Friday, January 29, 2010
He's actually advocating something that will create, not destroy, American prosperity.
I'd ask if hell had frozen over, but I'm afraid to find out.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Fahrenheit 451by Ray Bradbury
This book is about censorship and those who ban books for fear of creating too much individualism and independent thought. In late 1998, this book was removed from the required reading list of the West Marion High School in Foxworth, Mississippi. A parent complained of the use of the words "God damn" in the book. Subsequently, the superintendent instructed the the teacher to remove the book from the required reading list.
Also on that list was Twain's Huckleberry Finn (banned for the use of the word "nigger") and Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath (also banned for language--and, likely, by the current administration for its frank depiction of the Great Depression)
Now, a school library in Virginia has pulled Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition. Because she confesses, in her own words, that she has an affair with another young Jew being hidden in the same attic. Yup, she had sex on the attic stairs sometime before the Nazis found and murdered her, and some modern stick-up-the-ass-prude parent thinks it's not fit for modern kids to see a girl from Hitler's Germany stealing a few precious moments to lose her virginity before she dies.
These twits make me sick. They dare to carp about their first amendment rights while they do this in the name of decency and taste.
These actions are no better than what they howl about the left doing to silence conservative opinion.
Nobody has a right not to be offended. And nobody has a right to withhold the right to learn and the right to choose what to read from anybody else.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
"This kind of result is inevitable. Let's be honest, nobody goes to medical school to learn how to kill people. Abortionists are the bottom of the barrel, not just in ethics but also in basic medical skills. As an anesthesiologist I've worked alongside them on non-abortion surgery, and to say their technique scared me is an understatement. For medical people who'd understand the terms: ever seen two hemostats clipped to the sides of a laparotomy to hold the incision open, because the attending surgeon didn't know how to use a Bookwalter? Or a second attending who botched a closure because he was too busy chatting with someone? Yet another attending (all of whom did abortions at the same institution) who did nothing about a ruptured uterus in a laboring woman for an *hour* because she didn't recognize it? Makes me wonder how many malpractice claims they can each get before Risk Management sends them packing."
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Were I 16-19, and competing with people with families for jobs (and not getting one), I'd be posting my name and phone number on bulletin boards in senior centers, supermarkets, libraries, or anywhere else I thought it would get seen, offering to do grocery shopping and such for busy families, little old ladies, or anyone else that didn't want to do their own. I'd also be mowing people's yards, pulling weeds in gardens, or pretty much anything I could think of to earn money for whatever I thought I needed it for.
Today's teenagers either haven't thought things out (to where this option didn't occur to them), or they're too lazy to be worth the minimum wage they'd be paid at the jobs they're trying for.
In this story, we hear about a pair of first-time parents whose baby the hospital has deemed too expensive and troublesome to treat. Rebecka May spent 40 hours in labor, with her baby distressed. When baby Isaiah was born, doctors found that he had his umbilical chord wrapped around his neck, which deprived his brain of oxygenated blood. He's been on life support for all three months of his short life.
A few days ago, the Mays received a letter from the hospital claiming that their son would be removed from his ventilator and feeding tube, because he was brain dead. The Mays successfully sued for a judgement to keep their son on the machines while he's examined by independent experts. They do not believe that he's brain dead--and rightfully so. He may well be behind, but brain dead babies don't react, don't open their eyes, don't move, don't pull their knees up to their chests.
Were it up to Canada's socialized medical providers, he'd be off the machines, and probably starving to death right now.
This is exactly the kind of care we don't want here.
If they take a month, six weeks off, we may well find that the chattering masses forget why it was pissing them off in the first place, and find it rammed up our asses before any of us realize what was happening.
Which is why Chris Dodd wants it to happen.
Monday, January 25, 2010
It won't help; rather, it won't help enough. We're too deeply in debt, both as a nation and as a majority of its private citizens, and it's not just discretionary spending causing problems. It's stimulus spending, the addition of business strangling regulations, the raising of taxes, and the impending collapse of private credit. It's every bad money decision made on every level coming home to roost all at once.
I am not saying that there's no way to stop the avalanche. However, I don't think that the nation has the will to do what needs to be done and to make it stick.
First things first: every current incumbent needs booted out of their seat in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, on both the national and the state level. Every budget needs to be scrapped. Every program--especially the social programs--needs to be scrapped. Social Security needs to be changed. Then, with the money freed up, we need to scrap the politically correct wars we're fighting, and actually fight to win this ongoing war to keep our citizens safe. Once that's done, we need to push hard to pay off all of our multi-trillion dollar foreign debt.
Let's start with the domestic political side of things. Our current crop of congresscritters are pretty much entirely at fault--on both the national and the state level--for our current problems. Before you protest that it only got this bad within the past ten years, let me remind you of something: the current sitting representatives and senators, on the national level at least, have mostly been there for more than the ten years during which the wheels have come off. Robert Byrd, stellar Democrat senator with former ties to the KKK, is a prime example--he's been in place for sixty years. Strom Thurmond, God rest his soul, was an example of a long-serving congresscritter that should have retired long before he did. Teddy Kennedy recently died in his seat after 47 years in the Senate.
That's too long by anyone's count. And these are the ones responsible, through their purchase of votes with tax dollars spent on their constituents--which should have been simply returned to the ones that paid the money in, rather than spread to those who didn't--for today's economy. Contrary to popular opinion, this economy isn't totally Bush's fault. Nor is it totally Obama's fault. Or Clinton's fault. Or Bush I's fault. It's all of them, and none of them, and almost all congress. They need to go.
Many of the current social programs need to be scrapped. I'm not counting Social Security in with that, for various reasons; however, the way it's implemented and managed must change if it's not going to sink the economy all on its own. But that's a different point--right now, I'm talking about the programs that are currently adding debt to and sinking our economy: the ones that fall under the heading of welfare.
There are three huge groups--not individuals, lobbying groups--that are receiving the largest chunk of welfare payments in the United States today. First among these, and longest sucking at the government teat, is Big Farmers. I'm not talking about the family farms that made up the soul of our nation's earliest history, I'm talking about the corporations that benefit from all of the tax exemptions, tax credits, and those lovely little subsidies that keep food prices where the corporations can make the largest profit without the sheeple screaming to high heaven. We have tax subsidies for farmland placed in trust in a "land bank" that's never farmed, to keep the price of food artificially high. We have tax subsidies to grow corn to be used not as food but as ethanol, which happens to reduce cars' gas mileage by a considerable amount. We have tarriffs placed on sugar grown in Central America (though that may have changed if CAFTA has passed) which does nothing but protect American sugar growers' profits by driving up the price artificially. All of this is funded with money stolen from all of us to pay a few corporations that have successfully lobbied for the biggest welfare payments to any group in the country.
Another huge group that are busily sucking on the government teat is the American automakers. This has been a far more recent development--and, since it's been so much in the news lately, I won't really go much into it. However, it does lead me to the last group: unions. All unions have been successfully fighting for their place at the taxpayers' buffet, but the most successful of those has been auto workers' unions, the SEIU, and teachers' unions.
And between them, these groups are breaking the US economy. And they neither need nor deserve the government money handed out without any accountability. I say cut them off. All of them.
I'd say welfare paid out to individuals needs to be scrapped as well, but that's going to have to go by increments. There are too many children that would pay dearly, in the coin of their health if not their lives, for their parents' inability to believe that "Obama money" is actually taxpayer money--income taken from those who'd earned it, and given it to worthless, lazy scum that won't bother to look for a way out of the inner cities. I think the best course would probably be for the federal government to tell the states that they would be cutting off all social program funding, except for a fixed dollar amount that will be going to schools but still be directed by the state, within a year of the decision being passed, and if the states wanted to fund their own, to go right ahead.
I don't count Social Security in with this for various reasons; first and foremost, those drawing on SS have been paying into it for all of their working lives. It's just as much theft to not pay them back as they're perpetrating onto those working and paying into it to fund their checks today. However, it needs to change. All social security payments for those paying in under a certain cutoff age (say, 55) need to be funneled into private accounts--each who pays in gets the exact money he pays in, not his money spent on current retirees with the expectation that his retirement will be funded by his grandchildren working. They sent Bernie Madoff to prison for that.
Just behind the huge corporate welfare programs in terms of dollars spent is the way we're prosecuting the war. We're trying too hard to win hearts and minds amongst a people who hate us. What we need to be doing is removing their ability to hurt us. Ever. We need to wipe out any and all infrastructure, government, and any and all ability to rebuild same. We need an ally in the area to enforce such, and we actually do have a few. India comes to mind--they see us as a recent ally in their war on Islamofacism. They'd do a great job keeping the Muslim hydra under control. So would Israel.
Between the funds freed up by ending corporate welfare and by ending this stupid, needlessly expensive, politically correct conflict, we could probably pay off the national debt, buying back our national security from those who hate us (like China and France). And one of the best ways to make sure we can pay it off quickly and easily is to review and reduce unneeded regulations on businesses (including that fucking stupid one forcing banks to lend to those who cannot or will not pay the money back under the guise of "Community Reinvestment"). Oh, and to cut the tax rates on both businesses (without which, they wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place), and on individuals. If the government doesn't take as large a proportion of my money, I'm willing to work harder, and make a larger amount of money, which in turn, means that the government will get more without raising taxes.
Freezing congress's discretionary spending isn't enough. What needs to be done is a complete reversal of the progressives' march toward socialism. We don't want to go there, and we're tired of being dragged that way, kicking and screaming, by a nobility that our own Constitution refuses to acknowledge.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Recently, I went to a meeting in the small, Midwestern university English department where I teach, and got reminded of one of the main reasons I like teaching online: my tenured colleagues. Though there are a few of them I don’t mind—specifically, the ones that care about teaching their students whatever the class’s content may be, rather than forcing their own pet literary theories and/or on the students in the guise of teaching—I really can’t stand most of them.
And believe me, the feeling is mutual. I’ve become the John Adams of my particular English department
My other half tells me that a lot of the dislike stems from jealousy. I don’t know what it is (though I have my suspicions), but I’ve come up with more new paper ideas and new ways to use technology than the rest of the department put together. For example, many of my colleagues have their students keep a writing journal; however, I’m the first one that has required mine to keep a blog. And read and comment on each other’s blogs every week. My colleagues in the meeting where I unveiled the idea (because I thought they might like to take the assignment and use it in their own classes) absolutely panned it. One couldn’t get past the idea that I’d listed Fox News as a credible news site (despite the fact that they use the same AP stories as CNN and MSNBC). Another said it was nothing but busy work, and “I’d drop your class if I were a student and got this assignment.”
Believe it or not, though, I’ve seen results: I’ve never seen a larger and more rapid improvement in coherence, grammatical correctness, and rational argument than I did last semester. My students told me, in the reflection essay I had them write about blogging, that they worked harder on grammar, sentence, and paragraph structure in their blogs than they do on their graded essays because they were more worried about what their peers thought of their writing than they were about the grade they’d get. When I brought that up in this most recent meeting, my colleagues kind of brushed it off to make fun of Fox News again.
I’ve seen the professional jealousy pop up in another way: my classes usually fill up before any of my colleagues’ classes, some of whom don’t even make the minimum enrollment. A lot of them think it’s because I grade easier than they do, but that’s often pretty much the opposite of the truth. According to my students, they want my class because they actually learn the tools they need for writing for the rest of their classes, rather than just whatever the instructor wants to teach. I’ve had more than one student come to me and ask to transfer into my class because the instructor gets up the first day and tells them that they can’t write about their faith, their political beliefs (if they’re not leftist beliefs), or their personal opinions because the professor doesn’t agree with them, and even if they write a superb paper, they won’t get better than a C because their opinions are wrong.
Case in point: a couple of years ago, I ran into a colleague’s Composition I student crying in the hall outside my class because my colleague told her that her paper sucked because it was too optimistic, badly organized, and didn’t have a thesis statement tying it all together. She was waiting for one of her friends, who was in my Comp I class. Her friend drug her into my classroom and asked me to help her. When I asked to see her paper, I realized that my colleague was right about the lack of organization and of a thesis statement, but I also realized that my colleague had given her no instructions on how to improve the paper she’d written.
So, I helped her. And she turned in the revised version, and got a C because “it was about marriage, and my teacher’s marriage failed, and so she doesn’t believe in marriage, and my paper is too ‘Disney.’” Despite the praise on the improvement in organization, and the addition of a thesis statement tying the whole thing together. And that colleague, when the student enrolled in my Comp II class instead of hers said “I don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t think you’ll learn anything in her class.”
Nice. I’m just glad the student didn’t tell that instructor that the improvement in her class was because I explained the things the student wasn’t understanding and my colleague wasn’t explaining. Otherwise, it likely would have gotten even more unpleasant in the department offices.
Another colleague’s student, who happened to be a friend of mine, walked into my office hours and threw himself into a chair in disgust. Why? Because said colleague was teaching The Scarlet Letter through gender and sexual political theory: she explained, in a class full of conservative Christian students, that the scene in the book where the minister is punishing himself for his hidden sin of adultery (using a flogger on his back in the closet where no one could see him and ask awkward questions) was actually referring to masturbation (something it certainly was not).
These instances have one thing in common: an arrogance bred by the knowledge that they cannot be fired. They’re tenured. I’m not.
Tenure was created to give college professors protection against a superior that doesn’t like them because of the way they teach, because of their personal lives, or because of their politics. I can certainly understand the benefits; however, as an untenured professional, I can definitely also see its downsides.
English departments in general are beginning to be seen by other departments and by the world at large as irrelevant, mostly because tenured individuals are teaching their pet theories and their pet politics instead of the content they’re supposed to be teaching. I’ve heard tenured colleagues complain about teaching composition classes because “there’s no content—how do we teach a class where there’s no content? We have to bring in our theories and politics to give content.” And that’s some of the best of them—the ones that actually try to increase their students’ knowledge. The worst simply assign papers without trying to teach, and pass the students with A’s and B’s because they don’t want to be bothered.
What these tenured idiots don’t seem to realize is that teaching writing—sentence, paragraph, and whole paper structure, organization, development, style, grammar, all of it—is the content. Our students have been coming to us less and less well prepared. Our students have to be taught how sentences work together to form coherent paragraphs, and how coherent paragraphs work together to form a cohesive whole, whether that cohesive whole is a persuasive essay, a narrative, a story, or an explanatory essay. Our students need to be taught that explicitly, not just assigned readings and writings with the assumption that “they’ll pick up what they need to know by reading good writing.” That is simply not so, not for the vast majority of students. Maybe we, who teach composition and literature, learned how to write well from our voracious reading habits, but that’s why we majored in and teach English to start with.
Our department’s tenured idiots are the reason why our department is losing relevance, and the reason why one area of the core curriculum—the section of the humanities requiring six credit hours of literature—has been halved and rolled into another requirement. Before they know it, there will no longer be an English department, because the other departments on campus are going to realize that they can teach their students what they need to know about writing, and do it far better, because they’ll be able to tailor the writing to their discipline. Better, they’ll be able to hire their own, non-tenured composition instructors, and hold the people they employ to a higher standard in teaching writing, rather than take the crap the English department passes off as writing instruction.
I’ve done all I can to reverse the trend, but as a non-tenured adjunct, there really isn’t much I can do. And I’m absolutely ready to bail out and try to get one of the other, saner departments to hire me on as a non-tenured, discipline-specific Composition instructor. I’m tired of dealing with the tenured idiots who haven’t re-evaluated themselves as teachers since they got ahold of the brass ring.
In Texas, there's been a rapist targeting little old ladies. Widows living alone in the country, specifically. The creep cuts the phone lines so they can't even call for help. None have been armed, or had a dog to alert them that something was wrong so they could fight back. Again, said serial rapist would likely have not had as many victims if one had been armed.
And, to reply to any moonbats before they try to whinge that guns don't solve anything--criminals are cowards. If there's a chance the victim might shoot back, they move on to weaker prey.
And to those whose stock response is "Well, the criminal's just going to take the gun and shoot you with it,"--if a large man who's broken into a little old lady's house takes a step towards her when she's frightened, she'll probably shoot him before he gets close enough to take the gun. Again, criminals are cowards. If the chosen victim has a gun, they're going to move on to weaker prey that can't fight back. They're not going to charge a scared little old lady that would shoot them before they get close enough to take her gun.
Those of us who own guns for self defense know that we cannot let the criminals get close, and that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Obama Approval Index: -18
Strongly Approve 25%
Strongly Disapprove 43%
Total Approval: 45%
It's really not surprising. It's not a race thing as racist, isolationist, honestly-Nazi douchebag Pat Buchanan seems to think--Obama's losing ground with almost everyone. 77% of investors see him as anti-business (don't know about that, but he's certainly anti-bank and anti-free-market capitalism--more anti-America in general than anti-business specifically). He's clearly not listened to what the people actually want, as is signaled by the not-surprising-to-the-rational-of-us loss in Massachusetts. America is starting to wake up to see in the harsh morning light of returning sanity what we brought into our bed against the better judgment of many.
Dear Leader may give himself a B+, but the rest of us are giving him an F. Something tells me he won't win 2012. If the Dhimmicrites can shake their lemming urges, they'll put someone against him in the primaries.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Bravo, Judge Keller. You have the highest appreciation of the law-abiding, intelligent, rational public for refusing to hear an appeal that the three-drug lethal injection is cruel, unusual, and inhuman punishment. I hope the board that reviews your case is populated by the intelligent and rational segment of the public, rather than the bleeding-heart, mouth-breathing, pansy-assed, moral-relativistic morons that have been howling for your head.
Not that, you know, the federal government wasn't providing those loans in the first place. That's why student loans, like taxes, do not go away when one files bankruptcy. And, like tax refunds, I will admit that it gripes me that the government has swindled most of the country into thinking that the money they're repaying (and lending) belonged to us in the first place.
Thank God we've already started saving for our son's college fund.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A long, long time ago, the most common belief was that, if you were a good serf, worked hard for your master, and paid your rents, your master would take care of you. The common belief held that the masters, the upper class, the royalty, knew what was best for the commoners, far better than the commoners did.
Sometime before our Revolutionary War, a minority started looking around themselves and realizing that the upper classes did not give half a damn about what was good for the commoners under their care; rather, the only thing the nobility cared about was its own comfort, privileges, and prerogatives. You know, like the prerogative to be the only owners of property. Or the one that permitted them to take half (or more) of what the commoners produced as rent and/or taxes. Or the one that was typically practiced upon subjugated peoples: the perceived “right” to bed women of lower classes, whether or not the wench was willing.
The nobility did not see that the commoners were equally human, with equal rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of their own happiness.
Our founding fathers thought differently. In the words of one of those very wise men: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
What a revolutionary idea! All men are equal! Governments exist to serve the citizenry, not the other way around!
These men were the liberals of their time.
Fast forward some sixty or seventy years. The United States has been a nation for a few decades, and there have been disagreements between the states over whether or not it is right and good for one man to be considered a free citizen who is capable of exercising his rights while another man is considered too foolish to care for himself and his family, and is enslaved “for his own good,” based on nothing more than the color of his skin. Some argue that Thomas Jefferson’s words—“all men are created equal”—do, in fact, count for all men, while others argue that Jefferson was an obvious hypocrite, owning slaves himself, if that was indeed what he meant.
All aspersions of hypocrisy aside, the debate comes down to the upper classes--the nobility, if you will—claiming that they know what’s best for the lower classes, versus the classic liberals who believe that all men are indeed equal, with equal rights and responsibilities in the eyes of God.
Again, a revolutionary idea! Color doesn’t matter any more than class does! The blacks don’t exist simply to serve the whites!
Abolitionists were the liberals of their time, and eventually, the side arguing freedom and equality (and walking the talk) won.
Flash forward about another sixty years, to the start of what’s called the progressive movement. In the early 1900’s, a group decided that all alcohol was bad for people, and tried to convince people to stop drinking.
Needless to say, that didn’t work. So, since people wouldn’t stop drinking voluntarily, the progressiveists decided that they’d simply force people to stop drinking by passing a law. This is the same “we know what’s good for you better than you do” mentality that so defines the nobility, self-styled or otherwise. Thus was born The Noble Experiment of prohibition.
Which failed. Miserably. In fact, it failed so badly that crime skyrocketed, and the amendment forbidding the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages was repealed about thirteen years later.
Again, the nobility forgot to take into account that all men were created equal—and that means that every individual knows what’s best for them. Some choose to care, and to take care of themselves, and some choose to do what feels good at the time, but is destructive to their well-being in the long run.
(I’m really surprised that the progressives advocate promiscuity, ignoring how harmful it is to the bodies, minds, and souls of those who practice it. Not that I really want them poking around in people’s sex lives—it just struck me as an interesting, hypocritical double standard, that likely exists because sex distracts those who pursue it from the encroachments on their liberty.)
Fast forward another ninety years. Today, we see progressives attempting to draw tighter and tighter nooses around our individual liberties, all “for your own good, whether you want it or not.” They’ve succeeded in forcing another type of prohibition upon us, with the losing battle of keeping recreational pharmaceuticals out of people’s hands because of how dangerous they are (thereby making drugs even more dangerous, just as they did bathtub gin in the twenties, and making crime—really vicious, organized crime and other petty crime, both—skyrocket). They want to force everyone onto an absolutely identical insurance plan, one where everyone must be accepted and no one may pay a higher premium than anyone else, regardless of age, health, or lifestyle choices. This will bring about two results: first, the quality of health care will plummet (and since others have gone into why, I won’t bother); and second, our freedoms will be ever-increasingly eroded.
What do I mean by the claim that our freedoms will be eroded? Simple: the government will permit the insurance to raise rates on what the government deems “dangerous lifestyle choices.”
So, what does the government deem a “dangerous lifestyle choice”?
Having a BMI of 26 or higher, whether or not you’re large-framed, you work out, are a professional athlete, have just had a baby and are nursing, or are a regular couch potato. You’ll pay through the nose until you can’t afford it anymore or the government steps in with a live-in nutritionist that strictly rations your calories. You can kiss your steak and potatoes goodbye. They’re not good for you, you know.
Owning firearms. At all. Whether they’re assembled or disassembled, locked away, trigger locked—if you own a gun, you’re going to pay through the nose. Either until you can’t afford it anymore, or until the government bans them as a health risk. Because the law-abiding majority have no need to defend themselves from the lawless minority. And because your gun is just going to jump up and shoot a kid.
Being married. Because being married packs on the pounds, and because being married enslaves women.
(But if you’re gay, you can get married. Oh, heavens forbid the government sanctions anything about the most physically and mentally unhealthy lifestyle choices out there!)
This might not happen immediately. No, the way you boil a frog is you put it in a pan of cold water, and slowly turn up the heat. Frog doesn’t notice if you do it gradually.
Modern progressives have much in common with European nobility during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: though they claim to know what’s best for the “commoners,” all they truly care about is their own gratification. I mean, come on. We see the political Brahmins treating legislative seats as family or party property. We see them lamenting the literacy rates in the public schools while they sabotage any attempt to improve same (because they know that if they don’t, there will likely be a reckoning when better education pays off with the new voters booting their sorry selves out of office). We’ve had progressive presidents who’ve treated women of the non-political “lower classes” the same way the nobility treated their commoners and servants: bedding them wherever, whenever, willing or not. We see no other groups working so hard to force people through legislative fiat to do what they don’t want to do, all “for their own good.”
There are groups that oppose government interfering this much in people’s lives. Those groups—the Libertarians, the tea party activists, the grassroots conservative movements, and militias that the progressives fear so much and label “idiots,” “terrorists” “militias” and the ever-so-popular “teabaggers”—believe that each one of us has the right to make decisions. We, the people, are waking up. We hold these truths to be self evident: that all—men, women, black, white, yellow, red, brown, gay, or straight, rich, or poor—are created equal. Totally equal. With rights given to us by our Creator, not a government we created and consent to being governed by. Those rights include the right to choose our lifestyle, healthy or not, and to choose to buy or not to buy health insurance. We the people believe that we know what’s best for us better than any distant progressivist Brahman political nobility on the East and Left Coasts. We are remembering that they work for us. We are the classical liberals.
And they’re right to fear us.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
This is a blatant red light on mandatory Medicaid. If Dhimmicrites find or create a way to force it through anyway, they're seriously fucked in 2010, much less 2012.
I hope to God the Dhimmicrites don't show us that they've got lemming DNA.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
In other words: shut the fuck up before Sheriff Joe puts you in a tent awaiting deportation. You likely don't have any rights under our Constitution.
I suppose the Dhimmicites are getting desperate trying to distract us from their authoritarian socialist agenda that they're trying to push through legislature.
The animals gang-raping teenage girls out on the Left coast really don't need to be put away--they need to have their parent (probably a single mom for all of them) put away, and they need to be put down.
Anyone who might call me racist for calling what's likely a black gang "animals" should take a look at this: the people born there are treating gangland in LA like it's a game reserve to be toured.
Yeah. Not in this lifetime. Not unless I'm carrying, too.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
It didn't work with Prohibition in the 30's. Well, honestly, it kind of worked--drinking rates dropped, at least--but at a cost most sane people were unwilling to pay: the rise of La Familia. Organized crime.
We are seeing the same results with illegal drugs: criminal syndicates (usually foreign) come in and import and sell drugs illegally. Most (with the obvious exception of marijuana) aren't safe, but since they're illegal, there's no way to regulate the purity and potency of recreational pharmaceuticals. And that doesn't even count all of the crime that, for some strange reason, accompanies the criminals dealing in the drugs.
Honestly, what I'd like to see is a total, across the board legalization of all drugs. With the understanding that anyone who chooses to use said pharmaceuticals will be legally barred from taking advantage of any social safety net program out there . I don't, however, think that that would fly...so, I'm unwilling to see the harder, more damaging and deadly drugs legalized.
Marijuana, however, should be legalized on the same level as tobacco and alcohol: restricted to adults, and possibly taxed out the wazoo, but legal for medical or recreational use.
And, apparently, in holding that opinion, I am in agreement with California for the first time in my entire life.
I guess that explains the likelihood of a double-dip recession. Or a Depression. Whatever you want to call this ever-accelerating slide down into the lake of burning socialism.
I think we can safely say that this is the administration's theme song.
Monday, January 11, 2010
I've never seen Israel do something designed to enhance their nation's security that didn't work. They're building a barrier along their southern border with Egypt. To prevent illegal immigration, and illegal workers from taking jobs and/or committing acts of terrorism.
Something tells me that it'll work for them. They have the testicular fortitude to enforce it.
Now they're telling us that it's cyclic, and that we're heading into a thirty year cooling trend?
Wait a minute...this is put out by honest-to-God climatologists, not by the Worldwide Church of Environmentalism. They have real evidence backing them up, instead of data masturbated to show the desired results.
So, this is a typical sixty year cycle--thirty years hot, thirty years cold. Good to know.
The feds have been quoting an unemployment figure hovering around 9.5% for a while. That number doesn't include those who are underemployed (i.e., people working part-time jobs to bring in any money to stretch their emergency savings), those who've given up looking for work, nor seasonal employment. Nor the people employed short term for the census. According to the Brits, who actually figure in those who are underemployed or who've given up, the real number of unemployed is closer to 17.3%. I suspect if you figure in the seasonal workers (who would have just been laid off), and the temporary census work (which will be done in the first half of this year), the number will be between 20-25%.
The economy is not going to recover with government intervention. The last time that was attempted on as large a scale turned into The Great Depression: a major recession that started to hit in late 1929 but had started to recover in early 1931, was worsened by a government trying to rush recovery. Then, FDR stepped in with his New Deal, and with private-enterprise-choking regulations, lengthening recovery time by more than another decade. It took the huge sacrifices by the American citizens combined with an even bigger surge into manufacturing to support a war footing, and the federal government being distracted from the domestic front by WWII for our economy to recover last time.
This time, I don't think a nation trained, pruned, and shaped into an entitlement culture will have the same spiritual fortitude to make the necessary sacrifices as a nation that will be necessary to restore our economy to its robust past. I don't think our government would respond to another Pearl Harbor with the same determination to protect the nation's citizenry and sovereignty as even the New Deal Progressives had.
I think this is going to end up with blood spilled, a government that no longer rules by the will of the productive majority toppled, and a sadder but still not wiser nation rising in its place.
And I pray that every corrupt member of the chattering political class that think they rule us, no matter what party they're from, ends up hung by the neck until they're dead, dead, dead. Publicly. Because there is no other way to properly deal with treason.
And somehow, suggesting that someone whose father was from Africa isn't black enough because his skin is lighter, and because he don't talk black dialect (unless he wants to), isn't racist (even if his voters disagree). Nor is suggesting that he should be serving coffee to those running the country, rather than being the one in the hot seat (the comment may have gotten Kennedy pissed off, but it was never brought to the media's attention). Nor yet a white man saying that he's blacker than the black man in the oval office.
I am not pro-Obama. I don't like the son of a bitch. I don't trust him as far as I could throw a tank. I don't want him in the White House. I don't give a damn what color his skin is, only the color of his soul.
My point is that I'm tired of the double standards. Conservatives are branded racists for shouting "You lie!" at a politician (and everybody knows you can tell when a politician is lying by whether or not their lips are moving). Yet liberals? Nope. Never called a racist for pretty much anything, even when they call then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice a "house nigger."
To tell the truth, by comparison with the rest of the world, America isn't even slightly racist. And if you look, really look, for honest-to-God racism, you'll see less white-on-black (or white-on-any-other-other-color) racism in this country than you'll see blacks being racist against everybody, including themselves.
Everybody just needs to sit down, shut up, and stop the hypersensitive accusations of racism where it doesn't exist. Maybe then the rest of us could do something about stopping racism where it does exist.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Hey, I have an idea! Let's put him in charge of Homeland Security! That way, this would have a swift stop put to it.
Sheriff Joe would be using profiling, since not all Muslims terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. He remembers something that CAIR wants our politicians to forget: the people who are trying to harm us are not United States citizens, and do not have the rights of a United States citizen.
Good for her. Speaking as a survivor, I wish my mother had had the guts to do likewise.
Amber Cummings is a hero, in my books.
She's right. Should this right stinker of a bill that makes up mandatory Medicaid be passed before the State of the Union address, every Dhimmicrite that voted for the mess and is up for re-election will be--not may be, will be--replaced. With little provisos written in like the one that targets married couples with an effective tax hike, there's no possibility that the public won't vote the current critters out.
One of their own, a rather idealistic twit--Joe Sestak--blames the Dhimmicrite leadership: "'They said it would be transparent. Why isn't it?' said Sestak, a Delaware County Democrat, in a meeting with Tribune-Review editors and reporters. 'At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment. We aren't transparent, not just to the public but at times to the members.'"
What he might not realize (if he's truly that idealistic, though he might be cynically trying to position himself as an honest believer) is that, should the Dhimmicrite leadership be as transparent as they promised they would be, support for the bill would not be there in the conservative wing of the Dhimmicrite party.
The Dhimmicrites really are damned if they do pass this monstrosity, and damned if they don't. If they manage to get mandatory Medicaid shoved up our collective ass, we will replace them with congresscritters who'll remember (for a while, at least) who they work for. If it's not passed, they'll still likely be replaced, but some of them will be replaced with Dhimmicrites that are further left than Che Guevara.
Who knows? This may be what's needed to have an amendment added to the constitution calling for term limits for all congresscritters.