Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are crying about how the American people are yelling at the top of their lungs against government healthcare. The entire left are decrying the “mob” tactics that are “being orchestrated” by the Republican Party.

First point; once again, are conservatives brainless dupes or evil geniuses?  Come on lefties, make up your mind.

Now for the real point; all parties on the left, great and small, are denouncing the uprising over healthcare and asking why we can’t just have an informed debate.

Well the main answer to that is that the left will not allow such a debate to happen. 

There can not be a public debate as the left controls the majority of the media and by that I mean that most of the people who guide the media are leftists. There is talk radio for the right, but of course if Obama has his way that will end with some form of Fairness Doctrine. If the left wanted a debate then why are there only shows such as ABC’s healthcare special that was a thinly disguised infomercial for the President’s plan? Where is the room for debate there?

How about the fact that, once again, the administration is trying to shove a bill down the pipes in record time? Just like the “Stimulus” bill, the powers that be are trying to get a bill passed with no time to even read the bill, let alone debate anything. So here is THE occasion to debate such legislation, Congress, but the lefties were trying to get the bill passed before the month’s end. 

Where is the time for debate there?

So now when a country that has more than 85% of its population insured and over 80% of them don’t want changes to their insurance and our leaders are trying to slip something by us so fast that there can be no debate, the Country is getting upset about this kind of treatment.  So if the left want to debate this issue, why don’t they want to debate this on a national level? Why these small (1,500 or less) town hall discussions? Why no real discussion about the issue that will reach millions?

Where is the will for debate there?

The real reason is that they are losing ground fast on this issue and they know it. This call against the “mobs” is an overt attempt to divert attention from the real issue.

American neither needs nor wants healthcare reform.    

 

And I used to think that “Mad Halfbright” was a crazed liberal bulldog! Look at Speaker Pelosi’s brilliant analysis of the situation between the health insurance companies and the budding government “healthcare reform”. 

“They are the villains.” Why? Because they are lobbying against a bill that, if made into law, will literally put them out of business. I would be trying to stop such a law myself (in fact I am, but for more benevolent reasons). This is another blatant attempt to convince the American public that private business is evil and the only salvation is government. Socialism is the answer because capitalism is inherently evil. If your intentions are based upon profit, you are bad. If your intentions are based upon helping your fellow man, you are good. Let’s not split hairs about the fact that these folks are profiting greatly by doing what they do. Pelosi, Obama, and President Clinton are professional politicians and are none the poorer for it. At least some of the politicians on the right were businessmen at some point before entering the public arena. 

Next subject, the fastest government in history.

Isn’t it odd that Obama’s presidency is passing laws and making major changes in one tenth the time it took most other presidents? Is this because there are national emergencies that need immediate action to resolve? No. It is because what they are doing will wither and die in the cleansing light of day. As each new day goes by, more and more Obama voters are beginning to understand just what he is doing and are horrified by it. Obama needs to speed through his final power grabs as soon as possible before the public finds out the truth of what is actually in these bills. His health care proposal and the infamous “Stimulus” package are great examples. The stimulus package was so dire that those voting on it were not given the time to read the bill first. But now of course since the public is not seeing any real effect from this critical measure, the Administration is telling everyone that it was meant to be applied over a two year period. Only about 15% of the money had been spent.

But wait! I though this money was so needed that the Congress was not even able to read the bill before voting on it. Could it be that the Administration just did not want everyone to know what was in the bill? So what does that say about the push to get a health care bill voted on before the August break?

 

It has started to be well reported that the head of “African American Studies” at Harvard was arrested by Cambridge police the other night for disorderly conduct.  Mr. Gates does not refute anything in the report, or anything reported by the attending officers with the exception that he states that he did show them ID. 

Well here is the quick low down if you have not heard the story.

Cambridge police respond to a report of two black men breaking into a house. One officer enters the house, which had a broken front door, and finds a black man. The officer demands he show ID. It seems that Mr. Gates had just returned from a trip to China (what’s that have to do with African American Studies?) and had lost the key to his house. He and his driver broke open the door so that Mr. Gates could gain entry to his house. The man (Mr. Gates) starts yelling at the officer and accusing him of racism. The man refuses to settle down or cooperate with the officer (a legal requirement in every State) and finally the officer arrests him for disorderly conduct. 

Then the President has to butt in because Gates is a personal friend (another America hating friend of BO’s, go figure) and accuse the officer of acting stupidly. Of course he has no problem with his friend not cooperating with officers legitimately investigating a possible crime or his friend’s almost constant high-horse diatribe towards the officer. Instead he feels the officer should have just taken Mr. Gates word that he was the home owner and left.

But the main thing that got me writing about this is the mention (several times) by liberals of the use of racial profiling in this case.

Wait a minute! The cops did not stop Mr. Gates while he was walking down the street. Also they had received a call about two BLACK men breaking into THAT house. One enters and finds a black man and, golly, might just assume that he is the culprit. Oh no, the officer should have just assumed that this individual was the legitimate owner of the house and had run into a situation where he had to break down his own door.  Yes I know that is what actually happened but how often would this be the case? If Mr. Gates had just listened to the officer, instead of getting bent out of shape that the officer entered his house uninvited (should an officer not enter a house that has been broken into?) and show his ID, the situation would have ended in ten minutes and the officers would have likely offered any assistance to Mr. Gates with securing his residence. Instead it becomes an nationally reported incident because Mr. Gates is a self centered racist blow-hard looking for an excuse to explode is pent up racial anger at the nearest white person.

There was no racial profiling here. The officers were doing there job as they are supposed to. Mr. Gates is the problem and Obama is just throwing gas on the fire.

  I was just having a conversation with a friend about his immature younger brother. During the conversation we discussed the difference between children and adults. We both concluded that the greatest distinction between a child and an adult was that adults understand that there are consequences to every action, intentional or not. Intentions are almost immaterial. Remember the adage “The road to Hell is paved…”

This came to mind while reading an article about how the liberal group Human Rights First was whining about the collateral damage done by Predator UAVs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/predator-drones-face-legal-challenges-liberals/ ). 

I may only be 49, but I seem to remember an Executive Order that came from the same mentality of “fair” warfare. President Ford made it official policy that the US will not engage in assassination.

OK. But this has never dissuaded the US from trying to kill it major enemies. We almost got Kadaffi during that little fight and we have killed several Taliban and Al Queda officials. So ridding the World of this human garbage does not seem to be against US policy, so long as we don’t do it with a well placed bullet.

So now it is our policy to find these scumbags and send a missile or guided bomb into the building they happen to be in. Of course these folks are not hiding in a spider hole like a certain someone did, they are in homes and offices, surrounded by employees, servants, and family. 

Now don’t get me wrong, as awful as it is to kill “innocents” I have no problem killing a few to get to the root of the problem. Better them than us.

However the logic of this policy strikes me as wanting. 

We don’t believe it is right to send a sniper out to surgically administer a high velocity cranial lead injection to one of these scum, but blowing up the building they are in, to include any and all others in the vicinity is considered more noble? 

So now the Libs are whining about killing these bad guys via missile, because there is no warning for the “innocents” in the vicinity. Well, would that not mean also warning the target? Here are the unintentional consequences I refer to in the title. That little Executive Order is causing the deaths of “innocents”.

Face it; the liberals of the world want to abolish death of any sort. We all should just hold hands and hug each other and everything will be all right. There are no “bad” people, just ones with different outlooks on life. Can’t we all just get along?

Figure it out folks. There are some people walking the planet that the human race would do better without. 

So should we assassinate these folks or continue blowing up the building we find them in? Which choice is nobler?

 

A recent post by “The Realist” got me to thinking. We are all aware of politically correct speech, but are we aware of the subtle change in our language? These changes appear to be heading us towards the false utopia of the left.

Take for example the word judgment. “Judge not lest you be judged.” So we should assume that it is wrong to judge others? Not at all; if you don’t judge the actions of others, who will? Western law is based upon the mores of Western civilization. This means it is based upon the actions that we, as a whole, judge to be unacceptable. Is it wrong to judge the actions of a child molester as wrong? Of course not, but why can we judge a molester but not a thief? The age old argument from the left is that who are we to say that our views are superior to others? We are. These views have been developed over centuries of trying to live in close proximity to each other and as a whole, Western civilization has done the best job of coexisting. We may not be perfect, but we do a better job than say, China or the Middle East. So is it acceptable to judge another’s actions? Of course but as the Bible warns, if you judge another’s actions to be wanting, be prepared for your actions to be held to the same standards.

So now let’s look at the word discriminate. We all know that discrimination is a bad thing, right? Funny though, Merriam-Webster says that discrimination means to differentiate or distinguish. It is only in the second part of the second definition that M-W states that discrimination means “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.” Of course this could also mean discrimination for something such as we all discriminate for our friends; after all they are our friends. So why is it that when most Americans hear the word discriminate they automatically think it a negative word? Is it not a good thing to have a discriminating palate? The media has beaten us all over the head with the term in a negative light for so long that the word has changed meaning to the majority of Americans. This way one more word is removed from the available lexicon and speech is incrementally restricted once again.

Here are several words and phrases that we either are no longer supposed to use or must be very careful how they are used.

Judgmental                               To judge

Discrimination                           To distinguish

Black                                       Absorbs all light

Colored                                    Has color (not white)

Oriental                                    A race of Humans (Asian is an ethnicity)

Mexican                                   Citizens of Mexico

“Those people”             As opposed to these people

Terrorist                                   Unless you are talking about a Republican

Niggardly                                 Stingy

                                                (Which is hundreds of years older than the racial slur)

The other part of all of this that bothers me is the level of stupidity that it has reached. If I so much as write one of the “unacceptable” words that are truly insults, even if I am quoting someone, my blog would disappear overnight. I do swear but don’t believe in using racial slurs. I do, however, believe in everyone’s right to use them. Just as I believe in the insulted party’s right to pop the offender in the nose for being racist. What can I say, I’m old fashioned.

 

“There is an answer to every problem, and a problem to every answer.”

I have lived my life by this little idiom for many decades now. It is simple sounding but when understood, it could be viewed as profound. 

I take authorship of this as I have said it for more than 30 years and even today when I google it, I find no references. Since it is my own little idiom, I will explain exactly what I mean.

At first this seems like a palindrome.  By my meaning behind the words, it is circular in scope, not linear.

There is an answer to every problem.

I think that all of us realize that every predicament we have ever found ourselves in there are obvious answers that come to mind. Of course these answers are often extreme and not agreeable answers but answers none the less. Take for example when you were young and a bully started to pick on you. What can you do? The accepted dilemma is that if you tell an adult the bully will makes things worse and if you do nothing the bullying will continue.

Of course you could always get a gun and shoot the bully, ending the torment.

This is by far not the best answer and for most not even acceptable, but it is an answer none the less. This is what I mean by there is an answer to every problem. Every situation has answers. Never let yourself feel that you are in a situation that can not be gotten out of. There is always an answer. Life is about finding the one with the least consequences. 

And that my friends segues us to the second part of the idiom,

And a problem to every answer.

By this I mean that the answers to any problem have consequences or its own problems. Using the bully situation, shooting the bully will likely have dire consequences so that particular answer will not be an acceptable one for the majority of us. It does not detract from the fact that it is an answer. Killing ones self is also an answer to the above situation, but again one with dire consequences. Every answer will generally involve the creation of other problems and each of those problems will have answers, each of which will create new problems.

So now do you see what I am eluding too? I feel life is a series of problems that offer a variety of answers, each of which will create more problems. The goal in life is to pick the answers that create fewer and milder problems than the one being addressed.

Everyone (on the right) knows that politically correct speech knows no bounds. However, I recently ran across an article that expounds upon the limits of politically correct speech. 

In Dallas, during a meeting about the sluggishness of processing traffic tickets, one commissioner, (who was white) stated “It sounds like central collections as become a black hole.” Immediately another commissioner (who was of course black) jumped up and cried “RACISM!!!”

Let’s not even discuss that the comment made total sense in the scientific realm, but let’s consider the ramifications of putting innocuous words such as black off limits.  Its bad enough that the common racial slur for blacks, or Afro-Americans, or African-Americans, or the pigmentally over compensated, or what ever, has become so unacceptable that it is now in the mythical realm of the un-nameable. Only great mythical evil doers such as Tolkien’s Sauron were so bad that the common man was in fear of even vocalizing the name. So now we have the “n” word. Even I don’t dare use the actual word for fear of being censored by Townhall due to the screaming that would erupt by the use of the word. Let’s understand that I don’t condone calling anyone by the word. But to make even the reporting of it a bad thing is ridiculous. 

Even other insults have become letter words. I read a piece a while ago where a politician used the “f” word. No not that “f” word, but the derogative term for homosexual. It is beginning to sound like a kindergarten room.  

So now we have the “b” word. To be used in situations such as I would like a regular coffee “b” word or in casinos you could get a “b” word Jack for the win. How about history? Let’s never forget the “b” word plague that wiped out millions in Europe. Or how about less obvious situations? Do we now refer to the radical (or revolutionaries) in the 1960s as the “b” word panthers? Can other “b” words refer to them as black panthers as when ghetto speaking “b” words call each other the “n” word? How far does this go?

If all minorities are allowed to re-label themselves and place the original reference off limits, then as a male (an unacknowledged minority) I want to be known as Native Humans as we were here first. Also the word male is hereto off limits and will be now referred to as the “m” word or I will be offended. I am not sure how the majority of fe-“m” words will react, but hey, the majority is always wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/07/11/texas-county-official-sees-race-term-black-hole/

Will wonders never cease? According to Bill O’Reilly, Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) is pursuing an investigation into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for possible illegal ties to President Obama’s campaign. It seems that two former ACORN employees have testified under oath to a House committee concerning several illegal incidents involving ACORN, some involving President Obama’s campaign. 

Conservatives have long decried that ACORN unduly and illegally influence the 2008 presidential election, in favor if its own son, Barak Obama.  The connection appears to be through ACORN’s “Project Vote”, a project that President Obama was a member of in the 1990s.  

This is the same Representative Conyers that has attacked President Bush (W) at every turn and has even written a book outlining his “case” against the former President. Many, many kudos for a man that can put this obvious partisan animosity aside and see the possible implications of this situation. 

Let’s also remember that President Obama has made sure that ACORN will be instrumental in organizing the 2010 census. An organization that has admitted to filing at least 400,000 questionable voter documents in less than two years.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/BillOReilly/2009/04/04/the_mighty_acorn

 

In a Washington Times story, the Democrats on a House Panel, investigating the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy for illegal aliens apprehended during raids on businesses have deemed this policy the equivalent of the civil-rights-era police colluding with the Ku Klux Klan. This policy will grant the release of the immigrant and issue them a work permit in exchange for their testimony against the employer. This policy assists ICE in building cases against the employers for the hiring of illegal immigrants.

But by using the logic of this statement, if ICE colluding with illegal immigrants is the same as police colluding with the KKK, then ICE is the same as the police and the illegal immigrants are the same as the KKK. 

 

Last Thursday, the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights signed a new resolution pronouncing the defamation of a religion as a human rights violation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52P60220090326

 So now bad mouthing a religion is equitable to torture. Is there no end to the stupidity?

Let’s look at several aspects of this new resolution.

First, it is a UN resolution and holds no authority over anyone or any country, it is just hot air.

Second, it makes anti-Jewish rhetoric bad, but says nothing about anti-Semitic rhetoric. Of course one chooses to be Jewish, as it is a religion. One does not choose to be Semitic as it is an ethnicity.

Third, most of the thinking world, understands that this resolution will not be pursued in the Middle-Eastern Islamic nations, to end the steady stream of anti-Jewish and generally anti-“anything that is not fundamentalist Muslim” diatribe emanating from these governments. It will be used to attack Israel, Christianity, and anyone protesting the extremist views and behaviors exhibited by a large number of Muslims, and also views and behaviors condoned through lack of protest by the majority of Middle-Eastern Muslims. Don’t forget, this is the same commission that was once chaired by Libya.

 

What happened to the days of liberal versus conservative politics? The liberals seem to have left American politics all together. 

I have come to this conclusion based upon much reading recently concerning politics. Just look at Politico.com’s article about Senator Reid, a Democrat from Arizona and the Senate Majority leader.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20560.html

Oh, I get the joke. All Democrats have been reborn as moderates. Since moderates occupy the center of the political spectrum, then anyone to the right of them would be by definition conservative. How unfortunate for anyone who deems themselves as a liberal, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson.

So why would apparent liberals prefer to define themselves as moderates?

Oh, I get the joke. We all know, extreme behavior is a form of insanity. Hey that means that all conservatives are actually insane. How could any sane person hold an opinion in opposition to the thoughtful, intellectual, “moderates?” If conservative thought is insane then it should be regulated to protect the innocent public from catching this form of insanity. 

Interesting how conservative thought is the only contagious mental illness according to the “moderates.”

Oh how I miss debating liberals, if only they would return.

   

Man guilty of killing 'Harry Potter' actor

LONDON, England (CNN)

A quote from a CNN article

Knife crime in Britain is a political hot topic due to a spate of recent killings of mainly young people in major cities. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has urged tougher sentences for those caught carrying knives. He told the Daily Telegraph last month: "By carrying a knife you are not only endangering the lives of others, but you are more likely to be killed, or end up in jail.

"We need to change the way young people think about knives, we need families and communities working together ... to get this message across and help stamp out knife crime and get weapons off our streets."

So England, one of the Left’s examples of how draconian gun laws reduce crime, is admitting to a problem with knife crimes. More proof that even if we could wave a magic wand and vaporize all weapons, man would just pick up a rock to hit another man with. It is in our nature.

Think outside the box. That is the old adage on the best way to solve difficult problems. For the first time ever, Democrats can be accused of thinking outside of the box when it comes to solving the illegal immigration problem. 

There is little debate about the fact that millions of Mexican citizens cross the boarder between Mexico and the United States every year in search of a better way of life. Mexico’s economy had been in turmoil for decades. Even the re-issuing and re-valuation of the Peso failed to prop up Mexico’s economy. For a country rich in natural resources such as gold, copper, zinc, and oil, and one with a huge tourism trade, the country’s economy is in a constant state of decline, mainly due to rampant government corruption at all levels. So it is no wonder that many of the citizens of this nation would want to sneak across the boarder in the hopes of creating a better life. It is also no wonder that the Mexican government endorses this migration as it creates an inflow of billions of American dollars, helping to keep the economy from completely collapsing. 

So how can this be stopped? The Republicans want to build a fence on the boarder similar to the one built between Gaza and Israel.  The cost would be immense and the effectiveness is arguable at best. The Democrats wanted to open the boarder and offer citizenship to any and all Mexican citizens who asked. This would stop the illegal immigration by means of making it legal and would add a huge voting block to the left. Of course this course has been opposed by the right, even though the only President to grant amnesty to illegal aliens was a Republican.  So far, neither idea has been implemented in its entirety, nor it is likely that either would work as envisioned.

But now the Democrats have a new plan to end illegal immigration. If we can’t keep the Mexican from freely crossing the boarder, take away the incentive to cross. This is not like the Republican plan of pressuring employers to verify the legality of their employees; it is something much simpler. If we can destroy the American economy and bring it to a level lower than Mexico’s then the flow of illegal immigrants will reverse. If it is easier to earn a living in Mexico than it is in the United States, why would anyone illegally enter the United States?  Not only will Mexicans stop trying to enter the United States, but Americans may start to sneak into Mexico in search of a better way of life. 

This new dynamic could change the way the world sees “wet backs”. No longer will such an insult be associated with Hispanics, it will soon come to be associated with the poor white man, paying coyotes to smuggle them across to Puerto Vallarta, in the hopes of getting a good paying job catering to the rich Europeans vacationing there.  Who knows, maybe there will be Angelo chambers of commerce in Mexican cities and English as a second language departments in Mexican schools.

Those Democrats are brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Adios!

From the AP wire:

Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.