nearly always unfounded, unprovable, and undeniable. They therefore stoke agitation through confirmation bias among radicals and their adopted minorities, and also stir up irrational counterattacks from the falsely accused. Once insinuated in the public mind, racial animosity can become a perpetual mechanism of mutual hatred, which can spin out of control into open violent conflict. Stage left: Enter the state to save us from ourselves.
The nation’s racial wounds, scraped bare by community organizers of Barack Obama’s ilk, were thus argued to be critically in need of salve. Such was the ideological backdrop that placed Barack Obama center stage in a mass media-contrived drama to redeem our country from its bleak history of racism, slavery, and black oppression. Never mind that the country was one of the first in the world to ban the import of slavery, fought a bloody civil war in part over the issue, and has steadily marched forward to universally apply the vision of The Founders that individuals have certain inalienable rights. The only way for us to wash clean the ‘damned spot’ of slavery was by electing a mysterious savior, one whose blank slate of mixed racial heritage allowed us to project upon him our national hopes of transcending the issue once and for all. But that naive hope among the ‘white guilt’ liberal segment of the population proved to be misplaced. Electing a president of mixed racial ancestry has done nothing to bring so-called whites, blacks, and hispanics together. On the contrary, the president has fueled racial resentment, and this is due mainly to his seeing the world through the lens of “Critical Race Theory.”
The left obviously would never admit to such a connection, just as they vehemently deny any significance of Barack Obama lauding the Critical Race Theory scholar Derek Bell while at Harvard or Mr. Obama including Bell’s work in his college syllabus on “Currents Issues in Racism and the Law” while he was an instructor at the University of Chicago. A balanced approach to examining Obama’s syllabus shows a tendency to focus on the “issues” of racism without the broader historical backdrop of the nation’s founding or the significance of the Enlightenment philosophy that played such a critical role in slave emancipation worldwide. Instead, the syllabus begins its “Historical Foundations” section with “Indian Removal,” and proceeds through “Slavery,” then “Reconstruction, Retrenchment, and Jim Crow,” and finally, “Black Responses.” What is mainstream in academia today, due in part to ignorance of the destructive nature of Critical Theory, is a historically and intellectually one-sided attack on the United States and on its exceptional value of human liberty.
A primary source on Critical Theory, Max Horkeimer’s and Theodore Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, gives an excellent, albeit convoluted, exposition of how it works:
Despite its great accomplishments, only power can commit injustice, for only the executed judgment is unjust, not the lawyer’s unexecuted plea. Only when discourse aims at oppression, defending power instead of powerlessness, does it contribute to the general wrong. But power, one-sided reason now whispers, is represented by human beings, By exposing the former, you make a target of the latter. And after them, worse perhaps will come. The lie speaks truth. When fascist murderers are waiting, one should not incite the people against the weak government. But even the alliance with the less brutal power does not imply that one should keep silent about infamies. The likelihood that good causes might be damaged by denunciation of the injustice which protects them from the devil has always been outweighed by the advantage the devil gains if the denunciation of injustice is left solely up to him. How far must a society have sunk in which only the scoundrels still speak the truth — and Goebbels reminds us that the lynch mob is still happily at work. Not the good but the bad is the subject matter of theory. (Emphasis my own, p. 181.)
The seductive but cognitively discordant passage, written in the signature Marxian style of slaughtering reason while sounding reasonable, provides a serpentine rationalization for Alinskyite radicals to unscrupulously mobilize power to counter-attack injustices that are defined and even contrived by the left themselves. The left will thus always provide an excuse to stoke and harness racial hatred to attack supposedly ubiquitous oppression, even while conjuring up anecdotes to falsely misrepresent “the system.” In reality, those on the left are merely turning individuals with dark skin against individuals with white skin for the cynical purpose of accruing political capital.
The question is thus begged: What is the left’s definition of justice implied with the critical race theory worldview? State-administered vengeance, where the scales of justice are perpetually adjusted according to the superfluous standard of skin pigmentation. What are the terms of social equilibrium? A racial admixture in society that is balanced and stable? Critical theory is mute on such ideological matters, just as it is mute on the question of “what is the good?” The theory’s aim is to destroy, not to promote the good; unless one holds that the good is the moral inversion of the world as it is. Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
If one understands the workings of Critical Theory (and its subset, Critical Race Theory), one will never be fooled by the left or misled into rhetorical blind alleys. The diversionary tactics of the media, the three-card monty of perpetual race-baiting, the baby games of Alinsky ridiculing of opponents, will all be flushed into irrelevance in one’s mind where it belongs. But unfortunately, the consequences of the public falling for the left’s racial warfare, which has devolved into a proxy struggle for the war on the free enterprise system, liberty and limited government, are utterly grave in importance.
The left is deadly afraid that the right will eventually connect the dots on its critical theory gambit. For a related example, the use of the women’s movement to promote the public financing of condoms was ridiculed in Alinsky fashion by Rush Limbaugh. When the talk show host satirically compared the spokeswoman for all women to a “slut,” he was immediately blitzed by a Media Matters for America orchestrated campaign to silence him. Cries of “Kill Rush Limbaugh!” on YouTube show how desperately the left fears that the right will catch on and use their own tactics against them. Leftists must perpetually play the victim, even as they wantonly attack the values of the country; and Democrat operative Sandra Fluke was the sacrificial virgin to play such a role.
So when the leftist media found a victim fitting the right racial profile, they pounced. The president was provided the cultural terrain in which he could give a speech on the Trayvon Martin shooting, making an unnecessary statement on the teenager’s race that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Newt Gingrich was right to point out the needlessly racialized component of the president’s overall “unifying” speech. President Obama is supposed to be the chief citizen of all Americans, and not the spokesman for “the black community” or any other particular community. But the American dream of the post-racial black president was just that: a dream.
That there is such a gulf between the Critical Race Theory vision of Barack Obama and that of Martin Luther King Jr., who hoped that one day people “would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” is something the left is desperate to conceal. The mentioning of the lunatic ravings of sermonizing race-baiter Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor for twenty years, was said during the 2008 campaign to be off-limits. Early on in his administration, we were supposed to have a beer with Officer James Crowley after he was called out nationally for his having “acted stupidly” in the rightful arrest of black civil rights attorney Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
The radical left and its associates in the mainstream media now urge us not to make anything of the president speaking at a 2007 engagement involving the New Black Panther Party, the same NBPP that has recently floated a sizable bounty for the “capture” of Trayvon Martin’s alleged shooter George Zimmerman. The same NBPP that called for “Cairo-style” riots in 2011, and have been presumably waiting for the opportune time, or perhaps even the go-ahead signal from the media, to mobilize one. Such would not be a surprising turn of events under a community organizer-turned-president who stated that the members of the Occupy Movement were the reason he ran for office. The left’s reaction to videos that show NBPP members teaching violent “black survival tactics” to youngsters is thus to trot out a presentable spokesman, as Alinsky advised, to speak in dulcet tones about the group’s admirable aims. Yes, this is the same NBPP whose members were exculpated from all wrongdoing by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, in a case noted civil rights attorney Bartle Bull called “the most blatant case of voter intimidation” he had ever seen.
When confronted on wrongdoing, including high-ranking knowledge of the exposed Fast and Furious operation in the Department of Justice, Eric Holder predictably tried to deflect attention by accusing his questioners of racist motives. This would presumably make Holder the victim in a scandal where a U.S. government operation to traffic guns to Mexico resulted in thousands of deaths, including the killing of an American border patrol agent. We are supposed to ignore the repeated examples of race antagonism by the president and his administration, and white people are to presume their own guilt for even thinking anything untoward of such inherently admirable individuals, whose unimpeachable virtue is that they were born with a specific skin color.
While overt racism did exist in the United States for much of its history, and darker-skinned people of African heritage did suffer inexcusable injustices, this deplorable legacy was the consequence of an egregious and intellectually dishonest double standard applied by the majority of citizens to their fellow human beings. It was not an inherent flaw of the Natural Rights philosophy that animated the American revolution and championed the essential equality of all people.
When Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words in The Declaration of Independence that “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,” he was not excluding the equality of slaves of African heritage from his thinking. Although his personal holding of slaves represents a conflict between his idealized view for humanity and his transgression in the real world, Jefferson brilliantly articulated the agenda to eventually see all men become free. Truly radical for his age, Jefferson originally proposed to condemn the entire practice of slavery in the original drafting of The Declaration. Eleven of thirteen colonies agreed with him; but alas, the passage was not entered into the agreed-upon version.
It took two centuries for the nation to overcome its legacy of slavery and legal bias towards blacks, but the left is not content to left the issue be resolved through national unity because it politically has so much at stake in keeping us divided. The radical left preys upon the visual circumstances of racial differences by twisting them into de facto evidence of racism under the condition of inequality. But the left has done more to promote inequality in the black segment of the population through its purposeful perpetration of welfare dependency and its subsidization of self-destructive behavior than the free market ever has. To argue contrary would be racist in one’s presumptions that individuals are inherently unequal by race and can’t compete in a level economic playing field. Previously discriminated against peoples, such as Catholics, Mormons, Irish, Germans, Italians, the Chinese, and other immigrants, prove otherwise how individuals can overcome the animosity of other Americans to attain to the middle class lifestyle.
But the radical left does not want the narrative of immigrants and black Americans overcoming adversity told because the hard left doesn’t believe in the American Dream of working hard, supporting one’s family, and aspiring to personal happiness. Leftists seek a world dominated by the state, one where everyone is dependent upon the social engineers for one’s daily bread, or whatever else the statists deem just. In order to reach such an end-point, the institutions of liberty must be deconstructed, including all those conducive to self-reliance, initiative, and independence from the state. If the statists on the left can frame such a drive as “progress” towards ultimate freedom or racial justice or economic equality, that is what they will do. But it our duty as Americans to keep focus on what really matters: liberty, individual rights, and limited government.
Following Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposal progressives tried to scare seniors into believing that Medicare services were in danger and Republicans didn’t care about the elderly.
This year conservatives are taking a proactive position. Poor granny again finds herself in a precarious position. But this time it’s the man behind ObamaCare doing the throwing.
Some will say the ad goes to far; that it’s not nice granny actually is tossed and that they shouldn’t use the likeness of the president. Personally, I’d rather have seen, then, Speaker Pelosi who famously told Congress they’d have to sign the bill to learn what was in it. A strong argument could be made that Team Pelosi were the ones who did sacrifice Medicare to pay for ObamaCare.
In any case, I’ll be watching with great interest the Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. And no matter the outcome, I’ll be voting in November.
President Obama was caught on an open microphone asking the Russian President to give him some political “space” until the November election. In exchange, Obama would have much greater “flexibility” in regards to missile defense and other points of contention between the U.S. and Russia.
This “flexibility” could apply to:
- Russian help to Iran on it’s nuclear stockpile
- Cuba and Venezuela
- Defense of Europe from an Iranian missle
- National defense secrets that the State department has reportedly been seeking to give to Russia
The Obama administration’s response to the airing of this video interchange was to simply state that that nothing is going to be accomplished in an election year. Clearly the President is far too busy golfing, fund-raising and attending his $3 lottery dinners to deal with issues like national security, foreign policy or silly things like open microphones.
Presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney is going to have a lot of explaining to do if he wins the nomination from the GOP. As he is often accused of flip-flopping on issues of abortion and gun rights, one heated issue that Romney has yet to address is human-caused global warming.
As the media begins their opposition research on the likely GOP candidate, video footage, previous news reports and Massachusetts legislation are coming to light in which Romney clearly voices his commitment to the climate change stance that human beings are making the earth warmer.
In June 2012 while on the campaign trail, a reporter caught Romney with a sound bite. “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he said.
Is Romney really a liberal? Not exactly.
Romney is a business man, and a highly successful one at that. While at Bain & Company and Bain Capital, he made millions of dollars helping clients invest, reorganize and take advantage of tax breaks and government initiatives to grow their businesses. Many of the government initiatives, both in the U.S. and abroad, involve trading carbon credits.
What are the initiatives of Bain?
“Experts agree that climate change and environmental degradation must be tackled on a global scale.”
Though not controversial for a consulting firm to be interested in conserving energy, the Bain Company seems to have a particular affinity for carbon credit trading, which would have occurred on the Chicago Climate Exchange, had the Cap and Trade bill passed last year.” — Examiner.com
Whether or not Romney believes in global warming is really of no consequence. Of all the issues on which Romney has changed his opinion, global warming is not among them. He is an extremely intelligent man. He surely understands that his reputation with his clients is at stake should he flip flop on this issue.
The republican party “regulars” like Senator John McCain and Governor Jeb Bush seem to be propping Romney up as the inevitable nominee. Have they given thought to his ability to win, knowing he has a history of telling voters what they want to hear but doing something quite different once elected or worse, once hired?
With the help of the mainstream media outlets, the DNC will have a large arsenal of media material exposing Romney’s affinity for carbon credits and human-caused climate change.
How will he spin it?
“When you put a moderate republican against a real democrat, the real democrat wins every time.” — Ann Coulter
Trayvon Martin was fatally shot by Mr. Zimmerman as a result of a violent altercation and it is igniting another Obama-led, Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson inflamed national tirade about white-on-black crime. Of course, the President and the media ignore the disparity between white-on-black violence and other violence.
When a black person kills a black person, it’s commonplace and not news. Nothing to see here, please move along.
When a black person kills a white person, it’s just how things are today, not really worth reporting as a major story, just report it as another murder.
When the rare event of a white person (although in this case George is hispanic) affronting, injuring or killing a black person is discovered.. it makes national headlines, receives personal comment from the President of the United States, is used as a rallying cry for civil rights activists and anti-gun organizations and is a CALL TO ARMS for race-based militaristic activities by so-called leaders like Farrakhan.
The President reacted to Martin’s shooting in days. When a young caucasion child was doused with fuel and lit on fire by black guys that were yelling, “you’re white! This is what you deserve!!” .. no outcy. Media coverage was present, but minimal. The public outcry.. non-existent. And:
- the President said .. NOTHING until a month later and simply referred to it as a “local matter” (why isn’t Zimmerman’s issue “a local matter”?)
- Louis Farrakhan said .. NOTHING .. at all
- Jesse Jackson said … NOTHING .. at all
- There was no call to arms by Caucasian rights groups
- No bounty was put on the black teens’ heads
Jesse Jackson is calling for the repeal of Florida’s “stand your ground” law which allows people to use lethal force when acting in self-defense. Oddly enough, Florida’s Governor said that the “stand your ground” provision doesn’t even apply since Zimmerman initiated the contact so the anti-gun zealots are truly politicizing the event to progress their oppressive agenda – their stance has nothing to do with Trayvon other than trying to raise him up to martyr status for the progressive cause.
American Islamic leader Louis Farrakhan is encouraging vigilante justice against the man that shot Trayvon as he tweeted about the incident “Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”
Spike Lee retweeted Mr. Zimmerman’s home address multiple times on twitter in a manner that would seemingly call his followers to do something with that address – something untoward.
The New Black Panthers have put a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head. Anyone that “captures” Zimmerman “dead or alive” will receive $10,000.00.
Remember when Obama arranged a beer summit after declaring police had acted stupidly? You know, when they challenged one of Obama’s Professor friends from entering his own home based on the fact that he was trying to open the door without a key. No shots were fired, no one was harmed, but we still had a several week National Conversaion on Race after the event. Where is our national conversation, hosted by the President, now?
Now that the President could take the lead to calm things down in rising tide of calls for race-based crimes by so-called civil rights leaders, he didn’t. President Obama instead decided to politicize and use it to push his own anti-gun, anti-American agenda. Instead of calling out Farrakhan, Jackson and the New Black Panthers and asking for calm while the investigation continues, Obama said that if he had a son, he might look very much like Trayvon.
We do not have all the facts and cannot discern what may have happened to cause death of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman may have been acting in a lawful manner to protect himself, Zimmerman may have acted criminally and could face a long jail sentence or something in-between where both men acted irrationally and someone was going to get killed either way.
Eye witness reports are now attesting that the screams and pleas for help were from Zimmerman and that Martin had Zimmerman on his back on the ground. I wonder how much news there would have been if a hispanic man (George Zimmerman) had been beaten to death by a black teenager (Trayvon Martin)?
If Zimmerman had not been armed, this very likely would have put Martin in prison for the rest of his life, left Martin dead and been nothing more than a blurb on the 10 o’clock local news. No Farrakhan, no Jackson, no Obama – nothing to see here folks – please move along.
Our Founding Fathers may have been the most thoughtful men in human history. To create a new government with the many checks and balances that are in place is the envy of the entire world. If there is any doubt of how great this country truly is, all you have to do is just look at all the people trying to get in, legally and illegally. Why are people not beating down the doors to get into Venezuela, Cuba, China or North Korea? We as a country must be doing something right. However, how long are we going to be different from those countries?
The Internet is a wonderful thing; on it, you can find views from both sides of the aisle. Not too long ago, I had the pleasure of watching a couple of videos that had an interview with people that came here from socialist countries, on the video they were describing what life was like living under socialism. At the end of each video, they all seem to say the same thing. America is heading down the same path that the socialist countries they left once went down. I must admit, a chill went down my spine when I heard them describing the similarities. The left in this country shrug these people off as idiots who don’t know what they are talking about.
They say experience is the best teacher, so why are we not learning from the very people that lived through socialism? We all know the old saying, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. So why are we not learning? The writing is on the wall, but most of America refuses to see it. America seems to be closing its eyes to the reality of socialism creeping its way into our society. The people that were speaking on those videos, spoke of similarities of what is coming, they are; Removal of God from society, Taking over the car companies, as well as the banks, Socialized medicine and the Government is the answer to everything. Sound familiar? However, these are the very things that the people on the videos have lived through in the countries they left. They see the same things happening here, scary, isn’t it?
Who’s to blame? Well, look in the mirror, because it is we the people. Our founding fathers set this country up to be a self-governing nation, of the people, by the people, for the people. Lincoln said those words in his Gettysburg Address, but things sure have changed. This country has been changing for a while, but the Obama administration was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
We have a generation of people who do not even know what the Constitution is; they were raised to believe in an entitlement society, where they think they are entitled to everything, instead of going out and working for it. They all seem to say F**k the Constitution, just make me happy. Moreover, this president seems to want to oblige them. This country is learning the hard way that liberal views and policies just do not work. We are now paying the price for the liberal policies of the past. Yes, we have a constitution, but what good is it if we ignore it.
A quick note; Those of you who have read my book, America, A Society Gone Wrong or follow my articles know that I like to lighten things up with a touch of humor, I always do, but I find this to be, too serious of a subject for humor.
This is one man’s opinion.
The United States Senate, led by Liberal Democrat Harry Reid, is lining up at the taxpayer-funded debt-lovers cash trough again this week in the form of trying to “fix” another crisis of their own making. Meet S. 1789 , or as today’s Senate Progressives call it, the 21st Century Postal Act of 2012: A bill to improve, sustain, and transform the United States Postal Service. This bill is sponsored by the lifelong fake Democrat posing as an Independent, Joe Lieberman. (L-D-CT) This USPS bailout bill poses as a bi-partisan piece of work based on the support of the co-sponsorship from another fake Republican posing as a moderate, Susan Collins. (RINO-ME) The cost of the Senate-Progressives-USPS-bailout bill to the U.S. taxpayers? A cool $41 billion soon-to-be-borrowed taxpayer dollars.
For a more detailed understanding of just why the taxpayer is being forced to bailout the USPS by Senate Progressives this week, check out The United States Postal Ponzi Scheme.
It is none other than the U.S. Government itself that has caused this most recent “crisis” that threatens to shut down the USPS. In the words of Mr. Donahoe, the Postmaster General himself back in the summer of 2011, we see glimpses of the big government intervention causing the collapse of what was once a proud, viable U.S. Mail delivery system:
“The Postal Service is in a crisis today because it operates within a restrictive business model and has limited flexibility to respond to a changing marketplace,” To which he added, “We need the ability to operate more as a business does. This applies to the way we provide products and services, allocate resources, configure our retail, delivery and mail processing networks and manage our workforce.” (emphasis added)
That info-byte above is the Postmaster General of the USPS himself, begging the wizards of Congress to allow him to reform the USPS system so that they would not have to be bailed out in 2012 by the taxpayers due to the impending insolvency. Congress basically said no, and refused to allow Mr. Donohue to enact the needed reforms. Enter S. 1789, which also has another progressive debt-loving fake Republican on the co-sponsor’s list, Sen. Scott Brown. (RINO-MA) While select politicians and D.A.M. media operatives will hail this USPS bailout bill as bi-partisan during the coming weeks, it in fact, only has the support of Progressive Senators who are lining up trying to score political points for the upcoming elections.
The description of S. 1789 claims that is it designed to sustain,improve, and transform the U.S, Postal System. What will the $41 billion borrowed tax dollars be used for? As Daniel Horowitz informs the citizenry, “This time, taxpayers will be tapped for another $41 billion to subsidize the healthcare retirement benefits of postal workers – benefits that are quite scarce in the private sector.” The Progressive Senators USPS Bailout Bill of 2012 will not in fact “reform” the USPS into a more business-like sustainable entity, as claimed, but once again kicks the insolvency can down the road and opens the door to never-ending taxpayer bailouts of the dysfunctional, unsustainable USPS, much like the Progressive thievery of the past two decades known as the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “everyone deserves a house, regardless of ability to pay” programs that led to the housing and mortgage crisis. For a look into another reason for the USPS insolvency, check out the Liberal election-buying Union manipulation that is also behind this scheme, please see The USPS is Broke.
Call up your Senators this week, demand that they say no to the Progressive USPS Bailout Bill of 2012, (S.1789) and let every single one of them know you will be paying close attention to their votes on it.