Last night an event took place in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida that was reminiscent of radical behavior that you would expect to find in Iran or Syria, but not the US. This event received no media coverage that I know of besides what I heard on Joyce Kaufman's local radio talk show. Joyce Kaufman is a local radio talk show host on WFTL 850 AM, which covers the West Palm Beach to Miami Beach Area of Southern Florida. Joyce happened to be present at this event.
Joyce Kaufman took part in a small Israeli support rally last night in Ft. Lauderdale. There were about 50 pro-Israeli demonstrators present to show support for Israel's retaliatory strikes on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. As time went on, Palestinian demonstrators showed up. Eventually the Palestinian protesters numbers grew to about 250.
I was amazed today when I heard Joyce describe last night's events in Ft. Lauderdale . It sounded like a group of Islamic terrorists that were demonstrating in Iran on behalf of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, it was a group of pro Palestinian demonstrators here in Southern Florida. Here is a link to a video of part of the action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Xl68kP4wo& You can also click on the embedded video below to see the same link.
Many of the Palestinians are young men and women. There are also children present. Some of the men and children are dressed up to look like terrorists that you often see on video tapes as they behead their hostages. Some have head-scarves covering their entire face with just a slit for the eyes. They are chanting hateful remarks to the Israeli supporters across the street. Examples of the hate speech directed against the Israeli supporters follows:
Go to hell
Up yours
Your mothers are whores
Go back to the oven
You need a big oven, that's what you need
f (expletive deleted) yourself
There is no Israel
In contrast, the Israeli supporters were acting civilly.
At one point, not seen on this video, a large group of Palestinians charged across the street to attack the Israeli supporters. Fortunately, they were subdued and sent back to their side of the street by police. A fight would have surely broken out if not for the police. Although the older pro-Israel group were outnumbered by the younger Palestinian protesters, the Israeli supporters stood their ground and were not cowered. Joyce described the resolute sentiment that bound them together as they were solemnly thinking, "never again".
The news coverage that I have been hearing about Israel's retaliation against Hamas, has always included emotionally charged, deceitful comments from sympathetic sounding Palestinians. I have seen several news reports that showed bombed-out living quarters with children's toys and dolls conspicuous amongst the rubble. Then you hear mournful Palestinians accusing Israel of indiscriminately killing Innocent Palestinian women and children. Even the Miami Sun-Sentinel's coverage, portrayed Palestinians as innocent victims and did not convey the intensity and hateful intolerance of the Palestinian demonstrators.
The truth is that the Palestinians have been lobbing rockets into Israel for over 2 years from the Gaza Strip. Thousands of rockets and mortar shells have been targeted at Israeli civilians. All the Israelis are asking them to do, is to stop these attacks. The Israeli government has said that it would halt the military strikes on Gaza, if Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel. However, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. You might say that the ball is in the Palestinians' court. They could stop Israel's retaliation simply by halting their attacks on Israeli civilian populations.
On the other hand, Israel is targeting only military targets and Hamas headquarters, not civilians. Often Hamas uses women and children as shields to protect their supply of weapons. They store them in schools, hospitals, holy mosques and residential buildings to dissuade the Israelis from attacking them. The Palestinians use Israel's superior character and morality as a defense. If the Israelis bomb these strategic targets despite the human shield, then the Palestinians claim that Israel is targeting innocent women and children to gain sympathy from the world media. It is Hamas who is putting their own citizens at risk, not Israel. Why is the American media not making this clear.
The Palestinians also claim that Israel is blockading their territory so they can't get needed food and medicine. This claim is also disingenuous. The Israeli's are attempting to stop Hamas from smuggling in weapons that they will use against Israel. Despite Israel's best efforts, they have managed to smuggle in over 60,000 rockets into the Gaza Strip in the last two years. If they put the same effort into acquiring food and medicine, they could open up their own branch of the "World Food Bank".
I would like to know why the American media is acting as a propaganda outlet for Palestinian deceptions that portray the Palestinians in an sympathetic light. The truth is that the Palestinian people living in the Gaza strip voted Hamas into political office in democratic elections. Hamas's charter states that their goal is to destroy Israel and that is prciscley why they are popular among the Palestinians. The majority of Gaza's residents support Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians. Gaza is a democracy. However, democracies are not necessarily benevolent. Citizens must be restrained by universal spiritual principles* (morality), for a democracy to foster good will, peace and justice. A democracy founded on hate is tantamount to "mob rule" and will foster evil and violence. This is precisely what we are seeing in Gaza.
Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. Obviously the Palestinian protesters in Ft. Lauderdale are in favor of the destruction of Israel as well. They said so. It stands to reason that many of the (innocent) Palestinian civilians also carry this murderous hate in their hearts for the Israelis. That is why they voted Hamas into office. Hamas is carrying out the will of the people that they represent in Gaza.
On the other hand, the Israeli people have always wanted peace. Israel has given land to the Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and in Southern Lebanon in an effort to establish peace with the Palestinians. Israel has been constantly attacked with rockets and terror attacks from all three of these territories. They gave land to the Palestinians in a bargain that they hoped would bring peace and show the world that they are willing to sacrifice for peace. Instead, the Palestinians use this land to attack Israel, while neglecting the needs of their own citizens. It is clear the Palestinians that are hell-bent on destroying Israel. The Palestinians do not want peace with Israel, they call for Israel's destruction. Israel has made every effort to live in peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have made every effort to kill and terrorize Israeli citizens who they consider sub-human.
There is a CLEAR delineation between right and wrong in this conflict. Israel values LIFE and is acting to preserve the life of its people. Every single life has limitless value. The Palestinians value DEATH and violence. They honor and reward those who murder Israeli civilians. The families of suicide bombers are honored and paid cash. Israel takes extraordinary efforts to retrieve all captured, injured and dead soldiers from the battlefield.
Clearly the Israelis even value the Palestrina's' lives. They make every effort to reduce civilian casualties. Often they leaflet areas before they bomb and sometimes call Palestinian civilians on the phone so they can get out before their bombs fall. The Israeli defense force takes every precaution to minimize civilian casualties, often at a strategic cost.
On the other hand, the Palestinians target Israeli civilians . The Palestinians use innocent women and children as human shields to protect their stockpiles of rockets and weapons. Palestinians preach hate and intolerance and value death. Dead Palestinians have value when "showcased" on the news to gain public sympathy. They use their own civilian casualties, in a disingenuous deception to gain public sympathy. The Israel's value love, acceptance and life. The distinction is crystal clear. There is a clear delineation of right and wrong.
The unrest between Israel and Hamas boils down to one thing: "If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be no war. If the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no Israel."
Palestinian children, as shown in the video, are taught that Jews are sub-human creatures and they are taught to regard them as pigs and dogs. They are taught this by their parents in their homes, by their teachers in school, by Imams their mosques, by journalists in their media and by their political leaders. This hateful deception is so overwhelming, that some young Palestinians are willing to perform suicide bombings. The brainwashing among the Palestinian youth is intense, widespread and successful. It leads to hate and intolerance being passed down from one generation to the next.
I am horrified to see the same type of propaganda and hate being put into the minds of American youth. It is frightening to see today's American culture abandoning universal spiritual principles* in favor of moral relativism and secularism.
This makes me wonder if today's American media, schools, popular culture and politicians aren't doing the same thing as the Palestinians are doing. Often they push their political agenda by using means that instill hate and intolerance. Many university professors, students, journalists and pop-culture icons are more sympathetic to the Palestinians than they are to our own president, military, and traditional religious institutions of America. In today's popular culture, diversity and multiculturalism are held up as a virtue without regard to principles, while the Jeudeo-Christian values are constantly under attack .
It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to fill the hearts of America's youth with hateful intolerance toward the institutions and culture that has made America great. It is surprising to see that today's youth take the wrong side on many social and political issues. Today's youth have been so confused that they can no longer tell right from wrong. As a matter of fact, they are taught that there are no moral absolutes. They are taught that every issue has two sides and that both sides are right depending upon your perspective. This moral relativism is even being used to justify terrorism by many learned university professors and students.
It was frightening to see the hateful intolerance of the Palestinian protesters in Florida. It is more frightening when I see this same type of hateful intolerance directed against traditional, conservative, patriotic, God fearing Americans by today's modern American popular culture.
*{universal spiritual principles include: selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, forgiveness, love, acceptance, and faith in God}
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Why Statistics Can't Be Trusted
I am often skeptical of "statistics", because they are often skewed. It infuriates me, when someone uses skewed statistics to make a point. If they know that the statistics that they are using are misleading, and still use them to back up their argument, they are not speaking "in good faith".
Several months ago, in the democratic primary campaign, Obama said, "When women still make just 77 cents for every dollar men make - black and Latina women even less - that doesn't just hurt women, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work even harder just to get by". This infuriated me because this skewed statistic has been debunked for many years, Obama must know that this statistic is deceptive, but still used it in a campaign speech. As a result, I was motivated to write the article, " Women in the Workplace". http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/07/women-in-workplace_10.html
Also, during the democratic primary campaign, John Edwards quoted statistics of how many veterans are homeless. He tied the large number of homeless veterans, to a poor economy and a Veterans Administration that is unwilling to provide help to these homeless vets. This is something that I have first-hand knowledge about, for I have been homeless in three different sates.. Most all homeless people, end up on the street due to alcoholism, drug addiction and/or mental illness. In my case, it was all three. Most all of the homeless that I met at the shelters and in the soup kitchens, fell into these three categories, Their predicament was not due to economic downturn, unemployment, or lack of government services. There were homeless vets amongst them. Special government help was available for the Vets, but many chose to decline the drug, alcohol or mental health treatment and chose to remain on the streets.
Also, the mainstream media has been quoting statistics about the increase in the suicide rate among American soldiers in Iraq. They use this statistic to bolster their argument that soldiers are fundamentally opposed to US involvement in Iraq. However, when you examine the statistics, you find that the suicide rate for soldiers in Iraq is comparable to the suicide rate for the same age group at home. Also, the number one reason given for suicide in Iraq, is because of the break-up of personal relationships at home. Soldiers have been getting " dear John" letters during all previous wars, some react worse than others. The vast majority of these suicides are for reasons that are not related to the war.
If these statistics were examined in good faith, one might conclude that our young men and women who commit suicide in Iraq, are doing so as a result of a broken heart, not lack of support for their mission. If you follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, you may conclude that love, not war, be brought to an end. Ridiculous? This is an example of how statistics, coupled with emotion and publicity are used to sway the political feelings of the public.
When someone recently quoted me statistics on charitable giving, it did not seem to be in line with what I have been observing. I didn't know why, but it didn't smell right. That is what motivated me to write my article, "Is Charitable Giving on the Rise? http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-charitable-giving-on-rise.html Of course I have no hard data, but I was able to conclude that it is very difficult to account for all charitable giving. My experiences have shown me that much true charity can go unreported and many legitimate charities, have questionable motives.
Someone quoted another statistic about how life expectancy in the US is no greater than in other countries, that have socialized medicine. He concluded that this shows that socialized medicine is as good or better than a privately run medical system. This conclusion did not "smell" right to me, but I did not know why. I quoted him statistics on automobile deaths, murders and drug overdoses. he correctly argued that those numbers were small in comparison the the total number of deaths. I quoted him figures on abortions and he rightly surmised that those were not included in the statistical studies. However, today I thought of four logical explanations as to why, a country with the most advanced and widely available health-care system in the world, has a shorter life expectancy than other nations.
This became clear to me because I am monotoning a stroke victim's diet. I believe that in this case, diet was a major contributing factor, to his two strokes. Not because he was deprived of nutrients in any way, but because a high calorie, fatty, cholesterol laden diet, leads to the build-up of plaque in the arteries after many years of this abundance. In other words, too much of a good thing (food), can lead to medical problems.
When people talk about hunger in America, observation, and common sense are not included in their thoughts or words. In my 53 years on planet Earth, I have never heard of one person dying of starvation in the U.S. If this were to happen, it certainly would make headline news. Yet, hunger is a popular rationalization for providing government subsidized school lunch programs and food stamp programs. I have been amazed that these programs actually advertise on radio and TV, in order to attract more recipients of free food. Hunger is one of our strongest natural instincts. Don't you think that hungry people are capable of seeking out food when they are hungry, without advertising, in this land of abundance.
I have also noticed, contrary to popular wisdom, that people in "poor" neighborhoods are often very well fed. As a matter of fact, overweight and obese people are abundant in "poor" neighborhoods. In America, the abundance of food, not the lack of food, may be what is contributing to shorter lifespans.
Another possible cause of shorter lifespans, is sedentary lifestyles made possible by the advent of modern machinery. Machines have replaced most human labor in the 20th century in modern societies. Lack of exercise, coupled with obesity, are major contributors to premature death.
Another possible cause of shortened lifespan in the US are carcinogens in modern synthetic materials, food additives, pesticides and pollution. In other words, it is possible that many of the miracles of science this modern era has brought us to improve our "quality of life", may have some unwanted side effects that actually are reducing our "quantity of life". Some have been detected, while other have yet to be discovered.
On the other hand, many developing and/or politically corrupt nations like Mexico, have an extremely high mortality rate due to parasites in the water supply and contamination in the food chain. This results from inadequate sewage systems serving large populations and lax regulation and corruption regarding food safety, not from the national medical system.
So there you have it. Off the top of my head I thought of four examples that could cause widespread shortened lifestyles that are unrelated to modern medical care. No-doubt modern medicine adds many years of quality life to billions of people worldwide. However, it is not the only factor in determining a populations average lifespan. Comparisons of differing medical-care systems, can not be determined by lifespan alone.
In conclusion, it seems obvious that statistics can be easily skewed to support or oppose any particular argument. I prefer to rely on my personal experience, reason and commonsense to support my opinions and draw my conclusions.
Several months ago, in the democratic primary campaign, Obama said, "When women still make just 77 cents for every dollar men make - black and Latina women even less - that doesn't just hurt women, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work even harder just to get by". This infuriated me because this skewed statistic has been debunked for many years, Obama must know that this statistic is deceptive, but still used it in a campaign speech. As a result, I was motivated to write the article, " Women in the Workplace". http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/07/women-in-workplace_10.html
Also, during the democratic primary campaign, John Edwards quoted statistics of how many veterans are homeless. He tied the large number of homeless veterans, to a poor economy and a Veterans Administration that is unwilling to provide help to these homeless vets. This is something that I have first-hand knowledge about, for I have been homeless in three different sates.. Most all homeless people, end up on the street due to alcoholism, drug addiction and/or mental illness. In my case, it was all three. Most all of the homeless that I met at the shelters and in the soup kitchens, fell into these three categories, Their predicament was not due to economic downturn, unemployment, or lack of government services. There were homeless vets amongst them. Special government help was available for the Vets, but many chose to decline the drug, alcohol or mental health treatment and chose to remain on the streets.
Also, the mainstream media has been quoting statistics about the increase in the suicide rate among American soldiers in Iraq. They use this statistic to bolster their argument that soldiers are fundamentally opposed to US involvement in Iraq. However, when you examine the statistics, you find that the suicide rate for soldiers in Iraq is comparable to the suicide rate for the same age group at home. Also, the number one reason given for suicide in Iraq, is because of the break-up of personal relationships at home. Soldiers have been getting " dear John" letters during all previous wars, some react worse than others. The vast majority of these suicides are for reasons that are not related to the war.
If these statistics were examined in good faith, one might conclude that our young men and women who commit suicide in Iraq, are doing so as a result of a broken heart, not lack of support for their mission. If you follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, you may conclude that love, not war, be brought to an end. Ridiculous? This is an example of how statistics, coupled with emotion and publicity are used to sway the political feelings of the public.
When someone recently quoted me statistics on charitable giving, it did not seem to be in line with what I have been observing. I didn't know why, but it didn't smell right. That is what motivated me to write my article, "Is Charitable Giving on the Rise? http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-charitable-giving-on-rise.html Of course I have no hard data, but I was able to conclude that it is very difficult to account for all charitable giving. My experiences have shown me that much true charity can go unreported and many legitimate charities, have questionable motives.
Someone quoted another statistic about how life expectancy in the US is no greater than in other countries, that have socialized medicine. He concluded that this shows that socialized medicine is as good or better than a privately run medical system. This conclusion did not "smell" right to me, but I did not know why. I quoted him statistics on automobile deaths, murders and drug overdoses. he correctly argued that those numbers were small in comparison the the total number of deaths. I quoted him figures on abortions and he rightly surmised that those were not included in the statistical studies. However, today I thought of four logical explanations as to why, a country with the most advanced and widely available health-care system in the world, has a shorter life expectancy than other nations.
This became clear to me because I am monotoning a stroke victim's diet. I believe that in this case, diet was a major contributing factor, to his two strokes. Not because he was deprived of nutrients in any way, but because a high calorie, fatty, cholesterol laden diet, leads to the build-up of plaque in the arteries after many years of this abundance. In other words, too much of a good thing (food), can lead to medical problems.
When people talk about hunger in America, observation, and common sense are not included in their thoughts or words. In my 53 years on planet Earth, I have never heard of one person dying of starvation in the U.S. If this were to happen, it certainly would make headline news. Yet, hunger is a popular rationalization for providing government subsidized school lunch programs and food stamp programs. I have been amazed that these programs actually advertise on radio and TV, in order to attract more recipients of free food. Hunger is one of our strongest natural instincts. Don't you think that hungry people are capable of seeking out food when they are hungry, without advertising, in this land of abundance.
I have also noticed, contrary to popular wisdom, that people in "poor" neighborhoods are often very well fed. As a matter of fact, overweight and obese people are abundant in "poor" neighborhoods. In America, the abundance of food, not the lack of food, may be what is contributing to shorter lifespans.
Another possible cause of shorter lifespans, is sedentary lifestyles made possible by the advent of modern machinery. Machines have replaced most human labor in the 20th century in modern societies. Lack of exercise, coupled with obesity, are major contributors to premature death.
Another possible cause of shortened lifespan in the US are carcinogens in modern synthetic materials, food additives, pesticides and pollution. In other words, it is possible that many of the miracles of science this modern era has brought us to improve our "quality of life", may have some unwanted side effects that actually are reducing our "quantity of life". Some have been detected, while other have yet to be discovered.
On the other hand, many developing and/or politically corrupt nations like Mexico, have an extremely high mortality rate due to parasites in the water supply and contamination in the food chain. This results from inadequate sewage systems serving large populations and lax regulation and corruption regarding food safety, not from the national medical system.
So there you have it. Off the top of my head I thought of four examples that could cause widespread shortened lifestyles that are unrelated to modern medical care. No-doubt modern medicine adds many years of quality life to billions of people worldwide. However, it is not the only factor in determining a populations average lifespan. Comparisons of differing medical-care systems, can not be determined by lifespan alone.
In conclusion, it seems obvious that statistics can be easily skewed to support or oppose any particular argument. I prefer to rely on my personal experience, reason and commonsense to support my opinions and draw my conclusions.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Time To Spread Some Hate?
Watch this anti-prop 8 video and let me know who is spreading hate?
This star studded, Hollywood produced music video accuses Christians and those who are in favor of Prop 8, of being haters and bigots.
In my opinion, it is equally harmful to falsely accuse people and entire religions of bigotry and hate, as to actually practice bigotry. This new type of bigotry, ruins peoples reputations, causes them to lose jobs and robs them of opportunities. Gay activist groups are now publishing "blacklists" of people and businesses who supported proposition 8, in an effort to ruin these businesses and smear the reputation of good people. This type of bigotry, hate and intimidation is often used by today's gay activists.
In this case, it is the Hollywood anti-Prop 8 crowd, who is practicing bigotry, hate and narrow-minded intolerance.
It seems to me that there is a concerted effort on the part of Hollywood and the "arts" to denigrate Christianity and celebrate homosexuality. The very same people who champion open-mindedness, diversity and tolerance are quick to smear people and groups, who they oppose.
I also noticed a couple of strong contradictions in the song. The song starts off with the lyric," It's a brand new bright Obama Day". The truth is that Barack Obama has said that he was for civil unions, but against Gay Marriage, while he was on the campaign trail.
Secondly, the song went on to say "what a time to be black, a girl or gay". However, exit polls in the recent election where "gay marriage" was overturned, showed that 70% of blacks voted for prop 8 (against gay marriage), while Christians were more evenly divided. During this particular election, there was a higher than usual black turnout at the polls. This was because many blacks were drawn out to vote because of Obama. Ironically, 70% of these blacks voted against gay marriage. Why were Christians demonized in this video, rather than Blacks? Why was Obama praised in this video, rather than demonized for bringing out the people to the polls who ultimately voted down gay marriage in California?
One more point: It seems to me that we are always being lectured by the Hollywood crowd that it is wrong to stereotype people. Can you imagine the public outcry if they stereotyped the black woman as an "Aunt Jamima" or showed the black man eating watermelon and fried chicken? Why is there no outrage for portraying Christians as stuck-up, prudish, deceptive, narrow minded, greedy and hate-filled people?
This music video, is a typical example of how the "left" gets its message out. They use emotion, above truth and reason. In the end, the elaborate, heartfelt symbolism of liberal presentations, overwhelms the substance of their opponents' reasonable arguments.
I think that this video was unnecessarily hurtful to many well intentioned good people, especially the line "Time to spread some hate". I personally know of nobody who feels that way in support of Prop 8. That line is disingenuous and hurtful. I think that frustrated gay activists vent their frustrations with their own form of hate and bigotry. There is no doubt that some gay activists hate Mormons and Christians. To hate groups based on their religious beliefs is the definition of bigotry. That video, stirs up anger. It sure made me angry, and I am neither Mormon nor Christian.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Do Liberals Have a Feminized Agenda?
Call me a male chauvinist pig, but I believe that men and women are intrinsically different, with different strengths and weaknesses.
Examples of feminine strengths include: compassion, empathy, tenderness, nurturing support of children and appreciation of style, beauty and art. Masculine strengths include: discipline, strength, reason, intellectual curiosity, courage and competitiveness.
There are also negative attributes pertaining to each sex. These need to be restrained by the opposite sex. Negative attributes for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Negative attributes common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Some women do possess the desirable characteristics suited for leadership. However, I believe that men are intrinsically better suited to make the tough dispassionate decisions, required by leadership. The emotional detachment of many men (which women constantly complain about), leads to less emotional distraction, when making decisions of great consequence. On the other hand, women are generally more suited to provide the nurturing support, required to raise the best next generation of Americans. The child rearing instinct is so strong in most women, that most children who live with a single parent, live with their mother, at her insistence. Of course these are all generalizations. But I maintain that these generalizations are "generally" accurate.
The popular notion that men's and women's roles are interchangeable in society is not backed-up by reason, common sense and my personal experience. Liberalism is basically a feminine view-point, which many of today's men have adapted. The liberal agenda, places much emphasis on children, child safety, the importance of feelings, and the importance of the arts. This is why liberals are protective of our soldiers, rather that motivated to win wars and strengthen our nation.
Many liberals belief's border on socialism. Socialism is a vain attempt at trying to make sure that everyone is taken-care" of. Many of today's liberals are driven by emotion, rather than reason. This is why liberals dominate the "arts", while conservatives dominate math and engineering fields.
Most everything that I write in my articles is obvious to me, because my thoughts are based on reason, commonsense and my personal observations. I find it amazing that a majority of our society, has been so brainwashed, that they no longer rely on their own eyes, experiences and common sense.
Men and women are intrinsically different, with different strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part, you do not see many male pre-school teachers or female auto mechanics. However, in recent years, we have seen a huge increase in the number of female doctors and real estate professionals. This is because , in a free society, people choose careers that they feel most suited for.
Affirmative action in education and employment, pushes people into fields that they are not qualified for or not suited for. This results the in failure and dissatisfaction of many of the participants, as well as lower overall performance in a particular field.
Many local and state governments recognize that women intrinsically have less physical strength and stature than men. As a result, they have lowered the physical requirements for women entering the police and fire departments. In these cases, the overall performance of those police and fire department is diminished, because strength and stature are required to subdue criminals and carry victims out of burning buildings. However, our feminized society is more interested in assuaging feelings of envy, rather than achieving positive results.
Have welfare programs reduced poverty? Have liberal judges reduced crime? Have liberal public school programs improved education? Have public housing programs reduced homelessness? These questions are rarely asked. Failed feminized ideas are often continued and expanded in an effort to show that we care about a problem, regardless of the outcome. When someone stands up to point out that a social program is not working and should be eliminated, he is demonized as being heartless, hateful and bigoted. This is why liberal programs face little opposition.
Female weaknesses are often justified and female strengths are held up as examples for men to follow. Many male strengths are considered to be weaknesses. This explains most aspects of the liberal agenda. For example: The public schools and universities, embrace and celebrate sensitive female characteristics, while deploring that which is brutish, competitive and male. Our current President, George Bush, is nothing but an brutish war-monger, in the eyes of many liberals, despite the fact that his unpopular decisions have kept our homeland safe, in the war on terror, for the past seven years.
Discipline, restraint, traditional family values and religion are not popular among liberals, because they diminish the seductive and manipulative powers that femininity affords. However, manipulation, seduction and class envy are formidable weapons in the liberals' arsenal.
Do not underestimate to power of females' secret weapons of tears(victim hood), seduction(sexuality), and deception (little white lies with ends that justify their means). No man can stand up to these weapons, and this is why liberals and women have gained the upper hand. These negative aspects of femininity have to be clearly seen for what they are, if balance is to be restored. Only then can our culture be restored to the strength, prosperity and freedom that has made the US the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen.
Unfortunately, Republicans are also becoming feminized and becoming swallowed-up by today's feminized agenda. There is a vacuum in conservative leadership. Who is willing to speak the obvious but harsh truth? Just like in the fable:" The Emperors New Clothes", the cold hard truth can be dangerous and may not be popular at first. However, the only way to survive as a culture and a nation, is to place reason, discipline and courage, before emotions, seductions and deceptions.
Examples of feminine strengths include: compassion, empathy, tenderness, nurturing support of children and appreciation of style, beauty and art. Masculine strengths include: discipline, strength, reason, intellectual curiosity, courage and competitiveness.
There are also negative attributes pertaining to each sex. These need to be restrained by the opposite sex. Negative attributes for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Negative attributes common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Some women do possess the desirable characteristics suited for leadership. However, I believe that men are intrinsically better suited to make the tough dispassionate decisions, required by leadership. The emotional detachment of many men (which women constantly complain about), leads to less emotional distraction, when making decisions of great consequence. On the other hand, women are generally more suited to provide the nurturing support, required to raise the best next generation of Americans. The child rearing instinct is so strong in most women, that most children who live with a single parent, live with their mother, at her insistence. Of course these are all generalizations. But I maintain that these generalizations are "generally" accurate.
The popular notion that men's and women's roles are interchangeable in society is not backed-up by reason, common sense and my personal experience. Liberalism is basically a feminine view-point, which many of today's men have adapted. The liberal agenda, places much emphasis on children, child safety, the importance of feelings, and the importance of the arts. This is why liberals are protective of our soldiers, rather that motivated to win wars and strengthen our nation.
Many liberals belief's border on socialism. Socialism is a vain attempt at trying to make sure that everyone is taken-care" of. Many of today's liberals are driven by emotion, rather than reason. This is why liberals dominate the "arts", while conservatives dominate math and engineering fields.
Most everything that I write in my articles is obvious to me, because my thoughts are based on reason, commonsense and my personal observations. I find it amazing that a majority of our society, has been so brainwashed, that they no longer rely on their own eyes, experiences and common sense.
Men and women are intrinsically different, with different strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part, you do not see many male pre-school teachers or female auto mechanics. However, in recent years, we have seen a huge increase in the number of female doctors and real estate professionals. This is because , in a free society, people choose careers that they feel most suited for.
Affirmative action in education and employment, pushes people into fields that they are not qualified for or not suited for. This results the in failure and dissatisfaction of many of the participants, as well as lower overall performance in a particular field.
Many local and state governments recognize that women intrinsically have less physical strength and stature than men. As a result, they have lowered the physical requirements for women entering the police and fire departments. In these cases, the overall performance of those police and fire department is diminished, because strength and stature are required to subdue criminals and carry victims out of burning buildings. However, our feminized society is more interested in assuaging feelings of envy, rather than achieving positive results.
Have welfare programs reduced poverty? Have liberal judges reduced crime? Have liberal public school programs improved education? Have public housing programs reduced homelessness? These questions are rarely asked. Failed feminized ideas are often continued and expanded in an effort to show that we care about a problem, regardless of the outcome. When someone stands up to point out that a social program is not working and should be eliminated, he is demonized as being heartless, hateful and bigoted. This is why liberal programs face little opposition.
Female weaknesses are often justified and female strengths are held up as examples for men to follow. Many male strengths are considered to be weaknesses. This explains most aspects of the liberal agenda. For example: The public schools and universities, embrace and celebrate sensitive female characteristics, while deploring that which is brutish, competitive and male. Our current President, George Bush, is nothing but an brutish war-monger, in the eyes of many liberals, despite the fact that his unpopular decisions have kept our homeland safe, in the war on terror, for the past seven years.
Discipline, restraint, traditional family values and religion are not popular among liberals, because they diminish the seductive and manipulative powers that femininity affords. However, manipulation, seduction and class envy are formidable weapons in the liberals' arsenal.
Do not underestimate to power of females' secret weapons of tears(victim hood), seduction(sexuality), and deception (little white lies with ends that justify their means). No man can stand up to these weapons, and this is why liberals and women have gained the upper hand. These negative aspects of femininity have to be clearly seen for what they are, if balance is to be restored. Only then can our culture be restored to the strength, prosperity and freedom that has made the US the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen.
Unfortunately, Republicans are also becoming feminized and becoming swallowed-up by today's feminized agenda. There is a vacuum in conservative leadership. Who is willing to speak the obvious but harsh truth? Just like in the fable:" The Emperors New Clothes", the cold hard truth can be dangerous and may not be popular at first. However, the only way to survive as a culture and a nation, is to place reason, discipline and courage, before emotions, seductions and deceptions.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Are Cutters, Gays, Drug Users and Those Who Sport Tattoos and Piercings, Displaying Symptoms of a Mental Disorder?
Today I was surprised to read about a new trend among today's troubled youth. It is called by mental health professionals "self-embedding disorder". This is the practice of embedding nails, paper clips, bits of rock, glass and even crayons in their bodies.
Read more about this new malady in an informative Reuters article entitled: "Self-Embedding Disorder: Teens Putting Nails, Paper Clips in Bodies, Study Finds"
An interesting quote from the above mentioned article is: "It is often kept secret, but some studies suggest that 13 to 24 percent of high school students in the U.S. and Canada have practiced deliberate self-injury at least once."
Many adults are completely unaware of this popular phenomenon among today's youth. That is because this is a new phenomenon, that was rare when today's middle aged population were growing up.
There are "clicks" among high school and college age kids called "emos". These kids are known for manic depressive behavior and self mutilation. They can be identified by their appearance which is described on this "how to be emo" website.
Some people might think that since the "emo lifestyle" affects such a large number of today's youths, that it is just a fad. Today's popular culture preaches that it is just a lifestyle choice and "emos" are just practicing their "freedom of expression". But I believe that the "emo lifestyle" is a cry for help from a large group of today's youth who suffer from a mental disorder.
I have personally know 2 women who have noticeable scars from self mutilation. Both dress like "emos". Both are bi-sexual/lesbians and one is extremely heavily tattooed and has multiple piercings in her face, abdomen, nipples and vagina. Both have been sexually abused as children and are drug addicted prostitutes. Many people believe that these behaviors are legitimate lifestyle choices. However, I believe all of the above mentioned behaviors are the symptoms of an underlying mental illness, rooted in they way that many of today's youth are raised.
Also, I was surprised to find that approximately one third of people who sport multiple tattoos say, that one of their main reasons for getting tattooed, is that they enjoy the pain of the tattooing possess. If you don't believe me, just ask them, and see if you get the same answers that I did. Other reasons for getting tattooed include: rebellion against parents who forbid tattoos, to look cool, tattoos are sexy, they say something about me, they are pretty, and they make me look tough.
I believe that extreme tattooing and piercing, homosexuality, drug abuse and self mutilation are all symptoms of mental disorders. I believe that most mental disorders originate from childhood experiences. I believe that mental illness is on the rise in today's America due to the disappearing intact family and the feminizing of our society as described in my article "The Feminizing of Society" .
Today's schools, universities, media and the arts encourage accepting and celebrating much of the above mentioned bizarre behaviors. As a result, even the "normal" youths of today, are confused and unable to distinguish normal and positive behavior from abnormal and unhealthy behavior.
Read more about this new malady in an informative Reuters article entitled: "Self-Embedding Disorder: Teens Putting Nails, Paper Clips in Bodies, Study Finds"
An interesting quote from the above mentioned article is: "It is often kept secret, but some studies suggest that 13 to 24 percent of high school students in the U.S. and Canada have practiced deliberate self-injury at least once."
Many adults are completely unaware of this popular phenomenon among today's youth. That is because this is a new phenomenon, that was rare when today's middle aged population were growing up.
There are "clicks" among high school and college age kids called "emos". These kids are known for manic depressive behavior and self mutilation. They can be identified by their appearance which is described on this "how to be emo" website.
Some people might think that since the "emo lifestyle" affects such a large number of today's youths, that it is just a fad. Today's popular culture preaches that it is just a lifestyle choice and "emos" are just practicing their "freedom of expression". But I believe that the "emo lifestyle" is a cry for help from a large group of today's youth who suffer from a mental disorder.
I have personally know 2 women who have noticeable scars from self mutilation. Both dress like "emos". Both are bi-sexual/lesbians and one is extremely heavily tattooed and has multiple piercings in her face, abdomen, nipples and vagina. Both have been sexually abused as children and are drug addicted prostitutes. Many people believe that these behaviors are legitimate lifestyle choices. However, I believe all of the above mentioned behaviors are the symptoms of an underlying mental illness, rooted in they way that many of today's youth are raised.
Also, I was surprised to find that approximately one third of people who sport multiple tattoos say, that one of their main reasons for getting tattooed, is that they enjoy the pain of the tattooing possess. If you don't believe me, just ask them, and see if you get the same answers that I did. Other reasons for getting tattooed include: rebellion against parents who forbid tattoos, to look cool, tattoos are sexy, they say something about me, they are pretty, and they make me look tough.
I believe that extreme tattooing and piercing, homosexuality, drug abuse and self mutilation are all symptoms of mental disorders. I believe that most mental disorders originate from childhood experiences. I believe that mental illness is on the rise in today's America due to the disappearing intact family and the feminizing of our society as described in my article "The Feminizing of Society" .
Today's schools, universities, media and the arts encourage accepting and celebrating much of the above mentioned bizarre behaviors. As a result, even the "normal" youths of today, are confused and unable to distinguish normal and positive behavior from abnormal and unhealthy behavior.
Monday, December 1, 2008
eHarmony Was Bullied Into Submission By Homosexual Activists.
As I have written repeatedly, "when you accept and celebrate something that is abnormal and unhealthy, as if it were normal and positive, you turn reason and common sense on its head". An excellent example of this is a recent lawsuit and settlement by eHarmony.com . eHarmony, is an on-line Christian owned dating service, that was bullied into providing services for homosexual singles.
Michelle Malkin wrote in a recent article: "The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users".
E-Harmony obviously caved in due to the intimidation and bullying tactics that the gay activists have been using to influence businesses nationwide. As I have written in my previous article,"My Views on Homosexuality", this same tactic was used on the psychiatric profession, 40 years ago, in order to force them to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
The following is a comment on Malkin's article from a Prop. 8 supporter and an excellent rebuttal from a clear thinker.
eaglehaslanded said:
'This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.'
No, actually it’s like a lunch counter in Mississippi refusing to serve a Black person.
On November 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am, NJ-Aviator said:
NO. You could not be MORE WRONG. You really need a review of logic.
This person was not refused a service that the business offered. This person demanded a service the business DID NOT OFFER.
Michelle’s analogy was spot on. Yours was off in space.
And that’s the problem with the left. No logic.
Here is the link to Malkin's entire article and comments page. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/
Michelle Malkin wrote in a recent article: "The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users".
E-Harmony obviously caved in due to the intimidation and bullying tactics that the gay activists have been using to influence businesses nationwide. As I have written in my previous article,"My Views on Homosexuality", this same tactic was used on the psychiatric profession, 40 years ago, in order to force them to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
The following is a comment on Malkin's article from a Prop. 8 supporter and an excellent rebuttal from a clear thinker.
eaglehaslanded said:
'This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.'
No, actually it’s like a lunch counter in Mississippi refusing to serve a Black person.
On November 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am, NJ-Aviator said:
NO. You could not be MORE WRONG. You really need a review of logic.
This person was not refused a service that the business offered. This person demanded a service the business DID NOT OFFER.
Michelle’s analogy was spot on. Yours was off in space.
And that’s the problem with the left. No logic.
Here is the link to Malkin's entire article and comments page. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Why Tariffs and Regulations Should be Imposed on Foreign Imports
It is unfair to have American companies compete with foreign companies, without tariffs and regulations on imports to level the playing field. Without tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, America's manufacturing base will continue to erode. Our nation must produce as much as we consume in order to sustain our safe and comfortable style of living in an unstable world economy and for reasons of national security.
Without imposing tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, American manufacturers can not compete with foreign imports. This will result in a decrease of the US manufacturing base, and an increase on dependence on foreign goods.
I will list some of the major expenses and regulations that our government places on American business. These expenses and regulations grossly increase our cost of doing business as compared to foreign companies from China, Mexico and many other major trading partners.
1) The US places regulations on child labor in the work force.
2) The US places regulations on minimum hourly wages and overtime.
3) The US requires that companies pay for and provide, Workman's Compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Workers and companies also share the cost of Social Security and Medicare for all US workers.
4) US companies are strictly regulated to prevent them from dumping waste in waterways, in the air and in unregulated landfills. As a result, eco-friendly waste disposal has become a major expense for US businesses.
5) US companies must comply with strict OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations, which protect workers from unsafe working conditions in factories, mines, and other businesses.
6) Us companies face product safety regulations which, among other things, prevent them from using lead based paint in children's toys or producing tires that are likely to blow out and cause crashes.
7) US food companies are strictly regulated for food safety.
8) US drug companies are required to have costly testing and trials. They must get FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval before being allowed to put new medications on the market.
9) Factories, commercial buildings, homes, bridges and highways face stringent building code regulations. These regulations are intended to reduce collapses, fires, accidents and hazardous conditions. Also these regulations help buildings, bridges and roads stand up to hurricanes earthquakes and other natural disasters. US structures are among the safest in the world.
10) US auto manufactures face strict safety and environmental regulations to make sure that vehicles on American highways are as safe and pollution-free as possible. The US boasts safer and cleaner vehicles than most of the rest of the world.
These are just some of the US regulations that I can think of off the top of my head. Although many of these regulations go too far, and some may not be effective enough, for the most part these costly regulations on US business and infrastructure, help America to produce the safest products, under the safest, cleanest and most humane conditions. This is done in a manner that keeps American waterways, air and land, cleaner and healthier than most other nations of the world.
There are only two options that can level the playing field when competing with foreign businesses. The first would be to remove the regulations that I listed above, thus bringing down the cost of doing business in the US. The second option would be to place tariffs on foreign imports.
It would be a step back into the dark ages, to reduce or eliminate many of the regulations that have protected American workers and consumers in our modern era.
We can not control the way foreign countries choose to regulate their businesses. It is clear to me, that there is only one way to level the playing field, when competing with foreign businesses. It is to place tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, so that US industries can compete with them, while still maintaining our high American standards.
Without imposing tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, American manufacturers can not compete with foreign imports. This will result in a decrease of the US manufacturing base, and an increase on dependence on foreign goods.
I will list some of the major expenses and regulations that our government places on American business. These expenses and regulations grossly increase our cost of doing business as compared to foreign companies from China, Mexico and many other major trading partners.
1) The US places regulations on child labor in the work force.
2) The US places regulations on minimum hourly wages and overtime.
3) The US requires that companies pay for and provide, Workman's Compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Workers and companies also share the cost of Social Security and Medicare for all US workers.
4) US companies are strictly regulated to prevent them from dumping waste in waterways, in the air and in unregulated landfills. As a result, eco-friendly waste disposal has become a major expense for US businesses.
5) US companies must comply with strict OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations, which protect workers from unsafe working conditions in factories, mines, and other businesses.
6) Us companies face product safety regulations which, among other things, prevent them from using lead based paint in children's toys or producing tires that are likely to blow out and cause crashes.
7) US food companies are strictly regulated for food safety.
8) US drug companies are required to have costly testing and trials. They must get FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval before being allowed to put new medications on the market.
9) Factories, commercial buildings, homes, bridges and highways face stringent building code regulations. These regulations are intended to reduce collapses, fires, accidents and hazardous conditions. Also these regulations help buildings, bridges and roads stand up to hurricanes earthquakes and other natural disasters. US structures are among the safest in the world.
10) US auto manufactures face strict safety and environmental regulations to make sure that vehicles on American highways are as safe and pollution-free as possible. The US boasts safer and cleaner vehicles than most of the rest of the world.
These are just some of the US regulations that I can think of off the top of my head. Although many of these regulations go too far, and some may not be effective enough, for the most part these costly regulations on US business and infrastructure, help America to produce the safest products, under the safest, cleanest and most humane conditions. This is done in a manner that keeps American waterways, air and land, cleaner and healthier than most other nations of the world.
There are only two options that can level the playing field when competing with foreign businesses. The first would be to remove the regulations that I listed above, thus bringing down the cost of doing business in the US. The second option would be to place tariffs on foreign imports.
It would be a step back into the dark ages, to reduce or eliminate many of the regulations that have protected American workers and consumers in our modern era.
We can not control the way foreign countries choose to regulate their businesses. It is clear to me, that there is only one way to level the playing field, when competing with foreign businesses. It is to place tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, so that US industries can compete with them, while still maintaining our high American standards.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Racism, Reverse-racism and Race-Baiting
Carleton University student councillors voted almost unanimously in favour of a resolution that stated: Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men."
The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough. Click on above text, to read more.
This is another example of "political correctness" (censorship and bullying) run-a muck on university campuses. This problem is worse in Canada than the US. This is a clear case of reverse discrimination which is widespread in today's popular culture.
First of all, reverse discrimination is a misnomer, because discrimination is not defined as bias or bigotry targeted against under-privileged minorities. There is no such thing as forward or revers discrimination. Discrimination is simply discrimination.
Secondly, most discrimination is not harmful, to the contrary, discrimination is a helpful survival tool. We all discriminate in the friends we choose, the spouse we choose, where we choose to live, what neighborhoods we choose to "hang out in", what school we choose, what career we choose, who we choose to hire, who we choose to to lend money to, who we choose to live with and who we choose to rent to. Illegal discrimination is another story and should not be tolerated, but discrimination is not a dirty word. Most typical discrimination is a good, necessary and and important survival tool.
One more thing on this topic. Liberals are constantly using the words bigot, racist, homophobes, and chauvinist indiscriminately. One needs to use discrimination, when launching these vitriolic attacks. I believe that a false accusation of racism is equally harmful as an act of racism. Falsely accusing people of racism has become casual and popular. However, the consequences are just as damaging as racist words and actions. The casual accusation of racism, when not warranted, stifles(censors) public and private conversations, for fear of being called a racist. Being labeled a racist is one of the worst stereotypes in today's popular culture. This label can affect ones career and lifestyle. This accusation can even affect where one is welcome and allowed to work and live. To casually accuse a well meaning person of racism has far-reaching affects that is tantamount to true racism.
It is time that "race-baiters" be held to the same standard as true racists.
The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough. Click on above text, to read more.
This is another example of "political correctness" (censorship and bullying) run-a muck on university campuses. This problem is worse in Canada than the US. This is a clear case of reverse discrimination which is widespread in today's popular culture.
First of all, reverse discrimination is a misnomer, because discrimination is not defined as bias or bigotry targeted against under-privileged minorities. There is no such thing as forward or revers discrimination. Discrimination is simply discrimination.
Secondly, most discrimination is not harmful, to the contrary, discrimination is a helpful survival tool. We all discriminate in the friends we choose, the spouse we choose, where we choose to live, what neighborhoods we choose to "hang out in", what school we choose, what career we choose, who we choose to hire, who we choose to to lend money to, who we choose to live with and who we choose to rent to. Illegal discrimination is another story and should not be tolerated, but discrimination is not a dirty word. Most typical discrimination is a good, necessary and and important survival tool.
One more thing on this topic. Liberals are constantly using the words bigot, racist, homophobes, and chauvinist indiscriminately. One needs to use discrimination, when launching these vitriolic attacks. I believe that a false accusation of racism is equally harmful as an act of racism. Falsely accusing people of racism has become casual and popular. However, the consequences are just as damaging as racist words and actions. The casual accusation of racism, when not warranted, stifles(censors) public and private conversations, for fear of being called a racist. Being labeled a racist is one of the worst stereotypes in today's popular culture. This label can affect ones career and lifestyle. This accusation can even affect where one is welcome and allowed to work and live. To casually accuse a well meaning person of racism has far-reaching affects that is tantamount to true racism.
It is time that "race-baiters" be held to the same standard as true racists.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Two Concise Reasons Why We Face Certain Economic Doom
The two main reasons why our economy is doomed for failure are:
1) America (and Americans) consumes more than it produces.
2) America (and Americans) borrows more than it saves.
Under these conditions, the American standard of living can only be sustained by selling off assets that we have accumulated in the past, and/or borrowing money with a promise to repay it in the future. Obviously this can not go on indefinitely, there will come a day of reckoning. This day may be postponed slightly with government bailouts. But bailouts will only exacerbate the problem because they will undermine the foundation of our capitalist system. Also, the demand for continuing government bailouts will become insatiable. Bailouts will lead to the eventual insolvency of the federal government.
The only way for us to build a sustainable economy, that will come back healthy and strong, is to produce more, consume less, save more and borrow less. Politicians and citizens are unwilling to face this undeniable hard truth. We must manufacture more, import less, consume less, borrow less and save more. This will mean higher consumer prices, higher interest rates, lower wages and less amenities for most Americans in the foreseeable future. We must also become energy independent, by drilling for more oil, building more nuclear power plants and through technological innovation. This will mean higher energy costs in the short term.
If we do not collectively make these sacrifices, the results will be devastating.This strong medicine will stabilize our current economic woes and build a stronger and more prosperous American future.This is the only responsible way to insure economic stability and the future prosperity of America.
However, politicians on both sides of the isle, are calling for the exact opposite. They are lowering interest rates, which discourage savings and encourages borrowing. They are encouraging consumers to borrow more and spend more, by making consumer credit more widely available. The government is borrowing trillions of dollars, through huge federal budget deficits, to finance "economic stimulus packages", bailouts and ever-growing government programs. Federal bailouts will reward mismanaged, corrupt and unprofitable corporations. Bailouts also tempt businesses and government officials with corruption. Bailouts also stifle the growth of healthy, profitable companies, because they are competing at a disadvantage with government subsidized companies, who are crowding them out of the market.
The government is also signing "free trade agreements", rather than putting tariffs on imports. This motivates us to buy cheaper goods from overseas, rather than producing more goods here. Often American companies can not compete with foreign companies. Foreign companies often do not have the same high environmental standards, safety standards, labor standards and high taxes that American companies face. It is unfair to have American companies compete with foreign companies without tariffs to level the playing field. Without tariffs, America's manufacturing base will continue to erode. We must produce as much as we consume in order to sustain our economy in an unstable world economy and for reasons of national security.
The American "standard of living " is unsustainable under the current conditions. Rather than accepting this "truth" and making appropriate sacrifices, government is mortgaging America's future, in order to buy us a little more time of "living beyond our means".
A fitting analogy would be, the prospect of surgery and subsequent chemotherapy for a cancer patient. Surgery and chemotherapy will ensure pain and suffering in the short term, but the patient will have an excellent chance of recovery. Postponing the surgical option, and improving the patients "quality of life" with painkillers, will certainly insure the patients death. If, we as a nation, do not choose the more painful option in the short term, we face almost certain catastrophic economic failure and possibly the end of America as we know it.
1) America (and Americans) consumes more than it produces.
2) America (and Americans) borrows more than it saves.
Under these conditions, the American standard of living can only be sustained by selling off assets that we have accumulated in the past, and/or borrowing money with a promise to repay it in the future. Obviously this can not go on indefinitely, there will come a day of reckoning. This day may be postponed slightly with government bailouts. But bailouts will only exacerbate the problem because they will undermine the foundation of our capitalist system. Also, the demand for continuing government bailouts will become insatiable. Bailouts will lead to the eventual insolvency of the federal government.
The only way for us to build a sustainable economy, that will come back healthy and strong, is to produce more, consume less, save more and borrow less. Politicians and citizens are unwilling to face this undeniable hard truth. We must manufacture more, import less, consume less, borrow less and save more. This will mean higher consumer prices, higher interest rates, lower wages and less amenities for most Americans in the foreseeable future. We must also become energy independent, by drilling for more oil, building more nuclear power plants and through technological innovation. This will mean higher energy costs in the short term.
If we do not collectively make these sacrifices, the results will be devastating.This strong medicine will stabilize our current economic woes and build a stronger and more prosperous American future.This is the only responsible way to insure economic stability and the future prosperity of America.
However, politicians on both sides of the isle, are calling for the exact opposite. They are lowering interest rates, which discourage savings and encourages borrowing. They are encouraging consumers to borrow more and spend more, by making consumer credit more widely available. The government is borrowing trillions of dollars, through huge federal budget deficits, to finance "economic stimulus packages", bailouts and ever-growing government programs. Federal bailouts will reward mismanaged, corrupt and unprofitable corporations. Bailouts also tempt businesses and government officials with corruption. Bailouts also stifle the growth of healthy, profitable companies, because they are competing at a disadvantage with government subsidized companies, who are crowding them out of the market.
The government is also signing "free trade agreements", rather than putting tariffs on imports. This motivates us to buy cheaper goods from overseas, rather than producing more goods here. Often American companies can not compete with foreign companies. Foreign companies often do not have the same high environmental standards, safety standards, labor standards and high taxes that American companies face. It is unfair to have American companies compete with foreign companies without tariffs to level the playing field. Without tariffs, America's manufacturing base will continue to erode. We must produce as much as we consume in order to sustain our economy in an unstable world economy and for reasons of national security.
The American "standard of living " is unsustainable under the current conditions. Rather than accepting this "truth" and making appropriate sacrifices, government is mortgaging America's future, in order to buy us a little more time of "living beyond our means".
A fitting analogy would be, the prospect of surgery and subsequent chemotherapy for a cancer patient. Surgery and chemotherapy will ensure pain and suffering in the short term, but the patient will have an excellent chance of recovery. Postponing the surgical option, and improving the patients "quality of life" with painkillers, will certainly insure the patients death. If, we as a nation, do not choose the more painful option in the short term, we face almost certain catastrophic economic failure and possibly the end of America as we know it.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thanksgiving
Do today's students know the noble origin of the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving? Do they think that incompetent Europeans were saved by the benevolent, yet naive "Indians", who were then repaid with cruelty, swindling and annihilation by the European settlers, once they got the upper hand?
Do you think that if Europeans had never conquered and "tamed" the American landscape, the world would be better off? Do you know that many Native American tribes were in a continuing state of battle with each other until Europeans brought peace to this continent. Do you know that lasting peace is almost always purchased with bloodshed? If Europeans had never settled America, would another powerful, yet benevolent nation have risen up to save Europe from Hitler during the second world war? Would the Native Americans have built such a strong economy, that they would have been able to donate billions of dollars annually, in foreign aid for the merciful missions of providing, food, medicine and aid for natural disasters? Would Native Americans, and migrating Mexicans, have built and financed universities that educate millions of people each year, many from foreign nations, who help spread modern technology that brings prosperity, medicine and modern farming techniques to our huge land mass, as well as to all corners of the globe. Would native Americans have offered, political, religious and economic refugees from all corners of the Earth, a chance to immigrate to America and assimilate into their tribe? Would the American dollar have reached out to purchase goods and services from all corners of the world, thus raising the standard of living worldwide? Has any other nation paid reparations to the descendants of a nation that they conquered in battle?
I suppose those things are possible. However, to date, America, founded by Christian European settlers, is the only nation that has ever attained exceptionalism in all of these areas and then some. It is sad to see the traditional American culture, which is uniquely exceptional, being replaced by multiculturalism, diversity without virtue, and a secular culture rooted in moral depravity. I am sorry to say that the latter culture is not only unexceptional, but it is unsustainable.
Click here for "The Real Story of Thanksgiving" as told by Rush Limbaugh. Rush talks about how capitalism and American exceptionalism was born in the early 1600s.
Click here for President Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Click here for President Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Do you think that if Europeans had never conquered and "tamed" the American landscape, the world would be better off? Do you know that many Native American tribes were in a continuing state of battle with each other until Europeans brought peace to this continent. Do you know that lasting peace is almost always purchased with bloodshed? If Europeans had never settled America, would another powerful, yet benevolent nation have risen up to save Europe from Hitler during the second world war? Would the Native Americans have built such a strong economy, that they would have been able to donate billions of dollars annually, in foreign aid for the merciful missions of providing, food, medicine and aid for natural disasters? Would Native Americans, and migrating Mexicans, have built and financed universities that educate millions of people each year, many from foreign nations, who help spread modern technology that brings prosperity, medicine and modern farming techniques to our huge land mass, as well as to all corners of the globe. Would native Americans have offered, political, religious and economic refugees from all corners of the Earth, a chance to immigrate to America and assimilate into their tribe? Would the American dollar have reached out to purchase goods and services from all corners of the world, thus raising the standard of living worldwide? Has any other nation paid reparations to the descendants of a nation that they conquered in battle?
I suppose those things are possible. However, to date, America, founded by Christian European settlers, is the only nation that has ever attained exceptionalism in all of these areas and then some. It is sad to see the traditional American culture, which is uniquely exceptional, being replaced by multiculturalism, diversity without virtue, and a secular culture rooted in moral depravity. I am sorry to say that the latter culture is not only unexceptional, but it is unsustainable.
Click here for "The Real Story of Thanksgiving" as told by Rush Limbaugh. Rush talks about how capitalism and American exceptionalism was born in the early 1600s.
Click here for President Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Click here for President Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Universities Are Churning Out Intellectual But Misinformed Graduates
It saddens me to see the lack of accurate political information that is in the minds of today's students and graduates. It seems that the more our collective intelligence accumulates, the less individual wisdom we possess. Thomas Jefferson said: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” According to Jefferson's statement, today's electorate can not be trusted.
A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.
This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.
Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.
http://howobamagotelected.com/
This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.
These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).
Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.
I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".
A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.
This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.
Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.
http://howobamagotelected.com/
This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.
These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).
Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.
I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Is Charitable Giving On The Rise?
In today's day and age, politicians are preaching that it is patriotic to pay taxes and that "rich people" have an obligation tho share their wealth. However, I believe that that true charitable giving only exists when it is done voluntarily. Today's forced charities, through taxpayer financed social programs, are crowding out many genuine charities from helping people on a voluntary and personal level. Forced giving, through high taxes and government social programs, embitters both the givers and receivers, who feel resentment for the other group.
I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.
The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.
Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.
Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.
Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.
Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.
Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.
Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.
On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.
I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.
I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.
The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.
Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.
Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.
Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.
Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.
Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.
Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.
On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.
I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Why Bail-Outs Don't work
The Quintessential definition of insanity is to repeat the same mistake and expect different results.
In a free market, companies will not take on undue risk, because it will eventually come back to hurt them financially. The main reason why the real-estate market took on so many risky loans, was because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were empowered to buy these risky loans, freeing the banks from their risk. The only reason why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky loans, was because the federal government guaranteed the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the government guarantees that a company will not be allowed to fail, no matter how risky its behavior, this promotes more risky behavior without restrictions or limits. As a result, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bought up 50% of all home mortgages, mostly the riskiest ones. This was no longer a free market, because the risk has been taken out of doing business. If the financial risk is taken out of any business transaction, money is bound to be lost, because there is nothing to stop any deal from going through. The reason why most banks carefully check out a clients credit worthiness before making a loan, is that they will lose money if the loan is not repaid, not because of regulations. If enough loans are not repaid, they will go out of business. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had no such constraints. Commissions were made, every time a mortgage was bought or sold and the company was making lots of money while the real estate market was on the rise and they were protected from failure, should the market fall.
Liberal politicians and community organizers, pressured banks into making risky loans to minorities, poor people. Banks were inclined to acquiesce, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to relieve them of their risk. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually became insolvent, banks were stuck with the risky loans that they had on hand. Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had been repackaging many of these risky loans into a financial instrument called "Mortgage Backed Securities" and they sold them on the securities market. This is how these risky loans circulated throughout the financial industry and eventually put many financial institutions at risk.
The lesson to be learned here is not that the markets require more regulation. The lesson is that the government will distort any market by guaranteeing any business from failure. That guarantee, guarantees risky behavior on the part of that institution. It will inevitably lead to insolvency.
The current trend toward government bail-outs, government acquisitions and loan guarantees is exactly the same behavior that caused these financial institutions to fail in the first place. I can see no other outcome than the eventual failure of more businesses and financial institutions resulting from this increased government interference in free markets.
In a free market, companies will not take on undue risk, because it will eventually come back to hurt them financially. The main reason why the real-estate market took on so many risky loans, was because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were empowered to buy these risky loans, freeing the banks from their risk. The only reason why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky loans, was because the federal government guaranteed the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the government guarantees that a company will not be allowed to fail, no matter how risky its behavior, this promotes more risky behavior without restrictions or limits. As a result, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bought up 50% of all home mortgages, mostly the riskiest ones. This was no longer a free market, because the risk has been taken out of doing business. If the financial risk is taken out of any business transaction, money is bound to be lost, because there is nothing to stop any deal from going through. The reason why most banks carefully check out a clients credit worthiness before making a loan, is that they will lose money if the loan is not repaid, not because of regulations. If enough loans are not repaid, they will go out of business. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had no such constraints. Commissions were made, every time a mortgage was bought or sold and the company was making lots of money while the real estate market was on the rise and they were protected from failure, should the market fall.
Liberal politicians and community organizers, pressured banks into making risky loans to minorities, poor people. Banks were inclined to acquiesce, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to relieve them of their risk. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually became insolvent, banks were stuck with the risky loans that they had on hand. Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had been repackaging many of these risky loans into a financial instrument called "Mortgage Backed Securities" and they sold them on the securities market. This is how these risky loans circulated throughout the financial industry and eventually put many financial institutions at risk.
The lesson to be learned here is not that the markets require more regulation. The lesson is that the government will distort any market by guaranteeing any business from failure. That guarantee, guarantees risky behavior on the part of that institution. It will inevitably lead to insolvency.
The current trend toward government bail-outs, government acquisitions and loan guarantees is exactly the same behavior that caused these financial institutions to fail in the first place. I can see no other outcome than the eventual failure of more businesses and financial institutions resulting from this increased government interference in free markets.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Feminizing of Society
Children being brought up by homosexuals, may be no better off than those raised by a single mom or single dad. Men and women are distinctly different. It takes both the strength and reason of a father, and the nurturing, care and emotional support of a mother to raise a healthy child. Of course this is the ideal, and no family lives up to it, but children that grow up in an overly feminine or masculine family, are not in balance in their reason and emotion.
In today's popular culture, single moms and homosexuals who raise children, are becoming more common and more widely accepted. This explains why our society is becoming "feminized".
Feminine attributes have come to be considered more important than masculine attributes because so many families are fatherless, and many children are primarily influenced by females. This puts our society out of balance. Masculine and feminine attributes complement each other and help produce balanced children.
Examples of feminine attributes include: empathy, appreciation for art, beauty and style, tenderness and nurturing support.
Masculine attributes include: discipline, strength, reason, and competitiveness.
There are also detriments pertaining to each sex, these need to be restrained by the opposite sex. detriments for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Detriments common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Of course these are only generalizations, but by and large, they are accurate. For example: Far less women are in prison than men. You see far more men in prison for violent and sexually aggressive crimes than women. Common crimes that women commit are prostitution, shoplifting and credit-card or check fraud. Far more women are single parents than men. Far more women teach grade-school than men. Men are more common teachers in high school. Far more men are tradesman than women. Far more women are involved in fashion, design and service jobs such as waitress and haircutting. Of course you can find exceptions, but my examples include the overwhelming majority.
In today's popular culture, single moms and homosexuals who raise children, are becoming more common and more widely accepted. This explains why our society is becoming "feminized".
Feminine attributes have come to be considered more important than masculine attributes because so many families are fatherless, and many children are primarily influenced by females. This puts our society out of balance. Masculine and feminine attributes complement each other and help produce balanced children.
Examples of feminine attributes include: empathy, appreciation for art, beauty and style, tenderness and nurturing support.
Masculine attributes include: discipline, strength, reason, and competitiveness.
There are also detriments pertaining to each sex, these need to be restrained by the opposite sex. detriments for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Detriments common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Of course these are only generalizations, but by and large, they are accurate. For example: Far less women are in prison than men. You see far more men in prison for violent and sexually aggressive crimes than women. Common crimes that women commit are prostitution, shoplifting and credit-card or check fraud. Far more women are single parents than men. Far more women teach grade-school than men. Men are more common teachers in high school. Far more men are tradesman than women. Far more women are involved in fashion, design and service jobs such as waitress and haircutting. Of course you can find exceptions, but my examples include the overwhelming majority.
This is not due to discrimination or stereotyping, these are the choices that men and women make based on their preferences, natural instincts and desires. The point is that men and women are intrinsically different in their strengths and weaknesses. Men and women serve to complement and restrain each-other in an ideal family. A family that does not include both feminine and masculine influences, will result in children that are out of balance in some way.
Currently, I see our society out of balance in favor of femininity over masculinity. The problem with this is that the negative aspects of femininity are not restrained by male attributes, while the positive attributes of the male are not as widely encouraged as the natural feminine attributes. Examples are:
- Natural male aggressiveness, curiosity and mischievousness is discouraged. Boys that act too much like boys, are often diagnosed with ADD and subdued with psychotropic medications such as Ritalin.
- In the past, it was usually the fathers role to physically discipline children. It was the mothers role to protect them. In today's feminized culture, corporal punishment of children has been stigmatized and outlawed in most cases. Everyone protects children, but no one is likely to discipline them.
- Men are encouraged to be more sensitive. They are told that it is OK for men to cry.
- Competition is discouraged. In school sports, most all participants are recognized with awards and trophies, whether they are on the winning or losing team.
- Men are becoming more vane with regards to their physical appearance. It has become commonplace for men to wear jewelry, dye their hair and wear sexy clothing.
- Seductive clothing and behavior is unrestrained in both women and men.
- Today's popular culture has a mother's instinct, who wants her children to be safe at all costs. Our soldiers are regarded as victims, rather than courageous heroes, willing to risk their lives in a selfless effort to protect women and children on the home front for a noble cause greater than themselves.
- Often, honesty plays second fiddle to self-esteem. Dishonesty is OK if it spares hurt feelings. Self esteem often trumps brutal honesty, regardless of the unintended consequences.
- Often, political persuasion relies heavily on emotion, rather than reason. Symbolism over substance is the mainstay of many political campaigns. Slogans such as "I can feel your pain" or I stand for "hope" are common political rhetoric.
- Creating class envy between rich and poor, minority and majority, men and women, gay and straight, legal citizen and illegal alien, have become common political strategies. Jealousy and envy are emotions that are often played upon by a feminized society.
- Often, TV shows and commercials portray women as cool, smart and stylish, while traditional men are portrayed as clumsy and stupid. But, if the men are feminized in appearance and emotional sensitivity, they are also portrayed as cool and smart.
- Hunting, fishing ,eating meat, and using animals' hides for clothing, is often considered cruelty to animals. A more sensitive, emotional and feminized approach, is not to harm any living thing.
Again, I'm sure that you can find exceptions, but the current trend is definitely moving toward femininity and away from masculinity. This imbalance will leave feminine shortcomings to go unchecked and will also place restraint on masculine strengths. This shift can only weaken, impoverish and reduce the freedoms that are only possible and practical for "humanity in balance".
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Prediction: Israel Will Bomb Iran Within 72 Days
I have a prediction to make. I believe that Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear development facilities, before George Bush leaves office.
Iran has not responded to global economic sanctions and political pressure to halt its development of nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmanadinejad, boasts that he has over 3,000 centrifuges at work producing nuclear material. Ahmanadinejad frequently makes speeches in Iran, promising to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He refers to Israel as the little Satin, and the US as the Great Satin. Recently, Ahmanadinejad addressed the UN in New York City. Before his speech, he said a little prayer in Arabic , as usual. It was not widely reported that the purpose of this prayer was to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, a spiritual figure, who will eventually usher in a new era of peace, under worldwide Islamic law. The next step necessary to summon the Mahdi, according to Ahmanandinejad's beliefs, is to create world-wide havoc and the death and destruction of those who refuse to convert to Islam (the religion of peace).
What I have written above is nothing new. However, what is new, is our new President-elect Obama and that he is backed by two Democratic houses in Congress. Obama believes that negotiation will lead to peace, just as Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler prior to World war two, in hopes of peace with Germany. Secondly, Obama has been friendly with pro-Palestinian activists such as Sheik Rashid Khalidi, and Louis Farrakhan. For these reasons, many people believe that Obama might not stand up to Iran, before it is too late.
If Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it is certain that they will use them on Israel and likely that they will give them to terrorists to cause world-wide havoc. Iran already supplies the terrorist organization "Hezbollah" with bombs, weapons, funding and training. Recently, Hezbollah terrorists, funded and supplied by Iran, provoked a war with Israel in Lebanon. Since the cease fire, two years ago, Hezbollah has grown stronger and better equipped, thanks to help from Iran and an ineffective U.N. peacekeeping agreement.
By all accounts, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities seems to be inevitable, unless Iran halts its nuclear ambitions. However, many feel that this will not happen under an Obama administration. Currently Israel receives military aid from the US, in the form of weapons, intelligence, training and funding. I believe that Israel is keenly aware of the imminent threat that it faces from Iran. Should Iran successfully develop a nuclear weapon, they would surely use it on Israel. However, Israel is wary that President Obama might not lend US support, if Israel were to launch a preemptive attack against Iran.
Therefore, I strongly believe that Israel, with the support and behind-the-scenes help form the US, will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities within the next 72 days, before president-elect Obama is sworn into office.
Iran has not responded to global economic sanctions and political pressure to halt its development of nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmanadinejad, boasts that he has over 3,000 centrifuges at work producing nuclear material. Ahmanadinejad frequently makes speeches in Iran, promising to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He refers to Israel as the little Satin, and the US as the Great Satin. Recently, Ahmanadinejad addressed the UN in New York City. Before his speech, he said a little prayer in Arabic , as usual. It was not widely reported that the purpose of this prayer was to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, a spiritual figure, who will eventually usher in a new era of peace, under worldwide Islamic law. The next step necessary to summon the Mahdi, according to Ahmanandinejad's beliefs, is to create world-wide havoc and the death and destruction of those who refuse to convert to Islam (the religion of peace).
What I have written above is nothing new. However, what is new, is our new President-elect Obama and that he is backed by two Democratic houses in Congress. Obama believes that negotiation will lead to peace, just as Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler prior to World war two, in hopes of peace with Germany. Secondly, Obama has been friendly with pro-Palestinian activists such as Sheik Rashid Khalidi, and Louis Farrakhan. For these reasons, many people believe that Obama might not stand up to Iran, before it is too late.
If Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it is certain that they will use them on Israel and likely that they will give them to terrorists to cause world-wide havoc. Iran already supplies the terrorist organization "Hezbollah" with bombs, weapons, funding and training. Recently, Hezbollah terrorists, funded and supplied by Iran, provoked a war with Israel in Lebanon. Since the cease fire, two years ago, Hezbollah has grown stronger and better equipped, thanks to help from Iran and an ineffective U.N. peacekeeping agreement.
By all accounts, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities seems to be inevitable, unless Iran halts its nuclear ambitions. However, many feel that this will not happen under an Obama administration. Currently Israel receives military aid from the US, in the form of weapons, intelligence, training and funding. I believe that Israel is keenly aware of the imminent threat that it faces from Iran. Should Iran successfully develop a nuclear weapon, they would surely use it on Israel. However, Israel is wary that President Obama might not lend US support, if Israel were to launch a preemptive attack against Iran.
Therefore, I strongly believe that Israel, with the support and behind-the-scenes help form the US, will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities within the next 72 days, before president-elect Obama is sworn into office.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Proposition 8 passes, Homosexuals Raise a Ruckus
As I predicted, the homosexual activists are raising a ruckus because Proposition 8 in California passed. Similar propositions that ban gay marriage, also passed in Florida and Arizona. Also, Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting children. Wherever the issue of homosexual marriage has been put to a vote, it has been defeated. The states where homosexual marriage is legal, is due to courts that have overturned ballot propositions, in opposition to the will of the people. In my opinion, these judges are using convoluted-logic in order to promote a liberal agenda. Click on this link for a good article about this by Orson Scott Card called "Upholding the Constitution".
Diane Feinstein's argument that proposition 8 is tantamount to discrimination, is also convoluted logic. First of all, homosexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior. All of our laws regulate human behavior. To say that a law is discriminatory because it regulates behavior, is to say that all of our laws are discriminatory. Secondly, homosexuals are not discriminated against because they have always been free to marry. In the American culture, marriage has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. The homosexual activists are trying to re-define marriage in order to promote their agenda. Proposition 8, merely defines marriage as it has always been defined traditionally. Homosexuals are free to marry, as currently defined, just like anyone else, therefore, they are not being discriminated against.
Homosexual activists are always claiming that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, just like segregation was. They compare their movement to the civil rights movement and often use the same rhetoric. . However, most blacks strongly disagree with that. Did you know that exit polling on California's Proposition 8, showed that 70% percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8, banning gay marriage? Most blacks are insulted when homosexual issues are compared to civil rights issues. The black civil rights movement gave blacks the right to an equal vote, an end to segregation, the right for equal opportunity in education and employment and the right to live, eat and travel where they wanted. All of these things were denied to blacks prior to the civil rights movement. None of these things are denied to homosexuals. Civil rights laws assure equal opportunity based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Homosexuality is none of those things, it is a sexual behavior.
It is clear, and statistics prove, that the ideal environment for children to raised in, is with their natural mother and father. This relationship, not only raises happier, better adjusted and more productive children, but the parents also are far better off than those in any other type of family relationship that does not include an intact family unit. "Intact nuclear families" are the "bricks" that all healthy societies are built with. To celebrate and encourage blended (step) families, single moms, Mr. moms, un-wed parents and homosexual families, is to discourage that which strengthens individuals, families, communities and our nation. Of course the "ideal family" is not always possible, but it should be encouraged wherever possible, and less healthy alternatives should be tolerated only as a last resort.
To present homosexuality as a normal human behavior, and something to be proud of, is to turn reason and common sense on its head. I believe that homosexuality is obviously an abnormal behavior. Today's popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, considerate and inconsiderate, masculine and feminine, positive and negative, fact and fiction, noble and shameful and good and bad.
Other prominent examples of convoluted reasoning are: celebrating the gangster culture, teaching that men and women are essentially the same with interchangeable roles in family and career, teaching that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue, portraying racism as a major obstacle for minorities in Today's America and portraying radical Islam as a religion of peace.
Once we become accustomed to accepting all forms diversity, moral equivalencies and convoluted-reasoning, our moral compasses become "out of whack". It is wrongly taught that all forms of diverse human behavior should be accepted and celebrated. It is also taught that judging certain diverse forms of human behavior is cruel and represents bigotry. I believe that it is healthy and necessary to judge people based on their behavior. To demonize this aspect of our thoughts, words and actions, is to deny the essence of a society that strives to become healthier, freer, stronger and more prosperous. Healthy normal people and families, are obliged to reject that which brings weakness, decay and misery, to their community and nation.
Even the most obviously bizarre and negative behavior becomes acceptable and on par with healthy normal behavior. The public display of homosexuality, S&M and sexual fetishes at " gay pride parades" and San Francisco's "Folsum Street Fair" is glaring example of celebrating, accepting and putting negative behavior on public display.
As I have said many times before, the "global warming myth" is the most obvious example of turning reason and common sense on its head. Man-made global warming is only a theory, yet it is being taught as a cold, hard fact in our public schools and universities. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict next week's weather, yet global warming proponents predict what the Earth's climate will be like in 50 years with absolute certainty. Al Gore said: "Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time". I disagree, it is only a scientific theory. Once again, convoluted-logic is being used to turn reason on its head, and it has become widely accepted.
Another example is that many university professors, choose to share their anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family and Marxist views with their young, naive and impressionable students. They are not only allowed to teach at American universities and influence our youth, but they are held in high regard by the faculty and considered extremely cool by the students. Three examples are William Ayres ,Ward Churchill and Rashid Khalidi. This kind of subversive manipulation of today's students, will only lead to less freedom, less wealth and less strength in tomorrow's America.
The mood on today's universities is becoming increasingly hostile toward America and many of the institutions that keep us strong, free and prosperous. Institutions that are frequently ridiculed and attacked on today's college campuses include, The Church, the intact nuclear family, the military, and the police.
The video below, is a recent protest that took place in downtown Santa Barbara. The UC Santa Barbara College Republicans decided to stop by and see what it was all about. Can anyone deny that these people hate the military and the country?
There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about encouraging that which is healthy, normal and positive. It is also the obligation of our teachers, political leaders and religious leaders to discourage negative, destructive, amoral behavior. Doing anything less, will lead to the diminishment of our families, communities and our nation as a whole. Encouraging "less than positive behavior", will also adversely affect homosexuals. Homosexuals are also a part of our society, and also benefit from that which keeps our people and nation, free, strong, prosperous and healthy.
Diane Feinstein's argument that proposition 8 is tantamount to discrimination, is also convoluted logic. First of all, homosexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior. All of our laws regulate human behavior. To say that a law is discriminatory because it regulates behavior, is to say that all of our laws are discriminatory. Secondly, homosexuals are not discriminated against because they have always been free to marry. In the American culture, marriage has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. The homosexual activists are trying to re-define marriage in order to promote their agenda. Proposition 8, merely defines marriage as it has always been defined traditionally. Homosexuals are free to marry, as currently defined, just like anyone else, therefore, they are not being discriminated against.
Homosexual activists are always claiming that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, just like segregation was. They compare their movement to the civil rights movement and often use the same rhetoric. . However, most blacks strongly disagree with that. Did you know that exit polling on California's Proposition 8, showed that 70% percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8, banning gay marriage? Most blacks are insulted when homosexual issues are compared to civil rights issues. The black civil rights movement gave blacks the right to an equal vote, an end to segregation, the right for equal opportunity in education and employment and the right to live, eat and travel where they wanted. All of these things were denied to blacks prior to the civil rights movement. None of these things are denied to homosexuals. Civil rights laws assure equal opportunity based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Homosexuality is none of those things, it is a sexual behavior.
It is clear, and statistics prove, that the ideal environment for children to raised in, is with their natural mother and father. This relationship, not only raises happier, better adjusted and more productive children, but the parents also are far better off than those in any other type of family relationship that does not include an intact family unit. "Intact nuclear families" are the "bricks" that all healthy societies are built with. To celebrate and encourage blended (step) families, single moms, Mr. moms, un-wed parents and homosexual families, is to discourage that which strengthens individuals, families, communities and our nation. Of course the "ideal family" is not always possible, but it should be encouraged wherever possible, and less healthy alternatives should be tolerated only as a last resort.
To present homosexuality as a normal human behavior, and something to be proud of, is to turn reason and common sense on its head. I believe that homosexuality is obviously an abnormal behavior. Today's popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, considerate and inconsiderate, masculine and feminine, positive and negative, fact and fiction, noble and shameful and good and bad.
Other prominent examples of convoluted reasoning are: celebrating the gangster culture, teaching that men and women are essentially the same with interchangeable roles in family and career, teaching that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue, portraying racism as a major obstacle for minorities in Today's America and portraying radical Islam as a religion of peace.
Once we become accustomed to accepting all forms diversity, moral equivalencies and convoluted-reasoning, our moral compasses become "out of whack". It is wrongly taught that all forms of diverse human behavior should be accepted and celebrated. It is also taught that judging certain diverse forms of human behavior is cruel and represents bigotry. I believe that it is healthy and necessary to judge people based on their behavior. To demonize this aspect of our thoughts, words and actions, is to deny the essence of a society that strives to become healthier, freer, stronger and more prosperous. Healthy normal people and families, are obliged to reject that which brings weakness, decay and misery, to their community and nation.
Even the most obviously bizarre and negative behavior becomes acceptable and on par with healthy normal behavior. The public display of homosexuality, S&M and sexual fetishes at " gay pride parades" and San Francisco's "Folsum Street Fair" is glaring example of celebrating, accepting and putting negative behavior on public display.
As I have said many times before, the "global warming myth" is the most obvious example of turning reason and common sense on its head. Man-made global warming is only a theory, yet it is being taught as a cold, hard fact in our public schools and universities. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict next week's weather, yet global warming proponents predict what the Earth's climate will be like in 50 years with absolute certainty. Al Gore said: "Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time". I disagree, it is only a scientific theory. Once again, convoluted-logic is being used to turn reason on its head, and it has become widely accepted.
Another example is that many university professors, choose to share their anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family and Marxist views with their young, naive and impressionable students. They are not only allowed to teach at American universities and influence our youth, but they are held in high regard by the faculty and considered extremely cool by the students. Three examples are William Ayres ,Ward Churchill and Rashid Khalidi. This kind of subversive manipulation of today's students, will only lead to less freedom, less wealth and less strength in tomorrow's America.
The mood on today's universities is becoming increasingly hostile toward America and many of the institutions that keep us strong, free and prosperous. Institutions that are frequently ridiculed and attacked on today's college campuses include, The Church, the intact nuclear family, the military, and the police.
The video below, is a recent protest that took place in downtown Santa Barbara. The UC Santa Barbara College Republicans decided to stop by and see what it was all about. Can anyone deny that these people hate the military and the country?
There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about encouraging that which is healthy, normal and positive. It is also the obligation of our teachers, political leaders and religious leaders to discourage negative, destructive, amoral behavior. Doing anything less, will lead to the diminishment of our families, communities and our nation as a whole. Encouraging "less than positive behavior", will also adversely affect homosexuals. Homosexuals are also a part of our society, and also benefit from that which keeps our people and nation, free, strong, prosperous and healthy.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Sarah Palin, Hate Crimes and Halloween
I have written in the past about how I disagree about the concept of "hate crimes". I have written that crimes should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the nature of the crime itself. Punishment should not be more sever if the motivation for the crime is deemed to be bigotry. Crimes of vandalism, violence and those that incite violence, are serious crimes, and should be prosecuted and punished zealously, regardless of the motive. I believe that it is wrong to dole out additional punishment in order to appease certain minorities groups and be more lenient to other criminals due to political correctness.
A good example of why hate crimes are intrinsically unfair, is an incident that is occurring in Los Angeles this week. A "waste of human flesh" (I hope that I did not commit a hate crime with that description),decided to decorate his house for Halloween. This decoration included a mannequin, that was made to resemble Sarah Palin, hanging in effigy from the top of his house. Of course when this "waste of human flesh" was interviewed, he said that his display was merely his expression of art.
This display is not considered a hate crime, despite the recent outcry that displaying a noose, is an expression of hate against African Americans. These claims of noose related hate crimes were stirred up by the controversy and misinformation circulated about the Jena six, and subsequent nooses that turned up around the country, many of which later proved to be hoaxes. These random nooses, were all investigated as hate crimes.
Surprisingly,many commentators have agreed that if Barack Obama was hung in effigy, that would be considered a "hate crime", because Obama is black. Current law classifies hate crimes as crimes that are specifically targeted against people because of their race, religion or national origin. Women are not protected under hate crime laws.
Interestingly, the man who decorated his house for Halloween, with a dead replica of Sarah Palin, swinging from a noose, appears to be a homosexual, a minority that is not currently protected under hate crime laws. However, if proposition 8 fails in California on election day, homosexuals could become a protected minority under hate crime laws. Homosexual activists feel that churches, that preach that homosexual behavior is sinful, would like to see these churches and their ministers prosecuted under hate crime laws. The US senate is considering a bill that would expand hate-crime legislation to include homosexuals. Legislation is being proposed in England, allowing parishioners to sue ministers for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.
What will come next? Will preachers be charged with hate crimes for preaching that premarital sex is sinful? Will preachers be sued for preaching that adultery is sinful? Will Christianity be banned due to its "hateful" beliefs? This is absurd, because Christianity promotes love and fellowship between all men an women. Christianity preaches love, compassion, forgiveness, self improvement and helping your fellow man. Christianity acknowledges that all men are sinners, and offers us a path to eternal salvation. Christianity does not stand for hate in any way, shape or form.
I believe that laws already exist on the books that outlaw public displays that are abhorrent, repulsive, detestable, obscene. It is obvious to anyone with common sense, that this display of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose, violates these laws. Calling this "art" for a Halloween display, is convoluted logic and defies reason. It is obviously a political statement that crosses the line, because this display is abhorrent, repulsive, detestable and obscene.
As well as being a vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is also someone's daughter, wife and mother. How would you like to see your loved-one hanging in effigy, as part of someone's twiated idea of a Halloween display? Would this so-called "artist" stand for a likeness of his lover hanging from the roof of a neighbors house, who merely claims that he has the right to express himself with that kind of a Halloween art display? I think not. Allegations of gay-bashing and hate crimes would likely ensue. Hate crime laws are unfair. They are not necessary, if we merely enforce the laws that already exist, dispassionately and reasonably.
To go down a path that prosecutes crimes to appease vocal minorities, while ignoring others, is dangerous, unfair and un-American. We should be judged on our behavior, rationally and reasonably, not emotionally. Justice should be dispensed dispassionately and without prejudice, according to the "actions" of the perpetrator and not the emotions that his crime stirs up.
A good example of why hate crimes are intrinsically unfair, is an incident that is occurring in Los Angeles this week. A "waste of human flesh" (I hope that I did not commit a hate crime with that description),decided to decorate his house for Halloween. This decoration included a mannequin, that was made to resemble Sarah Palin, hanging in effigy from the top of his house. Of course when this "waste of human flesh" was interviewed, he said that his display was merely his expression of art.
This display is not considered a hate crime, despite the recent outcry that displaying a noose, is an expression of hate against African Americans. These claims of noose related hate crimes were stirred up by the controversy and misinformation circulated about the Jena six, and subsequent nooses that turned up around the country, many of which later proved to be hoaxes. These random nooses, were all investigated as hate crimes.
Surprisingly,many commentators have agreed that if Barack Obama was hung in effigy, that would be considered a "hate crime", because Obama is black. Current law classifies hate crimes as crimes that are specifically targeted against people because of their race, religion or national origin. Women are not protected under hate crime laws.
Interestingly, the man who decorated his house for Halloween, with a dead replica of Sarah Palin, swinging from a noose, appears to be a homosexual, a minority that is not currently protected under hate crime laws. However, if proposition 8 fails in California on election day, homosexuals could become a protected minority under hate crime laws. Homosexual activists feel that churches, that preach that homosexual behavior is sinful, would like to see these churches and their ministers prosecuted under hate crime laws. The US senate is considering a bill that would expand hate-crime legislation to include homosexuals. Legislation is being proposed in England, allowing parishioners to sue ministers for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.
What will come next? Will preachers be charged with hate crimes for preaching that premarital sex is sinful? Will preachers be sued for preaching that adultery is sinful? Will Christianity be banned due to its "hateful" beliefs? This is absurd, because Christianity promotes love and fellowship between all men an women. Christianity preaches love, compassion, forgiveness, self improvement and helping your fellow man. Christianity acknowledges that all men are sinners, and offers us a path to eternal salvation. Christianity does not stand for hate in any way, shape or form.
I believe that laws already exist on the books that outlaw public displays that are abhorrent, repulsive, detestable, obscene. It is obvious to anyone with common sense, that this display of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose, violates these laws. Calling this "art" for a Halloween display, is convoluted logic and defies reason. It is obviously a political statement that crosses the line, because this display is abhorrent, repulsive, detestable and obscene.
As well as being a vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is also someone's daughter, wife and mother. How would you like to see your loved-one hanging in effigy, as part of someone's twiated idea of a Halloween display? Would this so-called "artist" stand for a likeness of his lover hanging from the roof of a neighbors house, who merely claims that he has the right to express himself with that kind of a Halloween art display? I think not. Allegations of gay-bashing and hate crimes would likely ensue. Hate crime laws are unfair. They are not necessary, if we merely enforce the laws that already exist, dispassionately and reasonably.
To go down a path that prosecutes crimes to appease vocal minorities, while ignoring others, is dangerous, unfair and un-American. We should be judged on our behavior, rationally and reasonably, not emotionally. Justice should be dispensed dispassionately and without prejudice, according to the "actions" of the perpetrator and not the emotions that his crime stirs up.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
John McCain and the Mainstream Media, Shill for Obama
The following is a great article, from greensboro.rhinotimes.com , about the root cause of the meltdown in the mortgage market and the deliberate misreporting of the truth by the mainstream media. The facts in this article are exactly in line with what I have been hearing on most all conservative talk radio programs that I listen to. These facts and names are blatantly missing from most mainstream media reports, and also, surprisingly missing from John McCain's talking points that I have heard in his stump speeches and debates with Obama.. Only once did I hear McCain implicate Congressman Barney Frank [D] (Chairmen house banking committee) and Senator Chris Dodd [D] ( chairman, Senate committee on banking) , in this financial meltdown. This was in response to an irate supporter at a McCain rally, who demanded that McCain tell the truth about the root cause of the meltdown in the mortgage market and demanded that McCain name names. McCain also conspicuously omits speaking about his own role in pushing for legislation to reign in the out of control GSEs (Government Supported Enterprises), of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two years ago. It seems to me that McCain actually wants Obama to win the election. It is clear to me that the mainstream media, and even John McCain himself, are influencing this election in favor of the Democrats.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.................
Click here for the link to the entire article by Orson Scott Card.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.................
Click here for the link to the entire article by Orson Scott Card.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Joe the Plumber
I had written the following article just prior to tonight's third and final presidential debate. The name of an Ohio plumber was mentioned 20 times between the two candidates. I was very disappointed as the debate progressed, to find that neither candidate was able to truly understand the perspective of plumber Joe and the strengths of capitalism Vs. socialism.
Last week, at a recent Obama campaign event, an unscripted question was asked by an ambitious hardworking plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher. This ambitious plumber says he works 10 to 12 hours per day and lives in a modest 90 to 140 thousand dollar home. He asked Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year, Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama's surprising response was: "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Click on the video below to hear the entire exchange between Obama and "Plumber Joe"
Obama's response is wrong on many levels. What is worse is that Obama does not understand what motivates this plumber to work so long and hard, sacrifice for so many years and risk everything he has for a chance at success.
This plumber has clearly sacrificed for years, in terms of his time, effort, lifestyle and the saving of his money to purchase the company that he now works for. His motivation is clearly that if he works hard, long and honestly, and sacrifices fancy cars, clothing, houses, fancy meals and expensive vacations, he has a chance to become wealthy. Of course the chances are just as good, that after all of his sacrifices and hard work, he loses it all, and must start over from square one. This is what is meant by "risk Vs. reward". This is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Our capitalist system often rewards those who are motivated to offer their customers better service and value than their competition, and accommodate their customers by finishing jobs on time, even if it means working evenings and weekends and charging less than their competion. Democratic capitalism is capable of motivating people to do “the extraordinary”, while providing jobs, innovation and wealth for their community and their country. American capitalism has led to innovations that have truly raised the standard of living worldwide. Risk Vs. reward is at the core of American capitalism.
Innovation, honesty, hard work and excellence in service are used by a motivated individuals, in order to surpass their competition. Obama clearly showed his ignorance about American capitalism as well as human motivation when he said: "It's not that I want to punish your success," I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
The last thing that this plumber wants is for his competition to have an advantage that he never had nor needed. He got where he is today by working harder, smarter, longer and better than those behind him. He wants them to continue to be behind him, that's how he gets ahead. Staying ahead is what motivates him to get up earlier than his competition, work longer than his competition, and offer a better value than his competition.
If the guy behind “Joe the plumber” wants a chance at success, all he has to do is to wake up earlier than Joe, work harder than Joe, be more innovative than Joe, hire better employees than Joe and offer his customers a better value than Joe. Joe knows this, and that is what motivates him to “walk the extra mile”. Millions of people like Joe, who walk the extra mile, is what has brought America the prosperity that we now enjoy. Obama is asking people like Joe to share the wealth, without asking others to share the risk, sacrifice, talent and priorities. Taxing a man's sacrifices, hopes, dreams and ambitions and giving the money to those who are less ambitious and averse to risk, is tantamount to larceny. It can also crush one's spirit.
When you “spread the wealth around”, you de-motivate people like this plumber to do extraordinary work, come up with extraordinary innovations, and demand excellence from employees in exchange for better wages.
By taking from the successful people and giving to people who “haven't made it”, you are rewarding mediocrity and punishing excellence. It is extremely clear to me that there can only be one end result. That result is more mediocrity and less excellence. This is exactly what you will get with socialism.
Democratic capitalism leads to innovation, high wages, efficiency, motivated workers, high rates of employment, good wages, excellent products, opportunity and greater wealth for all classes of society.
Socialism promises equality, which has never been attained. But more importantly, socialism guarantees mediocrity in goods, services, pay rates, employment opportunities and individual motivation. Most importantly, when you take from the rich and give to the poor, you end up with less rich people and more poor people.
Democratic capitalism provides greater wealth for all classes of society. People all have the opportunity to find their own way to the top if they choose to make sacrifices by spending their own money, time, effort and their natural God-given talents to improve their own lot in life. Most people do not choose this “tough row to hoe”, but those who do, have a chance at success. This is the very definition of freedom. The best, brightest, most innovative and hardest working people will rise to the top. Any system that leads these type of people to the top, will lift up everyone in the system. They have provided wealth for all of the people who work for them and the companies who they purchase goods from in the course of business. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps the company that manufactures and sells pipes, toilets, water heaters, etc. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps all of the people who enjoy the goods, services and innovations that it provides. Not that long ago, plumbers invented and made available, toilets, water heaters and indoor plumbing.
Each and every advancement was made by people like Joe, who were striving to get ahead by staying ahead of their competition. Obama says that Joe should want to help the people behind him. In fact, people like Joe, spend every waking moment trying to stay ahead of the people behind him, not trying to help them. Obama does not understand capitalism, business nor human motivation.
It is paramount that we educate all Americans to these truths. Unfortunately, many schools and universities are teaching our children that capitalism is corrupt and unfair but government regulation and social engineering programs, including “spreading the wealth”, is fair and helps the little guy. In this sense, our educational system is harmful to our economic well being and the future of our nation. Politicians use this theme to win elections because there are more little guys and less wealthy people. There have always been more common people than wealthy people. This is the way it is, and the way that history shows it has always been. Outcomes will never be equal because human motivation, passion, competency, priorities and desires vary among all of us. History has shown that human passions and motivation can only be stifled by government. Our individual abilities, passions and desires are given to us by God and are boundless when left unfettered by government regulation and taxes. Democratic capitalism, restrained and tempered by religious morals as exemplified in the Judeo-Christian ethic, is what has led to America becoming the freest, most prosperous and most powerful nation that this world has ever seen. America's wealth, innovation and compassion has improved the lot of people worldwide. Obama's socialist ideas of “ spreading the wealth around”, actually insures that there will be less wealth for everyone and will create regulations that breed corruption, waste and inefficiency. Our individual and collective prosperity can only increase, if government stands clear of plumber Joe's noble passions. Government may be able to redistribute existing wealth, but only motivated people like plumber Joe can create it.
Click on the video below to hear Neil Cavuto interview "Plumber Joe"
Last week, at a recent Obama campaign event, an unscripted question was asked by an ambitious hardworking plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher. This ambitious plumber says he works 10 to 12 hours per day and lives in a modest 90 to 140 thousand dollar home. He asked Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year, Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama's surprising response was: "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Click on the video below to hear the entire exchange between Obama and "Plumber Joe"
Obama's response is wrong on many levels. What is worse is that Obama does not understand what motivates this plumber to work so long and hard, sacrifice for so many years and risk everything he has for a chance at success.
This plumber has clearly sacrificed for years, in terms of his time, effort, lifestyle and the saving of his money to purchase the company that he now works for. His motivation is clearly that if he works hard, long and honestly, and sacrifices fancy cars, clothing, houses, fancy meals and expensive vacations, he has a chance to become wealthy. Of course the chances are just as good, that after all of his sacrifices and hard work, he loses it all, and must start over from square one. This is what is meant by "risk Vs. reward". This is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Our capitalist system often rewards those who are motivated to offer their customers better service and value than their competition, and accommodate their customers by finishing jobs on time, even if it means working evenings and weekends and charging less than their competion. Democratic capitalism is capable of motivating people to do “the extraordinary”, while providing jobs, innovation and wealth for their community and their country. American capitalism has led to innovations that have truly raised the standard of living worldwide. Risk Vs. reward is at the core of American capitalism.
Innovation, honesty, hard work and excellence in service are used by a motivated individuals, in order to surpass their competition. Obama clearly showed his ignorance about American capitalism as well as human motivation when he said: "It's not that I want to punish your success," I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
The last thing that this plumber wants is for his competition to have an advantage that he never had nor needed. He got where he is today by working harder, smarter, longer and better than those behind him. He wants them to continue to be behind him, that's how he gets ahead. Staying ahead is what motivates him to get up earlier than his competition, work longer than his competition, and offer a better value than his competition.
If the guy behind “Joe the plumber” wants a chance at success, all he has to do is to wake up earlier than Joe, work harder than Joe, be more innovative than Joe, hire better employees than Joe and offer his customers a better value than Joe. Joe knows this, and that is what motivates him to “walk the extra mile”. Millions of people like Joe, who walk the extra mile, is what has brought America the prosperity that we now enjoy. Obama is asking people like Joe to share the wealth, without asking others to share the risk, sacrifice, talent and priorities. Taxing a man's sacrifices, hopes, dreams and ambitions and giving the money to those who are less ambitious and averse to risk, is tantamount to larceny. It can also crush one's spirit.
When you “spread the wealth around”, you de-motivate people like this plumber to do extraordinary work, come up with extraordinary innovations, and demand excellence from employees in exchange for better wages.
By taking from the successful people and giving to people who “haven't made it”, you are rewarding mediocrity and punishing excellence. It is extremely clear to me that there can only be one end result. That result is more mediocrity and less excellence. This is exactly what you will get with socialism.
Democratic capitalism leads to innovation, high wages, efficiency, motivated workers, high rates of employment, good wages, excellent products, opportunity and greater wealth for all classes of society.
Socialism promises equality, which has never been attained. But more importantly, socialism guarantees mediocrity in goods, services, pay rates, employment opportunities and individual motivation. Most importantly, when you take from the rich and give to the poor, you end up with less rich people and more poor people.
Democratic capitalism provides greater wealth for all classes of society. People all have the opportunity to find their own way to the top if they choose to make sacrifices by spending their own money, time, effort and their natural God-given talents to improve their own lot in life. Most people do not choose this “tough row to hoe”, but those who do, have a chance at success. This is the very definition of freedom. The best, brightest, most innovative and hardest working people will rise to the top. Any system that leads these type of people to the top, will lift up everyone in the system. They have provided wealth for all of the people who work for them and the companies who they purchase goods from in the course of business. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps the company that manufactures and sells pipes, toilets, water heaters, etc. When a plumbing company succeeds, it also helps all of the people who enjoy the goods, services and innovations that it provides. Not that long ago, plumbers invented and made available, toilets, water heaters and indoor plumbing.
Each and every advancement was made by people like Joe, who were striving to get ahead by staying ahead of their competition. Obama says that Joe should want to help the people behind him. In fact, people like Joe, spend every waking moment trying to stay ahead of the people behind him, not trying to help them. Obama does not understand capitalism, business nor human motivation.
It is paramount that we educate all Americans to these truths. Unfortunately, many schools and universities are teaching our children that capitalism is corrupt and unfair but government regulation and social engineering programs, including “spreading the wealth”, is fair and helps the little guy. In this sense, our educational system is harmful to our economic well being and the future of our nation. Politicians use this theme to win elections because there are more little guys and less wealthy people. There have always been more common people than wealthy people. This is the way it is, and the way that history shows it has always been. Outcomes will never be equal because human motivation, passion, competency, priorities and desires vary among all of us. History has shown that human passions and motivation can only be stifled by government. Our individual abilities, passions and desires are given to us by God and are boundless when left unfettered by government regulation and taxes. Democratic capitalism, restrained and tempered by religious morals as exemplified in the Judeo-Christian ethic, is what has led to America becoming the freest, most prosperous and most powerful nation that this world has ever seen. America's wealth, innovation and compassion has improved the lot of people worldwide. Obama's socialist ideas of “ spreading the wealth around”, actually insures that there will be less wealth for everyone and will create regulations that breed corruption, waste and inefficiency. Our individual and collective prosperity can only increase, if government stands clear of plumber Joe's noble passions. Government may be able to redistribute existing wealth, but only motivated people like plumber Joe can create it.
Click on the video below to hear Neil Cavuto interview "Plumber Joe"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
