Sometimes I'm just too damn charitable.
Every four years, there's an entire industry of political strategists that make millions of dollars devising strategy, tactics, and carefully sculpted messages for prospective political candidates. It is the job of these people to come up with that perfect strategy that will resonnate with the voters while both highlighting the candidate's strengths and downplaying his weaknesses. And there's serious money involved for those who prove to be adept at devising such gameplans. To put it another way, a winning electoral strategy is worth it's weight in gold.
So why in the Hell am I about to give away the perfect strategy for winning the 2012 Presidential Election away for free?
Well, before I come to my senses, hit the "delete" button, and sell this idea to a bunch of Republican suits for a few million bucks, here's the skinny: Everybody who's anybody in politics right now is talking about jobs and the economy...and well they should, as it's something that impacts nearly every American in some way. However, while the economy is an extremely important issue, it's not the only issue that's out there. I think there's a "secondary" issue that--if paired with a sensible economic plan as the primary issue--could be what some GOP candidate needs to seperate himself/herself from the rest of the pack.
That issue is the idea of "Law & Order". If you are a regular, normal, law-abiding American, chances are that you look around you and wonder if our laws even apply anymore...much less if the very concept of "right vs. wrong" even exists in American society. You see illegal immigrants who are lauded instead of castigated, Terrorists who are afforded rights and legal protections (while Christians who dare express their faith in public are shut down at the earliest opportunity), inner cities that have become literal war zones, people who don't even think twice about scamming government welfare and other programs, miscrents (with ambulance-chasing attorneys following close behind) who sue everybody in sight in hopes of "hitting the legal lottery", and criminals publicized and glorified by an all-to-eager media.
As that legendary pro wrestler and philosopher, "Classy" Freddie Blassie once opined, "What the Hell ever happened to the Human Race?"
Society seems to be bursting apart at the seems, and a lack of Law, Order, and Moral Clarity is at the center of it. And yet, at times, our sitting President seems to be on the side of those who would tear down American Society. Giving speeches where he identifies and sypathizes with Illegal Aliens. Openly advocating for more welfare and government "help" for the lower classes (which in the past has only resulted in the destruction of the family unit among poorer Americans...and the crime, violence, and lawlessness that goes with it). Speaking in conciliatory tones towards our enemies both overseas and domestically. It would not be difficult to portray Obama as--if not a President who is openly on the side of the criminal and immoral--at least a President who is ill-equipped to deal with our national "lack of character" crisis.
I'm certainly not saying that "Law & Order" could usurp the economy as the main issue, but instead I'm saying that there is a significant group of people out there (and I'm certainly among them) who view the rampant lawlessness in our society as a key issue--right alongside the economy. And these votes are up for the taking...if one of the GOP candidates spoke openly and with candor about bringing Law & Order back to American society, it would resonnate, and possibly be enough to nudge them in front of the other candidates.
Several months ago, I did an edition of my videoblog in which I discussed Obama's cowtowing to Illegal Immigrants. And while it's a small (perhaps even insignificant) sample size, I can tell you that, of the 31 "America's Evil Genius" episodes we've done to date, it was that episode that got the most views and the most feedback--the vast majority if it majorly positive. That tells me that this is an issue that is on the forefront of the minds of a lot of voters. Yet, nearly all the GOP candidates talk about it in measured tones--ever fearful of "offending" moderates and perhaps some Hispanics. If just one candiate would take a (pardon my French) "Take No Shit" position on Illegal Immigration, Conservatives, many Independants, and otherwise concerned Americans would get behind them in a hurry!
What, you didn't see my piece on Obama's glad-handing of Illegal Aliens? Whoomp! Here it Is!
But Illegal Immigration isn't the only area where people are seeking an uncompromising, "say what you mean and mean what you say" approach. Recently, during one of the GOP debates, Texas Governor Rick Perry's record of executing more criminals than any other state was brought up by the moderator...and was met with racaus applause by the gallery. And while both the Left and the Mainstream Media castigated that crowd for their reaction ("OMG! They're cheering death!!!" exclaimed the usual Liberal suspects), they missed the point of the meaning of that response. That crowd (and, I must admit, myself watching the debate in my living room) cheered not out of some bloodthirsty sadism, but they (or, shall I say, "we") cheered because Texas' use of "Ultimate Justice" indicates that--unlike many other places--they place a higher priority on the protection of the lives and property of law-abiding citizens than they do on the protection of those who would do us harm. We've seen nearly a century of criminals being "understood", "excused", "explained", or otherwise coddled, and yet law-abiding citizens are no safer than they were before the 20th Century started. A more basic, sensible, and dare I say "Draconian" approach to crime and punishment is what a lot of us believe to be neccesarry in terms of protecting ourselves, our families, and our property.
Given the reactions of many Conservatives on issues of Illegal Immigration, Capital Punishment, or many other issues of Law Enforcement and Crime (as opposed to the stances of Obama and the Left on the same issues), it stands to reason that a candidate who would make "Law & Order" a major theme of their campaign could potentially do quite well. And it wouldn't be without precedent...just go back to 1968. At that time--somewhat similar to today--America seemed to be coming apart at the seems. There was violence and rioting in the streets, a youth culture that was turning their backs on the ideals that built America, and political assassinations had nearly become the norm. Richard Nixon succesfully positioned himself as the "Law & Order" candidate and easily won both the 1968 & 1972 Presidential elections. By appealing to those normal, traditional, law-abiding citizens (which Nixon referred to as the "Silent Majority"), Nixon had great electoral success.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a Nixon fan (Between things like Price Controls and the establishment of the EPA, Richard Nixon was about as Conservative as Lindsey Lohan is cellibate). However, speaking strictly in terms of political strategy, Nixon proved that an appeal to Law & Order during a time of cultural chaos can be a rather succesful way to win an election or two. Much like '68, America is in a time of cultural chaos once again. And once again, there is a "Silent Majority" of normal, traditional, regular, law-abiding Americans who not only can be reached, but are chomping at the bit to go to the ballot box and correct this situation (The only difference is that, today, that "majority" is not as "silent" as it used to be).
A secondary focus on Law & Order (combined with a solid primary focus on the economy) could be just what the doctor ordered for one of these myriad of GOP candiates to break out of the pack, overtake Mitt Romney, and go on to beat Obama and get our nation back on the right track. The time is ripe for one of you to emerge.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
What's *really* deplorable about Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s Rhetoric
By now, most of you are familiar with the comments of Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who recently stated in reference to The Tea Party, that he'd like to help Barack Obama "...take these sons of bitches out". Now, almost every Conservative within the last couple of days has taken offense to these comments, and has pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of the Left using rhetoric of this nature after trying to paint the Right with the same brush during the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy.
However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.
I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.
So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.
However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.
Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.
To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.
Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.
Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.
However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.
Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.
And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.
However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.
I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.
So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.
However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.
Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.
To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.
Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.
Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.
However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.
Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.
And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
John Edwards was right (sort of)...there really ARE two Americas!
Remember John Edwards? He was the perpetual Democratic Presidential candidate who slept around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocked up a minimally attractive staffer. But, back before all of the scandal, he was a rising power in the Democratic party...many saw him as a future "face" of the Democratic party, and perhaps even the heir apparent to Bill Clinton (which, in retrospect, should have been our first clue that he'd end up sleeping around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocking up a minimally attractive staffer...hindsight really is 20/20, I suppose).
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Explaining England's Riots...and those coming to America
Some quotes from some of the hoodlums that are currently rioting in England:
"This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth,"
"There's been tension for a long time. The kids aren't happy. They hate the police,"
"It's us versus them, the police, the system,"
"The people that run this country, they got money, they are rich, they got nice houses. They don't care about poor people."
(Quotes taken from the following articles): http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/uk-pm-recalls-parliament-for-london-riot-crisis/6274372/#ixzz1UlmMc7Bl
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-riot-contrast-idUKTRE7785XQ20110809
Class warfare. Disrespect for mainstream Society and Authority. Vilification of the Wealthy. A misplaced sense of entitlement that the "haves" somehow owe something to the "have nots", simply because those have nots are breathing are and taking up space.
All are the stated reasons of the rioters in England this week. All are also among the primary tenants of the American Left for the better part of the last century (tenants that have been reinforced by Academia, Intelligentsia, and Popular Culture for as long as any of us have been alive).
Can America be far behind England?
When people begin to believe that wealth is seen as a badge of nefariousness and not accomplishment...when people begin to believe that they are owed an education or an opportunity...when people believe that they are entitled to health care or other basic needs not because they themselves have worked for it and earned it, but instead because it's the "duty" of someone "more fortunate" to provide it for them while receiving nothing in return...when these types of attitudes gain traction in a society, then that society faces it's biggest threat. The very pillars and structure that have girded the society for centuries, that have fueled achievement, innovation, and success, and that have helped to protect the world from evil, are under assault internally any time that these attitudes begin to take hold.
Am I talking about England, or America?
I'm talking about both.
We have a President and a Democratic party who refers to the wealthy as "those most fortunate among us" rather than "those most accomplished among us". A President and a Democratic Party who continues to promote the myth that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" in taxes, despite the fact that the top half of our earners pay 97% of our taxes. A President and a Democratic Party who's main strategy in all elections is to pander to that half of the nation who pay no taxes, take advantage of our social programs, and contribute nothing to our society--all while justifying the victimhood claimed by those to whom they are pandering.
A President, a Democratic Party, and a Left-Wing machine that has promoted, encouraged, and fanned the flames of the very destructive attitudes that have England currently engulfed in flames. After multiple generations during which the American Left has fostered and grown these destructive attitudes, one must look to situations like the recent attacks at the Wisconsin State Fair (not to mention the rampant crime in our urban areas) and ask one logical question:
How much longer before similar ideals and attitudes engulf America in flames?
"This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth,"
"There's been tension for a long time. The kids aren't happy. They hate the police,"
"It's us versus them, the police, the system,"
"The people that run this country, they got money, they are rich, they got nice houses. They don't care about poor people."
(Quotes taken from the following articles): http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/uk-pm-recalls-parliament-for-london-riot-crisis/6274372/#ixzz1UlmMc7Bl
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-riot-contrast-idUKTRE7785XQ20110809
Class warfare. Disrespect for mainstream Society and Authority. Vilification of the Wealthy. A misplaced sense of entitlement that the "haves" somehow owe something to the "have nots", simply because those have nots are breathing are and taking up space.
All are the stated reasons of the rioters in England this week. All are also among the primary tenants of the American Left for the better part of the last century (tenants that have been reinforced by Academia, Intelligentsia, and Popular Culture for as long as any of us have been alive).
Can America be far behind England?
When people begin to believe that wealth is seen as a badge of nefariousness and not accomplishment...when people begin to believe that they are owed an education or an opportunity...when people believe that they are entitled to health care or other basic needs not because they themselves have worked for it and earned it, but instead because it's the "duty" of someone "more fortunate" to provide it for them while receiving nothing in return...when these types of attitudes gain traction in a society, then that society faces it's biggest threat. The very pillars and structure that have girded the society for centuries, that have fueled achievement, innovation, and success, and that have helped to protect the world from evil, are under assault internally any time that these attitudes begin to take hold.
Am I talking about England, or America?
I'm talking about both.
We have a President and a Democratic party who refers to the wealthy as "those most fortunate among us" rather than "those most accomplished among us". A President and a Democratic Party who continues to promote the myth that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" in taxes, despite the fact that the top half of our earners pay 97% of our taxes. A President and a Democratic Party who's main strategy in all elections is to pander to that half of the nation who pay no taxes, take advantage of our social programs, and contribute nothing to our society--all while justifying the victimhood claimed by those to whom they are pandering.
A President, a Democratic Party, and a Left-Wing machine that has promoted, encouraged, and fanned the flames of the very destructive attitudes that have England currently engulfed in flames. After multiple generations during which the American Left has fostered and grown these destructive attitudes, one must look to situations like the recent attacks at the Wisconsin State Fair (not to mention the rampant crime in our urban areas) and ask one logical question:
How much longer before similar ideals and attitudes engulf America in flames?
Monday, August 1, 2011
A new addition to the America's Evil Genius empire!
Since February, I've produced and hosted the "America's Evil Genius" political webcast on Youtube. The webcast has spurred lots of conversation, debate, and controversy, and has been quite successful in terms of being on the forefront of Conservative thought in America. Therefore, as a bit of a "supplement" to the web series, I'm launching this companion written blog in which we can continue the discussions that we start on the web series.
Also, some of you may be familiar with my work via another blog I've had for nearly a year entitled "Ask A Conservative White Guy". In the interest of alleviating any confusion or redundancy, I will slowly but surely be scaling back the "Conservative White Guy" blog and will be concentrating my efforts to the America's Evil Genius web series as well as this blog. But fear not--I've imported the best of my columns on the "Ask a Conservative White Guy" blog right over here. So this will serve as your "one stop shop" for the best in Conservative thought and analysis!
Check out the "America's Evil Genius" webcast at www.youtube.com/americasevilgenius
Also, some of you may be familiar with my work via another blog I've had for nearly a year entitled "Ask A Conservative White Guy". In the interest of alleviating any confusion or redundancy, I will slowly but surely be scaling back the "Conservative White Guy" blog and will be concentrating my efforts to the America's Evil Genius web series as well as this blog. But fear not--I've imported the best of my columns on the "Ask a Conservative White Guy" blog right over here. So this will serve as your "one stop shop" for the best in Conservative thought and analysis!
Check out the "America's Evil Genius" webcast at www.youtube.com/americasevilgenius
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Missouri considers amendment to require photo ID at the voting booth--I'm in favor!
With all of the major national stories going on right now (Obama producing a birth certificate, Osama Bin Laden being killed, Snooki showing up at Wrestlemania and *not* blowing half the locker room), we sometimes overlook some very important and thought-provoking local stories. So I wanted to highlight such a story today--My home state of Missouri (properly pronounced "Missour-uh", for those of you who are not natives of the "Show Me State") is considering a Constitutional amendment which will require photo ID to be presented when voting.
Link to news story: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-OKs-photo-ID-constitutional-amendment-121144369.html
A bit of background here--back in 2006, a similar law was passed which would have required the photo ID at the voting booth. However, the Missouri Supreme Court struck the law down as being "unconstitutional". Therefore, the State Legislature is going about the business of making such a statute into a Constitutional Amendment, which would keep the State Supreme Court from getting their grubby little hands on it. As of today, the amendment had passed the Senate, passed the House with some changes, and now has to go back to the Senate, and if they pass the amendment in changes, it would appear on the ballot for Missouri voters in 2012.
I'm tremendously encouraged by the prospect of this amendment. Americans are more aware than they've ever been about the possibility of voter fraud--the exposures of ACORN and like-minded organizations has proven that the old phrase, "In Chicago, they say vote early and vote often!" isn't just a joke, it's a reality in many parts of the nation. In addition, we see cases of identity theft each and every day--it seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch similar politically-motivated thieves could use stolen documentation (presently in Missouri, you can vote with "proof" as insignificant as a utility bill or a bank statement) to "stuff the ballot box". Has it happened in Missouri? Not that I'm specifically aware of--but ACORN and the like have proven that the possibility is out there, and I think it makes sense for a state to take action to prevent such a problem before it occurs. In addition, there is a rising concern within our state regarding Illegal Immigration (Interstate 44 which runs through the state has long been a major artery for trafficking both illegal drugs and Illegal Immigrants, and there are pockets of the state where such Immigrants have settled), so such an amendment may be a necessity to keep these Illegals from wrongly voting in our elections.
The Democrats are opposing this amendment (shocking, ain't it?), arguing that such an amendment would adversely affect minorities and the poor from voting. Now, given how minorities and the poor usually vote, my initial (half-joking/half-serious) reaction to that argument is, "Good". However, in taking the argument on it's own merits, I don't see where it holds water. Driver's Licenses aren't exactly uncommon in Missouri, even among minorities and the poor. Unlike some other places in the country, most people in Missouri--even the poorest of the poor--either have a car or have access to some kind of transportation. It's nearly a necessity to be able to drive in this state, because of the large area that both major cities are laid out over, and the large percentage of the population that live in rural areas. In this state, it's extremely rare to run into someone who doesn't drive (even among the poor and the minorities).
I remember about 12 years back or so, I was doing some work for a marketing firm which had a client who had come to Missouri to do some survey work for an upcoming home equity line of credit project. The clients came from San Francisco, and were shocked to find two things about Missouri--first, that homes (and in some rural areas, some very nice homes) could be purchased for under $100,000, and secondly, that even the poorest people and those with the lowest incomes (including our own employees) owned some form of transportation. The look on their faces when they saw our parking lot filled with the cars of our employees--many of which made $7 or $8 an hour in those days--was amazing to me. And their shock was backed up as they moved forward with the survey work around the state. In San Francisco, where the clients had come from, it was rather common for upwardly mobile people--making well over $100K a year--to never own a car and to take either public transportation or taxis wherever they needed to go. However, Missouri isn't like San Fransisco or New York...it's not nearly as compact, therefore the ability to drive is virtually a necessity for anybody who lives here so that they can hold down a job, get their groceries, and undertake the ordinary tasks of life.
So I've told that long story to make the point that a very low number of the "poor" do not have a Driver's License. And for those few that do not, a State-issued Photo Identification card is not difficult to get. So the "inconvenience" that the poor and the minorities might undergo with such an Amendment is negligible, at best. On the other hand, such an amendment would better insure the integrity of Missouri's elections, and help prevent the fraud that exists (and is even prevalent) in other parts of the nation. When you take the partisan rhetoric out of the equation, I do not see what Missouri could possibly "lose" by enacting such an amendment. The alleged disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities put forth by the Democratic party is a red herring--most of them who are legitimate citizens already have driver's licences, and the few that are left can easily get a photo ID that will be acceptable. The potential risk of voter fraud far outweighs the "risk" of disenfranchised voters in Missouri.
Link to news story: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-OKs-photo-ID-constitutional-amendment-121144369.html
A bit of background here--back in 2006, a similar law was passed which would have required the photo ID at the voting booth. However, the Missouri Supreme Court struck the law down as being "unconstitutional". Therefore, the State Legislature is going about the business of making such a statute into a Constitutional Amendment, which would keep the State Supreme Court from getting their grubby little hands on it. As of today, the amendment had passed the Senate, passed the House with some changes, and now has to go back to the Senate, and if they pass the amendment in changes, it would appear on the ballot for Missouri voters in 2012.
I'm tremendously encouraged by the prospect of this amendment. Americans are more aware than they've ever been about the possibility of voter fraud--the exposures of ACORN and like-minded organizations has proven that the old phrase, "In Chicago, they say vote early and vote often!" isn't just a joke, it's a reality in many parts of the nation. In addition, we see cases of identity theft each and every day--it seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch similar politically-motivated thieves could use stolen documentation (presently in Missouri, you can vote with "proof" as insignificant as a utility bill or a bank statement) to "stuff the ballot box". Has it happened in Missouri? Not that I'm specifically aware of--but ACORN and the like have proven that the possibility is out there, and I think it makes sense for a state to take action to prevent such a problem before it occurs. In addition, there is a rising concern within our state regarding Illegal Immigration (Interstate 44 which runs through the state has long been a major artery for trafficking both illegal drugs and Illegal Immigrants, and there are pockets of the state where such Immigrants have settled), so such an amendment may be a necessity to keep these Illegals from wrongly voting in our elections.
The Democrats are opposing this amendment (shocking, ain't it?), arguing that such an amendment would adversely affect minorities and the poor from voting. Now, given how minorities and the poor usually vote, my initial (half-joking/half-serious) reaction to that argument is, "Good". However, in taking the argument on it's own merits, I don't see where it holds water. Driver's Licenses aren't exactly uncommon in Missouri, even among minorities and the poor. Unlike some other places in the country, most people in Missouri--even the poorest of the poor--either have a car or have access to some kind of transportation. It's nearly a necessity to be able to drive in this state, because of the large area that both major cities are laid out over, and the large percentage of the population that live in rural areas. In this state, it's extremely rare to run into someone who doesn't drive (even among the poor and the minorities).
I remember about 12 years back or so, I was doing some work for a marketing firm which had a client who had come to Missouri to do some survey work for an upcoming home equity line of credit project. The clients came from San Francisco, and were shocked to find two things about Missouri--first, that homes (and in some rural areas, some very nice homes) could be purchased for under $100,000, and secondly, that even the poorest people and those with the lowest incomes (including our own employees) owned some form of transportation. The look on their faces when they saw our parking lot filled with the cars of our employees--many of which made $7 or $8 an hour in those days--was amazing to me. And their shock was backed up as they moved forward with the survey work around the state. In San Francisco, where the clients had come from, it was rather common for upwardly mobile people--making well over $100K a year--to never own a car and to take either public transportation or taxis wherever they needed to go. However, Missouri isn't like San Fransisco or New York...it's not nearly as compact, therefore the ability to drive is virtually a necessity for anybody who lives here so that they can hold down a job, get their groceries, and undertake the ordinary tasks of life.
So I've told that long story to make the point that a very low number of the "poor" do not have a Driver's License. And for those few that do not, a State-issued Photo Identification card is not difficult to get. So the "inconvenience" that the poor and the minorities might undergo with such an Amendment is negligible, at best. On the other hand, such an amendment would better insure the integrity of Missouri's elections, and help prevent the fraud that exists (and is even prevalent) in other parts of the nation. When you take the partisan rhetoric out of the equation, I do not see what Missouri could possibly "lose" by enacting such an amendment. The alleged disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities put forth by the Democratic party is a red herring--most of them who are legitimate citizens already have driver's licences, and the few that are left can easily get a photo ID that will be acceptable. The potential risk of voter fraud far outweighs the "risk" of disenfranchised voters in Missouri.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My reactions to the Libyan situation (and some kudos for Obama???? WTF???)
Well, *that* was certainly an eventful weekend, wasn't it?
The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.
My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.
So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.
And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".
America leads. It does not follow.
So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.
To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.
Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.
The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.
My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.
So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.
And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".
America leads. It does not follow.
So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.
To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.
Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)