The all inclusive and tolerant nature of the left.
One of Michigan’s 16 electors who will be called upon to cast a vote validating the election of Donald Trump in the Electoral College has testified on video that he and others in the state are receiving “dozens and dozens of death threats” from Hillary Clinton supporters urging them to switch their votes to Clinton.
On Dec. 19 the Electoral College will convene to cast their votes for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, with each state’s electors pledged to vote for the candidate elected on Nov. 8 in their state.
But more than a dozen states have no laws making it illegal for the electors to change their vote while others have only a minor penalty such as a fine for doing so. If Clinton’s supporters can get enough of the 163 electors from states where Trump both won and votes can be legally switched on Dec. 19, Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the United States.
Hillary’s Already Picking Out The New Rug For The Oval Office
The Attorney General said yesterday, in part: “After the events of this week, Americans across our country are feeling a sense of helplessness, of uncertainty and of fear.”
Brussels Attacked by Islamic Fascists – Day 2
So guess what Fox News is reporting this morning.
I’ll tell ya.
They reported that ‘they’ are suggesting that to cope with the effects of future airport bombings that airports should be redesigned to better handle the effects of multiple bomb blasts.
That’s right. We’re doing it all wrong. Our airports are the problem.
Nothing was said about our unwillingness to eradicate, to annihilate ISIS and Islamic fascists forever.
I think it should be clear by now. Our “big thinkers” are saying that ISIS/Islamic Fascism isn’t the real problem. They are saying that our civil defenses are too soft in addition to our need for programs to condition civilians to conduct themselves accordingly (see something, say something) and expect these bombing inconveniences now and then.
Americans need to understand that it is much easier for our representatives and senators to adopt this approach compared to a military campaign to eradicate Islamic Fascism once and for all.
The reason is simple.
We don’t complain as loudly about travel inconveniences as we do about military operations.
The question is now this: Who has their head up their ass? The “big thinkers”, congress or the American people?
While you ponder that, ponder what’s coming next.
ISIS has now promised a larger attack on Belgium.
Brussels Attacked by Islamic Fascists
Islamic terrorists attacked Brussels Airport today in a series of blasts that have killed at least 34 people and injured 170 across the city. The attacks occurred blocks away from the headquarters of the European Union.
This is just one more in a long series of attacks that are now striking the soft underbelly of Europe
After following terrorism since the 1970 Palestinian hijackings of five commercial airliners to Jordan where they were eventually blown up, my observations to date follow.
Our politicians believe terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Some are still in denial about terrorism being a direct threat to their country, even after letting hordes of them in unchecked.
Our politicians will seize upon the “Let no crisis go to waste” policy and use it to militarize local LE. It’s already happening.
Policy makers will go into isolationist mode and draw down military forces in the battle zone.
We are heading toward a day when nations will cede sovereignty and security to a world security apparatus.
Why? Because it’s much easier for the politicians to do so.
With our current attitudes and policies, terrorists will eventually win.
Without a sea change in the way Americans view what we are up against, my advice is simple. Buy a rug, because eventually, you’ll be forced to face Mecca 4 to 5 times a day while giving praise to Allah.
In the meantime, ponder the following.
The talking heads and retired military are calling out the fact that our political and military leadership do not understand thd nature of Islam.
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters said, “It’s not about winning their hearts and minds, its about splattering their hearts and brains across the battlefield.”
Why liberals don’t want us to have a gun
This post is about the comments that fall out of the mouths of people who don’t believe Americans have a God given right to protect themselves.
The video is presented by The Blaze.
You really have to wonder if these people actually listen to themselves. Either way, it is difficult not to be left with a low opinion regarding their collective IQ, which indicates these people couldn’t have arrived at their points of argument on their own. They’ve been fed.
If they were really involved with understanding the problem, and I don’t believe they are, they would eventually come across the data point that tells them that when threatened and without the ability to defend themselves and loved ones, they would be dead long before police arrived.
Police rarely prevent the murder. Only comic book heroes can do that. Law enforcement (key phrase, there) only show up after the fact. So, to their argument about 30k or so gun victims, the counter argument should then be “If only those poor souls had been armed and trained.” At least then there would be a fighting chance for a different outcome.
A few days ago, April 17,2014 to be exact, Bloomberg (Michael Bloomberg’s business) published what they call “Bloomberg Visual Data” titled “How Americans Die”, by Mathew C. Klein. It presents data in a graphical form showing, well, how Americans die. One page in particular caught my eye and I wondered about the left hand knowing what the right was doing. As many probably know, Michael Bloomberg is no fan of gun ownership and even committed $50 million in an effort to challenge the NRA with gun control legislation. Honestly, I couldn’t make this up if I tried. The chart is presented below.
The data presented by this chart renders the woman’s argument (in the video) about 30,000 gun deaths each year as either a lie or, at best, deliberate disinformation. If neither of those premises are true, then she’s either making stuff up as she goes or, again, she’s being fed.
With this data, the question should now be about why these protestors and others of their ilk aren’t absolutely livid over the fact that drug induced deaths are above 40,000 per year and rising above deaths by automobile and suicide, the latter of which is also on the rise.
I know they can’t be livid about automobile deaths and diligently working to ban the automobile, because then they wouldn’t be able to drive to their next protest. However, we shouldn’t expect that from preventing liberal politicians from passing legislation that limits the number of passengers to only two. If you’re like me, now you’re recalling that Colorado, a very liberal state, recently legalized marijuana. This is where I reach for that duct tape.
The following articles illustrates what happens when people are allowed to protect themselves. The theme is the same; good people stay alive, assholes die or go to jail after a visit to the hospital.
Home intruder shot dead despite several warnings from homeowner
Detroit man shoots at intruders, killing one in latest home invasion
Attempted Intruder Shot Dead By 17-Year-Old In Hominy, Officials Say
Florida Family Fatally Shoots Home Intruder: Police
Robber shot dead by jewelry store owner
Armed robber shot dead by businessman
Coming to its senses?
By any measure, Chicago has the most stringent laws against gun control in the country. In spite of this, FBI statistics released in September of 2013 show that Chicago passed New York as America’s murder capital in 2012 despite the Windy City only having a third of the Big Apple’s population.
Chicago police are reporting that the murder rate for the first quarter of 2014 is the lowest it’s been in more than 50 years, which gun advocates are attributing to a concealed carry law passed in Illinois last year.
Of course, Chicago Police Superintendant Garry McCarthy says the opposite is what’s reducing crime: police have recovered 1,300 illegal guns during the first three months of 2014.
If Chicago’s efforts are the true cause of the dramatic drop, then what the hell were they doing during the previous 50 years? I suspect the truth lies nearer to the concealed carry laws that serve to give would-be criminals second thoughts about perpetrating their next crime. Certainly, having the police get off their doughnut injected ass doesn’t hurt, either, but I find it odd that suddenly their efforts are are the reason. The claim looks more like an attempt at avoiding being embarrassed.
It has happened – again!
1 dead, 11 hurt after car drives into crowd on LA boardwalk
The driver of a car that struck 12 people on the Venice Beach boardwalk in California, killing one and hospitalizing nine others early Saturday evening, did so deliberately, according to witnesses.
One witness told CBS LA that the driver was “out for blood.” Another estimated that the car was going 60 miles per hour. The car was still moving as it drove out of sight of first responders and the injured.
We MUST have car control laws to prevent these senseless and random acts of murder. I don’t understand why, in this modern era of civilization, we have to have cars when we have mass transit. The solution is so obvious and if we could save but one child, it would be worth it.
Police suspect that the car involved was either a Dodge Charger or Avenger. With names of cars like this, it isn’t difficult to understand the motivation it creates for people to do these things. Also, what do you want to bet the car was black? You see, that paint scheme is always applied to things that bring harm to people. I’ll bet it even had handles on it … and a device to make it quieter… like a silencer. Those poor souls couldn’t even hear it coming.
From Clown Cars to Moon Shots
The other day, a friend of mine asked me what I thought of Dr. Benjamin Carson. For those who don’t know, Dr. Carson is a retired and rather famous neurosurgeon. He recently addressed the National Prayer Breakfast where he made news for his criticism of Mr. Obama’s policies in general and specifically, for Obama Care. You can read the story here where there is a video of Dr. Carson’s speech.
I told my friend that I like Carson’s point of view. He shows he is willing to go toe-to-toe with Obama’s principles. However, at the end of the day, he’s a doctor. He knows not of the ways of politics and campaigning and it may eat him. Time will tell.
My friend then asked what I thought about him forming a third party.
I am no fan or supporter of a 3rd party system, no matter who steps up to form one. We should instead learn the lesson taught us by recent history when Ross Perot split the vote away from George H. W. Bush and allowed Bill Clinton to win. It’s a losing proposition.
Instead, we should concentrate on how to reconstitute the Republican Party which has allowed itself to be undercut and discredited by the left. The GOP has been a dismal failure on commanding the national dialog and delivering a message that can garner votes.
In addition, there is a bigger problem working against the GOP. Simply put, America has been subverted. That process has produced several generations of voters who believe they have a right to access to the treasury. From that same pool come the politicians who also believe they have that right. The GOP has a long and bumpy road ahead of it.
It was at this point I began to tell my friend about a recent article written by David A. Stockman. Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985 and the author, most recently, of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.” Mr. Stockman’s piece was very well written and also garnered some criticism from both the left and the right. The piece describes the current state of America, how we got that way and offers a remedy for our financial and political systems because these systems are indeed wrecked. Stockam’s point is that if we’re going to get anything done, it’s going to ….
… require a drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending.
It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms.
It would require, finally, benching the Fed’s central planners, and restoring the central bank’s original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism.
As it turns out, this the the very issue that I have been rattling around in my head for awhile now, and it relates to my current vision of America as being a clown car aimlessly bouncing around in the desert, changing direction on every impact of a rock or armadillo. The issue takes the form of a few simple questions; “Where do we want America to be in 20-50 years? What should our priorities be and how do we get there when we change captains every 4-8 years? ” Remember, it took a mere 40 years to get where we are today. We should be looking for answers to these questions and if we’re going to solve the problems facing us we are going to need a national policy that takes on characteristics of a moon shot.
Have Our Chickens Finally Come Home?
Amazing, isn’t it? Right away, I have two thoughts.
First, people such as those presented in the video, are demonstrating an inability to process truth even when the facts are carefully laid out before them. Their minds have been corrupted to the point where that capability has been taken from them. They are no longer independent thinkers capable of engaging in critical analysis. In a sense, they are truly drones, zombies, the walking unconscious.
As a visible case for this point, in Greece, the populace run into the streets to protest and riot against austerity measures designed to pay off their astronomical level of debt. In effect, these people are protesting against the outcome of their own design, the result of generations who voted for politicians who have promised them benefits they could never afford. Their chickens have come home.
Second, Nikita Kruschev was absolutely correct when he addressed the Western Ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956, where he said the following:
We will take America without firing a shot…….We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. “We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.
Conclusion
I would have to say the process of subversion which has produced a population unable to process and accept truth has been very, very successful. In addition, our education system has performed superbly at keeping the voting population as dumb as a box of left-handed crayons while at the same time the media expertly performed their duties by continuing to pump pablum into the brains of American voters.
Securing our Borders to Secure our Economy
First, how crazy are you?
I doubt any sane person believes that sleeping with their home’s front and back door wide open is wise and it is certain they wouldn’t go to work the next morning leaving their garage door open. It’s not only dangerous, the thought process involved for someone to deliberately leave their home unsecured reflects an unhealthy mind. It’s certainly no way to run a home but without adequate borders, this is what we’ve been doing with our country.
A recap of our current effort to secure our home
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was first introduced on September 13 of 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). The bill called for the construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.
Border barrier consisting of double chain link and barbed wire fences with light and infrared camera poles
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 voting “for” with 138 against. Days later, the Senate passed the bill with 80 voting “for” with 19 against. Most Republicans voted in support of the Fence Act while most Democrats voted against it. In October of 2006, President George W. Bush signed The Secure Fence Act of 2006 into law.
In January of 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border. The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.
By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.
In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced for the second time his “Finish the Fence” amendment which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.
Growing State Budget Deficits
The left continues to fail to understand that if our country does not get our borders secured, state budget deficits will continue to grow, threatening our economy and our ability to recover from the recession by further burdening taxpayers with more taxes.
For information regarding state costs of illegal immigrants and state education budget short-falls, see Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red.
The IRS is an Enabler of Illegal Immigrants
As for the left’s argument that illegal immigrants pay taxes, a recent audit by the Treasury Department found that $4.2 billion per year is handed out to illegal aliens from a program called the Child Tax Credit/Additional Child Tax Credit. The study found that the IRS did not require citizenship documentation for this tax credit. This study and others also pointed to widespread fraud involving other ‘refundable tax credits’ such as the ‘First Time Homebuyer Credit’ and the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’ which is available to low income parents, as well as identity theft involving stolen Social Security numbers.
Illegal aliens use the IRS to collect additional money from the federal government, in additional to other programs they collect from including Obamacare. The IRS should not double as a welfare program and the ‘refundable tax credit’ program should be ended entirely, but it is even more absurd for the normally strict IRS to turn a blind eye to illegal aliens collecting welfare through this system.
Governor Perry’s view on a Border Fence for America
From Julia Preston, “Some Cheer Border Fence as Others Ponder the Cost”, “The New York Times”, October 18, 2011
Perry said that building a border-length fence would take “10 to 15 years and $30 billion” and would not be cost-effective.
In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line.
The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.
Imagine, 22.4 billion to secure America. Contrasting this against the $787 billion Stimulus bill, which analysts are saying (as predicted) hasn’t stimulated squat, we then see we could have built a border around America just over 40 times. We don’t hear much of an outrage about the wasteful failure of the so-called “stimulus” but you will always hear the left whine over 22 billion because it’s too much money to spend to protect America.
Political Views Are Reflected in Brain Structure
New scientific information show liberals are able to take conflicting information and “cope” with it better than conservatives. According to the study, liberals are likely to see threatening and conflicting sets of data as opportunities to explore.
For this reader, the study sheds some light on how liberals tend to make decisions which can lead to trouble. A current case illustrating this is represented by the nation’s astronomical debt level and the inability of liberals to recognize these fiscal conditions as a threat to our nation’s well-being. For them these conditions are viewed as an opportunity to explore further, a tack that does not lead to the correct actions required by these conditions. This is further represented by their willingness to continue to spend money which exacerbates the situation further.
On the other side, conservatives recognize the situation for what it is. It is viewed as threatening or upsetting to a desired and sound state, which is fiscal responsibility sans exploratory policies (liberal adventurism) that are dangerous to the country’s well being.
The irony here which is often repeated where liberals are involved, is that while liberals see the demise of their social programs as destructive to the country, the pursuit of such policies will actually deliver to everyone what they hope to avoid.
On the contrary, following sound fiscal policies, i.e. less spending, lowered tax rates, lowered federal debt ceilings and the reduction of entitlement programs (unsustainable access to the treasury), will actually give them what we all want, which is a healthy country whose populace are not enslaved by its government. With such an environment, everyone is in a better position to realize their own potential to succeed.
Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.
Based upon the findings, it suggests liberals need to employ conservative thinking to save them from themselves. But it also sheds some light on why liberals are fond of viewing conservatives as unwilling to “progress” as they would want and why they generally view the Republican Party as the party of “No!”.
The other message here is that liberals cannot be reasoned with because they are inherently incapable of seeing the other side which is often pointing them to the error of their thinking.
The full story can be read here.
Some Elected Democrats are Abandoning their Party
Hard Lessons from Mid-Terms and National Census
The Democrat’s devastating mid-term defeat resulted in the Republicans gaining more than 60 seats in the House. The 2010 census shows that Americans also voted with their feet by abandoning Democrat controlled states in favor of states governed by Republicans or embracing more conservative policies.
What is clearly apparent is what drove voters in the mid-term election cycle. By and large their votes showed anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat attitudes. In addition, they were motivated further by concerns about the jobless recovery, lingering recession, a perceived lack of focus on job creation and preservation, as well as the perception of government overreaching (health care reform) and wasteful spending (bailouts, stimulus). While the Republican Party leadership was lacking in its conviction that it shared the same conservative viewpoint the abandonment of which angered so many conservative Americans, the Tea Party movement embraced these themes and when one looks at the incoming Republican freshman class, although not homogenous, it will generally be large, eager, and opposed to the size and intrusiveness of government.
The over-arching message given to the Democrats by the mid-terms and the census is that America in general is rejecting liberal policies which are being understood and judged as the reasons behind the bulk of the nation’s problems. The other message is that if you’re a Democrat seeking reelection, you had better find a way to distance yourself from the policies embraced by the Democrat Party to which you belong.
Conservatives in Democrat Clothing, Switching Ideology or Subverting their Enemy?
In the South, a number of Democrats elected to state offices have switched parties. At least 18 Democratic state legislators have jumped to the Republican Party and officials from both parties say more defections are likely in coming months.
While Democrats in other states are abandoning their party, most of the defections are occurring in Southern states. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas have already seen cross-overs with more being anticipated.
In Georgia, where Republicans control all state offices as well as the legislature, nine Democratic legislators—eight representatives and one senator—have changed sides, strengthening solid GOP majorities. On the local level, even a black county commissioner who was once national president of the College Democrats of America has switched.
In Texas, where officials aren’t allowed to formally change parties until January, Republicans expect to pick up two state representatives and “around a dozen” county officials, judges and commissioners, state party spokesman Chris Elam said.
With the continuing shift away from the failed ideology of the left as shown by the mid-terms and census, the exodus of elected officials who abandon their party’s policies to embrace more conservative policies of their opposition creates a new set of questions regarding their loyalty to their beliefs and about their true intentions. If we can take the outcry from the left over Bush’s Patriot Act and the silence they observe about the intrusive policies of Obama’s TSA and policies which are exacerbating economic recovery it is apparent liberals generally do not like to stick to their own principles. Movements seen by their leadership only serve to enforce that view. On the other hand, perhaps the simple explanation is that defecting Democrats are beginning to recognize the failure of their policies and are abandoning their political belief system, but I really doubt that point of view.
There is yet another point of view; the population making their way out out of the rust belt’s liberal states and into the sun belt’s conservative states may represent the very voting base causing the rust belt in the first place. After all, they’ve crapped in their bed, now they’re looking for a new place to stay.
Voting with their feet – 2010 Census shows failure of Democrat Party Policies
What the 2010 Census Is Telling Us
The results of the U.S. 2010 census have been published and it shows the growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The declining U.S. growth rate since 2000 is due partly to the economic meltdown in 2008, which brought U.S. births and illegal immigration to a near standstill compared with previous years.
The 2010 census also shows the population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states.
Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.
Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The 2010 census results are used to distribute more than $400 billion in annual federal aid and will change each state’s Electoral College votes beginning in the 2012 presidential election. The population shift will affect 18 states when the 113th Congress takes office in 2013.
For the first time in its history, Democratic-leaning California will not gain a House seat after a census.
States carried by Barack Obama VS states carried by John McCain
In 2008, President Barack Obama lost in Texas and most of the other states that are gaining House seats. He carried most of the states that are losing House seats, including Ohio and New York. In all, those that voted for Barack Obama will get half a dozen less. States that voted for John McCain in 2008 will get 6 more electoral votes in 2012 .
Looking back to the previous election, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.
Big Gains For Texas and More Lessons About Taxes
Texas’ population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).
Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.
There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.
Growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.
Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.
The Biggest Loser, Detroit Michigan – the showcase for leftist policies
The 2010 census shows Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade having lost .06% of its population since 2000. This report helps to explain why.
The loss means that in 2012 there will be one less lawmaker fighting for the state. It also means less money for statewide federal programs like cash assistance, education, childcare, and health care. It is without doubt that a liberal will tell you it is a time when they need the handouts the most.
Nevada gains but may lose
The state with the largest population growth was Nevada with just over 35%. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped author and then ram-rod the Health Care bill through congress, hails from Nevada. It will be interesting to see what the 2020 census will show for this state.
States with net gain in congressional seats:
* Texas, plus 4 (from 32 to 36)
* Florida, plus 2 (from 25 to 27)
* Arizona, plus 1 (from 8 to 9)
* Georgia, plus 1 (from 13 to 14)
* Nevada, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* South Carolina, plus 1 (from 6 to 7)
* Utah, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* Washington, plus 1 (from 9 to 10)
States with net loss in congressional seats:
* New York, minus 2 (from 29 to 27)
* Ohio, minus 2 (from 18 to 16)
* Illinois, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)
* Iowa, minus 1 (from 5 to 4)
* Louisiana, minus 1 (from 7 to 6)
* Massachusetts, minus 1 (from 10 to 9)
* Michigan, minus 1 (from 15 to 14)
* Missouri, minus 1 (from 9 to 8 )
* New Jersey, minus 1 (from 13 to 12)
* Pennsylvania, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)
Scientists Find ‘Liberal Gene’
Scientists at UCSD, Harvard have determined what I have suspected for a long, long, time. A given individual’s tendency to adopt liberal values with the accompanying mindset is based upon a genetic predisposition.
According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, ideology is affected by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.
The researchers determined that people “with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults.” However, the subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.
“It is the crucial interaction of two factors — the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence — that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.
The study was led by UCSD’s James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
“These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.
The conclusion is that without this gene, a person’s tendency to adopt conservative thinking and the accompanying values are not predisposed by genetics; they are based solely upon life experiences, observation and education. By extension, a liberal’s reasons for becoming a Democrat is based less upon these reasons, driven by their genetic predisposition.
In short, liberals can’t help themselves. In addition, there is no use in trying to reason with them as their genetic makeup prohibit them from changing their minds, which is not totally their own to change.
While this study is only the latest, there have been others, some even conducted by clinical psychiatrists who describe them as having “strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.”
Dr. Rossiter compares liberals to “spoiled, angry children,” who are rebelling against “the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
You can read about Dr. Rossiter’s research and evaluation of the liberal mind here.
The French pension system. A right or a privilege?
French Citizens take to streets to protest Sarkozy’s pension reform bill
In May and June of 2010, France’s public sector unions demonstrated against proposed legislation for pension reform.
On October 22, 2010, riot police moved in to break up a strike at an oil refinery outside Paris less that 24 hours after President Nicolas Sarkozy employed combative language in a pledge to see his pension revision to term.
French take to streets to protest pension reform... sometimes violently.
One of France’s wealthiest cities and more commonly associated with fine-dining than riots, Lyon has seen the worst violence of this week’s street protests as clashes injured two dozen people and scores more were arrested.
On Wednesday, police in the southeastern city tear-gassed about 300 youths in groups around the central Bellecour square after calling in 800 extra officers to put down what one local official called “urban guerrilla warfare.”
Youths booed and insulted Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux who visited the city to back up police trying to contain the violence that first erupted last Thursday.
Disturbances in the Paris suburb of Nanterre have also marred otherwise peaceful street protests against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plan to raise the ages for minimum and full retirement to 62 and 67 respectively, something he says is vital to rein in a soaring pension shortfall
Property damaged during protests
The need for reform threatens citizens
Martine Durand from the OECD Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Directorate to explains the basic reasons for the reforms and the protests.
Like most other OECD countries, France is facing rapid population ageing because of low fertility and longer life expectancy. This means the dependency ratio of older people – those aged 65 and over as a proportion of those aged 20-64 – will rise from 25% at present to 50% by 2050. In other words, there will be more older people, but fewer people of working age to support them.
These demographic trends are putting tremendous pressure on the French pension system, which is based on what we call a Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) distributive principle; people who are currently working pay the pensions of those in retirement. Everybody agrees that reform is necessary; if nothing is done soon, public deficits could rise by some 5% of GDP over the next 30 years. And public debt could more than double. So, without reform now, our children and grandchildren will pay the price.
There are two ways to put the PAYG system on a sounder financial footing. The first is to increase total contributions; the second is to reduce pensions. Virtually no one in France favours cuts, so we are left with raising contributions. This in turn can be achieved in two ways: by increasing the number of people at work or by raising the rate of contributions currently levied on labour, and perhaps taxes on capital too. The disagreement in France has mainly been on which path to take: the government’s reform plan puts the emphasis on extending working lives (which is one way of raising employment), while some unions have argued in favour of paying higher contributions.
France already has a high tax burden by international standards. Raising taxes or social contributions further would have a negative effect on job creation and growth, which in the end would be unhelpful to solving the pension problem. An overall strategy is needed to get more people into work. France is rather unique in the OECD as it combines both very low youth and older worker employment rates, with above average rates for prime age workers. Raising youth employment rates would help relieve the pensions burden. But a longer working life must be part of the solution. This means introducing both later retirement and reducing early retirement.
Fortunately, there is room to manoeuvre on both fronts. The current official retirement age is 60, which is one of the OECD’s lowest, yet, France also has one of the OECD’s highest life expectancies. And at 36%, France’s employment rate for 55 to 64 year olds is also one of the lowest in the OECD, whose average is 48%. Abolishing financial disincentives towards retirement beyond the legal age, while aligning the mandatory contribution periods of public servants to (the longer) private sector period, seems to me a sensible way of raising the employment rate of older workers.
The most urgent step is progressively to eliminate provisions that subsidise early withdrawal from active life – first and foremost, early retirement schemes. Too often in the past, these schemes have been used to make people redundant, while at the same time helping to reduce unemployment figures. A number of OECD countries have already taken this step, but experience shows that it is not enough. In many cases, the actual retirement age still remains two or three years below the official retirement age, because there are other provisions, such as disability benefits, that also encourage people to stop working early.
Older workers cannot be expected to hang on in the labour market if they can’t find work. Moreover, those jobs would have to be of high enough quality to encourage them to stay on. This requires a real change in attitudes all round: governments must adapt their employment policies; public employment services must meet the specific needs of older workers; measures that reduce benefit dependency and facilitate the integration of older workers in the labour market should be taken.
Employers, both private and public, must learn to view older workers as a genuine asset. They will need to eliminate discrimination against them, invest in their training, and adapt working hours and conditions to fit their needs.
But workers must also understand that early retirement is not a right, and that, unless they can afford otherwise, they must get used to working a longer career.
She had this to say about realistic expectations regarding change in their attitudes about early retirement “rights”. This change in expectations is the root of the final solution to unsustainable social programs such as government pensions.
Yes, there are some interesting recent experiences out there. Finland’s National Programme for Ageing Workers is one attempt to improve the status of older workers, with encouraging early results. More time will be needed to assess it properly, though.
In the meantime, businesses are taking initiatives of their own, with companies in Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK starting to recruit and train older workers. Even in France, a number of large firms have introduced major changes in their production processes to adapt working conditions to the particular needs of older people, making production lines more ergonomic and so on. As it turns out, these workplace improvements have also made these jobs more attractive to young people too.
How Great Britain sees it
In England, analysts look on with interest as they assess the reasons and impact of the protests. The UK’s Guardian had this to say about France’s pension system.
There is a broad consensus, and has been for at least seven years, that the French pension system is bust. In a pay-as-you-go system, too few active workers are paying for too many pensioners.
As the number of pensioners is set to increase from 15 million in 2008 to nearly 23 million in 2050, the ratio of active workers to pensioners will reduce still further. Depending on both the rate of long-term unemployment and labour productivity, the deficit in the state pension system, currently running at €32bn or 1.7% of GDP, could explode in the next decade to reach something more like 3% of GDP. That is a lot for any state to pay on pensions.
The issue is not whether this system should be reformed but how. Who is to share the pension burden? Do low-paid manual workers, women, and the disabled take an extra hit as they would under Sarkozy’s formula, or should employers and big business pay more? Why does someone who starts work at 18 have to work for longer – 44 years – before reaching the full entitlement than someone who enters the labour market at 22 with higher qualifications? The age that matters is not 62, when retirees can start drawing their pensions, but 67, when the benefit reaches its maximum. Why should poorer workers, who have shorter life expectancies, lose a higher proportion of their retirement years? Whether you are a refinery worker from Grandpuit or a dinner lady in a Marseille primary school, this is an issue worth coming out on to the streets for. Nor should this debate be wholly alien to anyone who has been following events in Britain this week. It, too, is about fairness and social justice.
President Sarkozy is hoping that a combination of a swift vote in the senate and the forthcoming All Saints’ Day national holiday will douse passions more effectively than the water cannons of his riot police. But thus far he is losing the battle for public opinion. Public support has curiously risen after a week in which fuel refineries and ports were blockaded, with 70% backing industrial action. Unions who have resisted calls for a general strike have vowed that there will be two more days of national action. And their chief demand, that the government must negotiate the reform rather than ram it through on to the statute books, is a reasonable one. With riot police yesterday behaving ever more violently with union pickets, the risk of death or serious injury on the picket lines rises by the day. Both sides could lose control, which would both weaken the unions’ case and be catastrophic for the government.
The French are not just being French. France has a lower level of inequality than most OECD countries, and is one out of only five which saw inequality decrease over the two decades to the mid-2000s. As the basic provisions of the welfare state are being rolled back all over Europe, in the name of protecting triple-A credit ratings, a cause is being fought in France which we in Britain would do well to watch carefully. The same fight could be coming here soon.
Is France heading for ruin?
International media headlines often give the impression of a country wracked by industrial conflict, driven by people complaining about threats of lost privileges who already have more privileges than those in other countries. The view is these people are going to bring France’s economy to its knees which causes some to question whether France – a world champion in strikes – is heading for ruin.
Here’s what the figures show:
Strikes: The world leader in days lost in strikes in 2009 was … Canada. Its score was 2.2 million, according to the UK journal The Economist. Next came South Africa with 1.5 million. France came third with 1.4 million. France comes top of the European league table for the period 2005-2009, according to the European Foundation for the improvement of Living and Working Conditions. But in 2008 its efforts were dwarfed by Denmark, thanks to a strike wave, one of whose demands was a 35-hour working week. The damage to the economy is not as high as might be expected, judging by statistics from 2005 when a three-week strike cut 0.05 of a point from the growth rate, according to the Finance Ministry.
Hours worked: French workers work an average of 1,453 hours a year, well below the OECD group of developed nations’ average of just over 1,700 hours a year but above Germany and Norway (1,337), Sweden (1316) and the Netherlands (1309). South Koreans work the longest hours in the OECD at 2,390 per year.
Retirement: At present French women can retire at the same age as women in Italy, South Korea, Hungary, the UK, Greece and Poland but earlier than Turks and Czechs. Men have the lowest minimum retirement age in the OECD. The government’s proposals will bring them in line with Czechs and Hungarians and raise the age that retirees can claim the full pension to 67, provided they have paid over 40 years of contributions.
GDP: France’s Gross Domestic Product has doubled in the last 20 years. It was over 2000 billion euros in 2009, according to the IMF and the World Bank. That puts it fifth in the world league table, behind the US, Japan, China and Germany and just ahead of the UK. Over the same period, there has been a 10 per cent shift of the share of GDP from salaries to profits.
Productivity: French workers’ productivity has risen five times since 1960. Although it has fallen slightly over the last two years thanks to the recession, it is expected to double again over the next 20 years. GDP per hour worked is lower than in the US and Ireland but higher than in many countries, including the UK, Germany and Japan.
Debt: France has the sixth highest public deficit in Europe in percentage terms, at 8.2 per cent. The US’s deficit reached 12.5 per cent in 2009. The debt of French households was 89.1 per cent of income in 2006, according to the OECD. In Britain and the United States that ratio stood at 168.5 percent and 139.7 percent respectively.
Unemployment: French unemployment stands at 10 per cent, the average for the eurozone. As in other industrialised countries, the figure has been pushed up by the recession but was already relatively high at 8.2 per cent in 2001. US unemployment stood at 9.6 per cent in June 2010.
France’s problem exists in America as well
The Social Security program in America faces many of the same problems facing France. Many so-called “boomers” are heading for retirement as the workforce grows older. These social programs rely upon a continual influx of new participants to pay for the benefit load and correct demographics are probably one of the most important aspects to its sustainability. There should be questions about the wisdom and long term sustainability of social programs such as France’s pension system and America’s social security system.
These systems share characteristics common to any pyramid scheme, which are often called Ponzi schemes. Bernie Madoff was sentenced to prison for 150 years for conducting what has been described as the largest Ponzi scheme in history, but governments who operate systems of their own on behalf of its people are immune to such judgment. Apparently, if you’re open about the nature of the scheme, it’s legal.
The argument for such systems is simple. They are in place to reduce or remove the economic burden an unemployed and aging population would otherwise place upon society. The irony here is that while it is believed an economic bullet can be dodged with such systems, the prospects of creating a fiscal monster are soon realized. In an attempt to avoid one fiscal burden, government creates another and perhaps an even bigger one.
The final solution
Our belief government is here to help us is our bane. In the end, it only works to enslave us to a life of government servitude.
America’s social security system should be phased out and here is how it could happen.
Those in the system would realize a degree of participation and benefits which are conditioned by a sliding schedule.
First, let’s describe what we have today. If the average American works from age 20 up to age 65, they will have been contributing to Social Security (SS) for 45 years. Since it is a pay as you go system, their benefits reflect their degree of participation. If they’ve been unemployed for 10 of those years, their benefits will reflect that.
To phase out this system, existing retirees will continue to get the same benefits they already realize. Those in the system who will retire in 10 years will realize SS benefits from 35 years of involvement. The rest of their retirement benefits will come from 10 years of investing the normally determined amount for SS which is instead applied by the future retiree into private investments similar in nature to 401k’s. The key here is that the citizen is directly (an emotionally) involved in how that money is invested.
Back to the basis for the existence of the system in the first place, in the case of bad times which causes the investment yields to fall below an acceptable level set for the sake of a “healthy society”, the government steps in to shore up the portfolio yield. It’s sort of like a citizen’s FDIC. This satiates the socialists among us and ensures the goal of the system. It is highly likely this scenario represents the exception and not the rule.
In the event the participant dies before retirement, the amount in the participant’s program is passed to the program belonging to the spouse or next of kin. If no spouse or relative, it stays in the system to be applied to other participants who cannot work (prisoners, disabled, etc.) In the event the retired participant dies before the benefits are exhausted (if designed properly, the amounts will be sufficient enough to outlast the participant) the balance is divided among the members of the immediate family.
If you’re incarcerated and therefore cannot participate in the system, well, you’re screwed, just like today. (You should have had the brains to stay out of trouble in the first place.) Seriously, benefits can come from the scenario described in the previous paragraph. I believe prisoners – all of them – should be in an on-going military boot camp environment with the goal of true reform based upon behavior modification, character and skill building after which, sentence permitting, they are released back into “the wild”.
For those who genuinely cannot work, perhaps because of mental health reasons or some other disability, benefits can come from insurance, as they do today. If family exists, it might make sense for portions of their program allocations to be applied to the investment program of the patient or disabled. Amounts can also come from participants who have died before retirement and who have no families, or who have died after retirement and who have no family to which the balance of their retirement funds would otherwise go.
For citizens who have amassed a certain level of wealth or who are just obnoxiously wealthy, well, they forfeit their deposits which are to be used to take care of those who cannot care for themselves.
Over time, government’s participation and the level of dependence upon government by each citizen should decrease. Each participant has sufficient emotional buy-in to maintain due diligence.
The Government is here to help
The belief that government is here to help always and consistently proves to be a mistake. We can look to the current economic situations of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain for evidence to that fact.
After only a few generations of receiving benefits from social programs, a populace will believe it is their birth right to have those benefits. Over time, they will want more and more and will reach a point of engaging in violent protests against the government’s reduction of benefits for any reason, but usually when its in the interest of its citizens.
For evidence to that fact, we only have to look to France, whose citizens already enjoy a 35 hour work week and who took to the streets to riot against their government’s decision to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 to maintain the sustainability of their pension system.
Government never produces wealth. It always uses wealth produced by the private sector and in this case of retirement programs, it redistributes that wealth.
What America needs is a SS system which allows for its citizens to keep the wealth they have created for themselves, with just enough help from the government to take the worry out of retirement .
So take a minute and imagine a country which has the long term goal of building wealth for its citizens who can keep that wealth for themselves and which can be passed on to their future family.
A Mosque at New York’s “Ground Zero”
Today, a New York City panel voted unanimously to reject landmark status for a building in downtown Manhattan, paving the way for its demolition — and for the construction of a 13-story, $100 million mosque near the World Trade Center site.
The Constitution of the United States (COTUS), that double-edged sword of sometimes loosely guaranteed freedoms, is used as the panel’s footing to vote unanimously for the building of the Muslim mosque.
This is a case where the COTUS works against the will of the people and for the spirit of the COTUS as defined by the vision of the document’s architects who wrote it over 200 years ago. The COTUS works to enforce separation of church (Islamic religion) and state (NYC city gov’t ). Mission accomplished.
That said, there comes a time when the definition of religion, in this case Islam, has to be closely examined and judged on its merits and its socially redeeming values to determine whether it truly qualifies as a religion in the classic sense and not a political ideology wrapped up in religious doctrine. In this case of Islam, I see it in the latter category worthy of it being outlawed. Yes, I am on a very slippery slope here but not when Islam is a cloaked political system.
Looking at it another way, the combined effect of the portion of the COTUS which applies in this case, the well established liberalism in this country and the toleration of an opposing political body which has consistently proven over time to be an enemy of democracy and whose Imams have declared a Jihad for the destruction of the West, will evolve toward the eventual destruction of this country.
To think that my great-great-grand kids may have to face Mecca 4 times a day and engage in forced prayer sickens me.
Back in October of last year and amid protests against it, Obama passed the so-called “hate crimes bill”. Eric Holder described the nature of the bill this way:
As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.
Now, I’m not rocket scientist and I’m certainly not the sharpest pair of pliers in this box of crayons, and ignoring the context on sexuality and instead focusing on the issue of religion-inspired speech spawning acts of violence directed against a population not sharing views of that religion, it would appear this bill would be a very nice tool to be used to defeat the plans to build the mosque and more importantly, outlaw Islam in America.
I believe Americans need to stop looking at Islam as a religion and start looking at it as a political system. It has its own laws outside of civil law of its host country called sharia law. It’s over arching goal is to usurp local and national government with the intent of replacing it with their own.
Most important, it would be child’s play to show how Islam and their imams, especially the imam who will not describe Hamas as a terrorist organization and who will be presiding over the Mosque in question, are consistent in their message to not only destroy Israel but also the West, meaning mostly America.
Now, again, I’m not the brightest hammer in the swimming pool, but if that’s not describing a hate crime, then sit me down and shut me up.
So what’s so wrong with the left?
This might give a clue.
Massachusetts may be one of the most liberal states in the U.S. today. Some would argue for alifornia and they might be right, but most would agree Massachusetts ranks right up there at or near the most liberal.
So it really is no surprise that a school board in Massachusetts unanimously votes to offer free condoms to all students in the district without parental consent, sparking national outrage.
If that weren’t outrage enough, and to show there are other states vying for that number 1 slot of “Most Liberal”, the Fayetteville, Ark., Gay Pride Parade will be led by a young man who has made a career out of fighting for gay rights. That young man is 10 years old.
So what’s so wrong with the left, anyway?
Plenty, and the above events show how sick they’ve become.
Democrat Party racism legacy
Certain liberals of late have worked hard to label Tom Tancredo as a racist. The boneless finger pointing comes as a result of recent comment which he made at a Sarah Palin gathering where he spoke to the audience. The liberals use his comments about the number of uneducated voters who cannot speak English as their evidence.
I do not support Tancredo, but I find it difficult to leap to the same conclusion. While the Dems cry long and hard, getting their panties in a wad and frothing at the mouth while casting this baseless accusation, they have no problems affiliating themselves with a political party whose legacy on racism is appalling.
If liberals actually believed in what they spew, they would distance themselves from it, but they won’t.
So, let’s look back at the Republican Party’s record.
Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments which he made. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.
Being the hypocrites they are, Democrats used the Lott affair to paint Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the 
Republican Party’s inherent racism. “Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are,” Senator Daschle said. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.
Makes ya wanna puke, doesn’t it?
In both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, historically and enduring even today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.
The Republican Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln who often referred to the Declaration of Independence. It can be said the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. Those principles clearly state that people have rights and that the only role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
The Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a “positive good.” While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.
When Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican.
Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.
Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the “n” word on national TV?
“Ah, but this is all in the past,” say the Democrats. “Now we push a pro-African-American agenda.” But the reality differs significantly from the claim.
Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and “in-kind” support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.
“Affirmative action” has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a “color-blind society” that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as “Uncle Toms” of “Oreos” by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.
John Murtha (D-PA), dead. Good Riddence.
THIS is a Democrat’s idea of democracy in America, 2010.
He will not be missed as his behavior represents just what is wrong with congress today. Indeed, he is a scumbag.
More Bad Science
U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in Report
Another blow is dealt to the credibility of the science community.
The head of a panel of United Nations climate scientists said Saturday he would not resign despite a recent admission that a panel report warning Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off.
The claim, made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s voluminous, Nobel-winning report, came in a paragraph with several errors. Data indicates the ice could melt by 2350. The assertion went virtually unnoticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.
The scientists are investigating how the forecast got into the report and apologized Thursday for the mistakes, adding that they were not intentional. But the errors have opened the door for attacks from climate change skeptics.
But Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the panel, said no action would be taken against the authors of the report and he would not resign.
“I have no intention of resigning from my position,” Pachauri said on Saturday, adding the errors were unintentional and not significant in comparison to the entire report. The mistakes also do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever, he said.
He added that such mistakes must be avoided because effective climate change policy depends on good, credible science. He said he is now working on the fifth IPCC assessment report dealing with sea level rise and ice sheets, oceans, clouds and carbon accounting. The report is expected by 2014.
On Sunday, the environment ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China are scheduled to meet in the Indian capital New Delhi to discuss how they will fight global warming. The four nations, which brokered a political accord with President Obama at last month’s climate summit in Copenhagen, will play a key role in shaping a legally binding climate deal that the U.N. hopes will be completed by the end of 2010 in Mexico.
Pachauri said it was “a practical necessity” to postpone a Jan. 31 deadline set by the Copenhagen accord for developing countries to present their nonbinding carbon-curbing actions, and for rich nations to submit economy-wide emissions targets for 2020.
Unprecedented Warming and Swimming in Cash
Based upon the following information, if we just sit down and shut up, we’ll be in a period of global cooling in no time at all. Cosmologically speaking, of course.
Al Gore should be ashamed of himself, but hey, he’s not a multi-millionaire (did I hear Billion?) for nothing.
I suppose then it is true that fools and their money are soon parted.
It’s not the holiday season. It’s Christmas, dammit!
Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees.
New Year’s Day
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Washington’s Birthday
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Columbus Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
That last entry should grab everyone’s attention. Nowhere in that list is the term “Winter Holiday” or “Holiday Season”. The Federal Government, through law, has recognized Christmas.
What this means is this; if you take offense to the terms “Winter Holiday” or “Holiday Season” used as a substitute for the proper and legal term “Christmas”, you are well within your right to call it out and to express your concern.
Call it what it is; that’s what words are for. We don’t modify “Happy Hanukkah ” to “Happy Candle-lighting” for our Jewish friends.
It’s “Merry Christmas”. Oh, yea, and it ain’t no “Holiday Tree” or “Family Tree” as Lowes wants to call it a couple of years ago. Nice try, Lowes, but as you found out, trying to rename the beloved “Christmas Tree” comes with consequences.
It’s legal to call it “Christmas” or a “Christmas Tree”.
For those still feeling compelled to change it to suit them, why don’t you leave the wording to those who observe the holiday? After all, if you want to rename it, it probably wasn’t your holiday in the first place.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
From the Right 