Buzz Paths

Common Sense For Common People


Archive for the 'Politics' Category

We Are No Longer America…

November 7th, 2012 by Rich Szabo

I cannot claim authorship to this.  It was sent to me by a friend who want to remain nameless. It needs to be shared:

The morning of November 7, 2012 contains sobering sunrise. The light of day exposes a view of American society that has been changed forever.

In 1789 Benjamin Franklin stated: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.” Our citizens selected that path yesterday and they will never step away from the entitlements they hope will free them from personal responsibility, make their lives easier, and favor from the financial base of a very large and growing central government. In making that choice, the winning electorate discarded any responsibility for the maintenance of the principles that created the success this free society brought to the world through the governance guided by the rule of law designed by our Constitution. In a word, this country is doomed and will not recover from the choice that its voters made yesterday.

The biggest loss in yesterday’s election was the rule of law. A loss brought to the nation by the political party of lawyers. In the next four years at least two Supreme Court Justices will retire and will be replaced by lawyers appointed by a liberal administration changing the balance of power for that will reshape the very foundation of the country. We now have a minority in the Court that does not believe in our Constitution as a foundational document. Ruth Bader Ginsberg in February of this year when commenting on Egypt’s development of a constitution for it’s new government said: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa.” This is a radical view of the very fiber of the foundation of the country. Add more of this influence to the Court and our country will not survive.

This new era of leadership is in the hands of a party that attempted to remove the word and the concept of GOD and support for Israel from its basic Party Platform at its National Convention. Supported by a President who announced to the world is a speech delivered in Cairo in 2009 that “America was no longer a Christian country.” He said that at a time when 73% of Americans “…identify themselves as Christians.” He then went on to bow to the king of Saudi Arabia.

Our electorate has chosen to be led by a radical Progressive who compares American Exceptionalism to Greek Exceptionalism. A person who has no belief in the free spirit of the American Individual’s personal desire and responsibility to create essential improvement of society through personal growth in a Capitalist financial system. A president who genuinely believes that our society must be “managed” by an elitist group of bureaucrats in our central government.

We, our electorate, in our adoration of “celebrity”, have expressed admiration for people of no substance. They worship perceived “cool” and admire those the press defines as “good.” What we are left with is an element of those who have discovered “power” and from the seat of government have created an “industry” that has defined a career of “politics” thus creating a class of elites that buy their “station” in society with gifts to the electorate from the public treasury.

So, America, you have done it. In your desire to get your life purchased for you by the politician you perceive will send you security, will give you personal financial stability from the public treasury, you have removed all the strength from very foundation upon which you stand. The financial base those politicians use to buy your vote is no longer funded from the center of our country; it is borrowed money from other societies and their base wealth. We no longer own our own destiny.

We are done. We have crossed the tipping point. I can say to all of my relatives that I lived my youth in a time that will be remembered as the greatest point, the pinnacle, the zenith of our Western Civilization. This was a time of prosperity that was purchased for my generation by our parents to make a better life for us than they had experienced. Some of our parents even gave their lives for us, so that we could prosper and understand the promise of America. My own father is buried in Belgium near where he lost his life at age 31 in December of 1944.

The result of last nights election has been brought upon us by a century, yes, a hundred years of assault on freedom by a Progressive Ideology that has fed itself from the inside of our own body. In the next four years, we will see a steady decline in our environments, our communities, our lifestyle, our dollar, the value of everything we have worked for, the vary freedoms we have sacrificed for and at the end of that period, the voting majority of the population will be so dependent on free stuff from the central government that recovery of the “American Exceptionalism” that made this “the best place on Earth” will be far beyond the reach of the American Citizenry.

We are no longer America, we are toast…

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

Definition of Hubris

May 1st, 2012 by Rich Szabo

This was sent to me in an email by a friend. I thought it was worth passing along.

George Bush - Vindication

George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam Hussein:
The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq .

The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the Dictatorâ??s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.

 

Obama - Malignant Narcissism

Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan .And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan .

Hubris (hu·bris), also hybris, means extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

The Teabaggers vs. the Fleabaggers

January 4th, 2012 by Rich Szabo

An interesting comparison of the two groups. The Tea Party has been portrayed in the media as a bunch of crazy right wing zelots. The Occupy Movement has been hailed as a shining example by the media and Barry and da Boyz. Let take a closer look at the two groups and see how they compare:

The Teabaggers vs. the Fleabaggers

REPORTED
OCCUPY PARTY
TEA PARTY
ARRESTS
4149+
0
DEATHS
7
0
RAPES
12
0
ARSON DAMAGE
$10,000,000.00
$0
PUBLIC DEFECATION
YES
NO
ANTISEMITIC RANTS
12
0
COST TO TAXPAYERS (11/9)
$19,327,487.00+
$0
PUBLIC MASTURBATION
3
0
MOLOTOV COCKTAILS THROWN
10
0
FIGHTS STARTED
YES
NO
CHILDREN EXPLOITED
YES
NO
POLICE CARS DAMAGED
2
0
PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS
YES
NO
DRUG POSSESSION ARREST
YES
NO
CONCEALED WEAPON ARREST
YES
NO
DRUG OVERDOSE
YES
NO
THEFTS
YES
NO
BURGLARIES
YES
NO
VANDALISM ARREST
YES
NO
TRESPASSING ARREST
YES
NO
NON FATAL SHOOTINGS
1
0
PUBLIC URINATION
YES
NO
URINATION ON OTHERS
YES
NO
ISRAELI FLAGS BURNED
2
0
AMERICAN FLAGS BURNED
1
0
AMERICAN FLAGS DANCED ON
1
0
AMERICAN FLAGS DESECRATION
25
0
FELONY ASSAULT ON AN EMT
1
0
HEAD/BODY LICE OUTBREAKS
1
0
TUBERCULOSIS OUTBREAKS
1
0
MURDER
1
0
SUICIDE
1
0
SHOTS FIRED AT WHITE HOUSE
1
0
SCABIES OUTBREAKS
1
0
OBAMA ENDORSED
YES
NO
PELOSI ENDORSED
YES
NO
CAIR ENDORSED
YES
NO
SOCIALIST PARTY ENDORSED
YES
NO
NAZI PARTY ENDORSED
YES
NO
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ENDORSED
YES
NO
COMMUNIST PARTY ENDORSED
YES
NO
BIDEN ENDORSED
YES
NO
HUGO CHAVEZ ENDORSED
YES
NO
BLACK PANTHERS ENDORSED
YES
NO
HEZBOLLAH ENDORSED
YES
NO
MARXIST UNION ENDORSED
YES
NO
9/11 TRUTHER ENDORSED
YES
NO
BOLSHEVIK ENDORSED
YES
NO
IRAN GOVERNMENT ENDORSED
YES
NO
AYATOLLAH ENDORSED
YES
NO
NORTH KOREA ENDORSED
YES
NO
FARRAKHAN ENDORSED
YES
NO
NATION OF ISLAM ENDORSED
YES
NO
Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

Born in the USA?: Yawn

April 16th, 2011 by Ted Silberstein

Trying to deflect Donald Trump’s Sheen-esque “violent torpedoes of truth” regarding his birth certificate, Barack Obama told ABC News that Republicans will only be hurting themselves by continuing to raise the question of whether he was born in the United States.  While I’m not sure how much the Republicans would be hurting themselves, it is certainly is a colossal waste of time.

The question is not whether Barack Obama was born in the United States but rather what do all those who invest so much time, energy and emotion in the issue, believe would be accomplished by proving he wasn’t.  If conclusive evidence along with the smoking gun is found proving that Obama was not born in the United States, do these folks believe that Obama would be removed from office?  I have said all along that even if it was proved that Obama was not born in the United States, there is no mechanism in place, nor would any agency such as the FBI, CIA, the military, et al, forcibly remove him from office.  

No, all this would do is to provide La-Liberal-Cosa Nostra with yet another opportunity to attack the Constitution.  You can already hear the liberal drum beat and war chant about how the Constitution is an antiquated worn out relic written over 200 years ago by its framers who in their day could not have envisioned the melting pot that America would one day become, and that the Constitution long ago ceased being representative of the population of today’s America, and it should be balled up and dropped in the nearest confetti shredder, blah blah, so on and so on, ad nauseum.  Accordingly, in order to save Obama, the first item that would have to go in this latest liberal salvo would be that pesky little eligibility requirement that a presidential candidate must be born in the United States.  In the minds of liberals, the fact that something is written in the Constitution does not make it Constitutional.  Say what? [Insert eye roll and head shake here].  But I digress.

So what then is the most that could be expected by proving Obama was not born in the United States?  Drum roll please… a big fat court case.  Does it get any more boring and anticlimactic than that?  Yes a court case, that would drag on and on, and maybe sometime by the year, oh say 2525 when your arms are hangin’ limp at your side, it might, that is might just get to some trial docket somewhere.  Even on the outside chance that Obama is re-elected, he would be long gone from office before any action could come to bear.  Therefore the entire issue is moot.  Yes there is the possibility that this episode might result in more thorough vetting of future presidential candidates to make them prove their eligibility before an election.  In the trail blazing State of Arizona, a bill that would make Arizona the first state to require presidential candidates to prove they were born in the U.S. in order to get on the state ballot has cleared the Legislature, and is waiting for Gov. Jan Brewer to sign.      

Personally, I believe that Obama was not born in the United States if only because if he was, he could easily put the entire matter to rest by providing a birth certificate, not just the certificate of live birth which is not the same thing.  But he has not.  Is it because he won’t, or even more disconcerting – because he can’t?  Regardless, I am simply not able to invest the same emotion as others in this issue because I say again, even if it were proved that Obama was not born in the United States, he would never be removed from office because of it.  He would simply go down in history as little more than a trivia factoid, a mere final Jeopardy question in the category, “Famous Magicians,” the final Jeopardy question:  He was the only President in history to fool enough Americans into electing him despite the fact that he was Constitutionally ineligible:  Who was Barack Obama!  Mahalo and Aloha Alex! 

 

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility

November 24th, 2010 by Rich Szabo

Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open? The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens. “This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”

View Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232073

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

Eight True Things The Public “Knows”

October 27th, 2010 by Rich Szabo

A dear friend sent me a link to the Dave Johnson article: Eight False Things The Public “Knows” Prior To Election Day

At first I thought my friend was joking. I then realized he was dead serious.

That of this economic crisis, only a liberal democrat could look upon it and say, “no, no, things are really great and getting better.” They are like toddlers who cover their eyes and say “if I can’t see it, it isn’t there.” In Dave Johnson’s article he makes eye catching bold claims, but provides absolutely no documentation to support his “if I can’t see it, it isn’t there” Kool Aid swilling baseless claims. So to those like Dave Johnson who would choose to cover their eyes and remain blind and pretend it isn’t there, and keep Congress as it is, I would love to simply say then vote to keep them there and you will get what you deserve. But it is not that simple because there are too many other Americans whose eyes are wide open, who are not blind, and WE DO NOT want what YOU deserve.

One thing I think everyone can agree on is that while a president sits in the center seat, it is the Congress who approves his plans, it is therefore far more important to have a sane thinking Congress than a sane thinking president.

“The White House is not going to save the Republic regardless of who is its occupant. It has to be on Capitol Hill where the nation’s lawmakers assemble, that the decision is made on legislation which charts the governmental course of our nation. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the legislative halls is this growing idea that the President knows it all. He writes out the program for the year and the Senate and House are supposed to say amen.” Sen. Barry Goldwater (R) Arizona, 1962

Let’s look at each point of the above mentioned article:

1) President Obama tripled the deficit. - Yes he did. Your own MSNBC even thinks so: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33348615/ Obama’s economic packages consist of more than just the “Stimulus”. There is also the bank bailout, automaker bailout, mortgage bailout, and a second “stimulus” in the works. The total will be in the area of $2-3 Trillion. The National Deficit and the National Debt are two different things. The National Deficit is the amount that we are in the red this year and the National Debt is the amount total amount that the government is currently behind. The current National Deficit pre-stimulus was about $1.2 Trillion and the National Debt was about $9.5 Trillion.. The Bush Administration inherited a National Debt of $6.5 Trillion and increased it to $9.5 Trillion over 8 years (including two wars). That comes to $375 Billion in deficit spending each year (on average).

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Technically Barry did not raise taxes. Congress raised the taxes. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html I know for a fact as a small business owner. My taxes went up last year. This year it will even be higher. Let’s take a look at just the healthcare bill. I am the owner of a small business with one employee – me.. If my company doesn’t offer it’s employees (me) health insurance, my company will be “fined” or taxed. Now, even though we get health insurance through my wife’s job, my company will get whacked just because it doesn’t offer it to it’s employees (me). Now what is wrong with that picture?

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy. Technically Barry did not raise taxes. Congress raised the taxes.
Tax Cuts Enacted

Click on picture for full size

3) President Obama bailed out the banks. On October 3, 2008, the Senate passed the $700 billion bank bailout bill. A Democratic controlled Congress bailed out the banks. And now Barry and da Boyz gave even more money to the banks, and just recently he signed yet another bank bailout

http://www.suite101.com/content/barack-obama-to-sign-in-another-bank-bailout-hr3808-a296644

4) The stimulus didn’t work. Google “Obama shovel-ready” and you’ll find more than enough quotes of Barry describing all the people going back to work because of stimulus-created jobs. You may find one more quote of interest…  In the NY Times Magazine Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus. If “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects”, and if you remember, he really pushed the point only he could create them…”I can say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are seeing shovels hit the ground.” – Barack Obama, 3/3/09

The Wall Street Journal tells us the “stimulus” didn’t work.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. It’s simple math. It doesn’t add up

Here is another Wall Street Journal Article regarding the “stimulus”. Cash for clunkers didn’t change how much people spent. It only changed when they spent. It was supposed to help the AMERICAN car manufacturers when in fact the majority of cars bought were foreign!

Unemployment figures

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. – Businesses will hire if there is demand for the service or product they offer. This goes back to #1-3. If the consumer doesn’t have the money, they are not buying. therefore, businesses are cutting back and either not hiring or laying off workers. Most of the business owners I talk to are waiting to see what happens after January 1st.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. – Congressional Budget Office estimates released predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections. The additional spending would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion. If you do the actual math, it’s even higher than that.  – ABC News

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is “going broke,” people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. – According the NY Times, This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

#8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. – Abstract: Despite decades of repeated failure, President Obama and Congress continue to promote the myth that government can spend its way out of recession. Heritage Foundation economic policy expert Brian Riedl dispels the stimulus myth, lays out the evidence that government spending does not end recessions–and presents the evidence for what does end recessions. Hint: It’s not another “stimulus package.” Click here for the article. Now, let’s take a look at how this works.  The Federal Government spends like crazy. The money has to come from somewhere. TAX DOLLARS.  So, joe lunch bucket is taxed, businesses are taxed. All the taxes take money OUT of the economy which leaves less money for people to spend.

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

Side By Side

September 23rd, 2010 by Ted Silberstein

An analytical Liberal proffered this comparison chart contrasting Liberal
and Conservative thinking in general. While it might be the instinct
of many conservatives to disagree with his comparison, the only
real flaw is that he didn’t go far enough. It took an analytical
Conservative to help him complete his thoughts for him in the bold
black print in each of the blocks in his comparison chart. It was a
pleasure to help him!

The contrast between “liberals” & “conservatives

in general :

“Liberals”

“Conservatives”

tend to identify with
and have concern for whole
classes of people,

for “society“,
or “mankind”

through complete government
control over them.

tend to identify with oneself and
to have concern for

one’s immediate family, one’s
neighborhood, or one’s race.

And the Constitutional right
to have those personal concerns

tend
to look forward,

with
confidence in the future,
and
dissatisfaction with the
past.

But may have no future
because they are determined to repeat the mistakes of their past.

tend
to look backward,

with
satisfaction over the past
and
suspicion over the future.

Will always be cautiously
suspicious of any future that promises the transformation to socialism
and communism devoid of personal freedom desired by liberals.

Scientists
tend to be Liberals

and
liberals respect and use science.

And are convinced that there
can only be science, and no God. There
cannot be both.

Scientists
are rarely conservative

and
conservatives have little respect for science.

And have great respect for
legitimate science, not fabricated politically created voodoo science
such as Global Warming, discovered by the same scientist who claims he
invented the internet.

tend
to embrace All groups (not just one’s own

or
the dominant race, religion, class, gender, age,

sexual orientation, etc.)

And arrogantly believe they
are the only ones who do.

Inclusive
only of those of one’s own class,

group, neighborhood, religion, country, etc.,

span>

Know that only by
strengthening their own group first, can they then be in the position
to protect the other groups who cannot protect or save themselves, such
as those whose survival in times of natural disaster or invasion by
genocidal regimes depends on our intervention.

tend
to view people in need as
a
challenge for which a
permanent
system-wide

solution
should be found.

And tend to view people in
need as ripe subjects to be controlled by a welfare state government
who will determine what permanent system wide solution they are in need
of, who is in need of it, and believe they know better than the people
themselves how they should be taken care of, and know better than the
people themselves how their earnings should be spent (only on the
government, keeping them in a state of perpetual indentured servitude
to the government.

tend
to view people in need as

opportunities
for “entrepreneurs”

to create profit-making enterprises

And tend to
believe that people have the right and responsibility to care for
themselves, and to do what they want with the earnings they worked for,
and that entrepreneurship leads to innovation and profit making
enterprises, enterprises who are the largest employers, creating the
most jobs cultivating a strong and healthy economy, and support for a
strong but not controlling government, and personal freedom.

Emphasis
on being responsible
for
the whole community, and for

it’s past & future, as well as present.

By “responsible
for the community,” Emphasis is on CONTROLLING THE COMMUNITY
– The definition of COMMUNISM.

Emphasis
on being responsible

mainly
for oneself, and focus
mainly
on the present.

Emphasis is on first being
responsible for oneself because only then can we be best prepared to
provide for others, and only by first learning from the mistakes of the
past and wisely navigating the present can we prepare for a prosperous
future.

Every
human being is entitled to many
basic human rights just because they have been born into the human family.

Even if it means that others
must work to provide it to them when they refuse to work to provide for
themselves.

We
are born with nothing but the hair on our heads and no right to
anything unless and until we or our parents can earn it for us.

EXACTLY

The
instinct of liberals

is to defend the rights of
their opponents to differ.

Except the moment their
opponents differ it is only because their opponents are racist.

The
instinct of conservatives

isto suppress dissent & oppose
“right to know” policies.

The instinct to oppose
specifically Baraq Hussein Obama’s “right to
know” policies, which hold that there is “no right
to know,” as evidenced by his broken promises of
transparency, and to post proposed bills and programs for public review
before forcing them into law despite dissenting public opinion and
without the opportunity to vote. And
the instinct to suppress dissent such as the Liberal suppression of
dissent evidenced by Nancy McCarthy Pelosie’s demand that
those who voice dissent should be investigated.

Liberals
see the world in a multitude of colors, recognize, invite and welcome
diversity,

complexity
and subtlety, etc., etc.


Tend to be blind to the fact
that the colors and diversity they welcome often seek to exploit that
naïveté to destroy them – repeatedly

Conservatives
tend to view situations as either black or white, good or evil, guilty
or innocent, for or against us, right or wrong, socialist vs.
capitalist, patriotic or treasonous, simple rather than complex, etc.,
etc.,

Tend not to be
naïve or to allow themselves to fall prey to enemies who would
exploit naïveté to destroy America.
“Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice
shame on me.”

Elevate the
powerless

Foolishly believe they can
raise the bottom by forcibly pulling down the top

Exploit the
powerless

span>

Know that you teach those at
the bottom how to get to the top on their own by encouraging self
responsibility, and the pride that comes from self actualization
attained from developing an honest work ethic

Liberals
think that what causes many people to be poor is injustice in the
principal transactions of life, i.e. unfair wages for the labor they
provide, unfair prices for the goods and services they have to
purchase, unfair policies regarding health care, law enforcement,
working conditions, discrimination, etc.,

In other words to Liberals
there is no such thing as self accountability.
Liberals embrace and give great weight to the copout
that such people are “life’s victims,”
that anything that is not perfect in their world must be because the
world dealt them a bad hand, and cannot possibly be because of their
own failure or desire to achieve

Conservatives
think that “successful people” become prosperous by working hard and
they need to be defended from the injustice of politicians stealing
from the rich to support the lazy.

BULLSEYE!
Conservatives know that it’s the rich who
are the largest employers creating the most jobs which keeps money
flowing and the economy robust. They
know that when wealth is forcibly taken from those who have worked for
it, to give it to those who will not, eventually it becomes clear that
there is no point in working for it, then eventually no wealth will be
made, thus no wealth distributed, and the body economic dies

Promotion
of progressive taxation

(in order to finance public services).

Tend to be blind to the fact
that progressive taxation normally only means taking more from the pay
check of the wage earner to support the government body and the
creation of services that most people do not need and do not want, and
probably will not get

Opposition
to most forms of taxation
and
to the public services they make possible.

Tend to believe that the
public services that are provided by government through exorbitant
taxation can be provided more efficiently and less expensively by
private enterprise, and that healthy competition among private
enterprise leads to those services becoming even better, more efficient
and even less expensive than the government ever can

as much equality as possible (e.g.
support for taxation of the super-wealthy)

Tend to be blind to the fact
that taxing only the “super wealthy” who create the
jobs will force them to reduce their work force in order to cut costs
to compensate for the taxation, resulting in the loss of jobs and
economic crisis

Unlimited
INequality (opposition

to taxation of the super-wealthy)

Tend to support equal and
less taxation across the board for all, and support taxation on
consumption rather than taxation on people, that the people should be
allowed to keep more of their own earnings so that they can buy the
things they want or need, rather than being forced to turn their
earnings over to a government who would decide for the people what they
should have.

When
liberals are in control, the laws passed and/or enforced tend to fall
on the rich and the powerful, rather than on “little people”

The law books are blind, the
laws apply equally to all
, and national debt increases

When
conservatives are in control, the laws passed and enforced tend to fall
on “little people”, rather than on the rich and the powerful.

The law books are blind, the
laws apply equally to all
, and
national surplussincreases

Affirmative
Action

on
behalf of minorities

It is more important and
acceptable for the standards, training, knowledge, skill and abilities
of the person performing the job, (such as the surgeon performing the
delicate brain surgery) to be lowered and replaced by a standard based
solely on the skin color of the practitioner

Negative
INaction which benefits the majority

The standards, training,
knowledge, skill and abilities of the individual is the gauge that
should be applied when choosing the practitioner regardless of skin
color.

OK with paying taxes,
if
money is used to care

for the needs of others, i.e.
the young, old, sick,

handicapped,
minorities, etc., etc.

Blind to the fact that some
taxes must be steered toward strengthening law enforcement and national
defenses which are essential to protecting the young, old, sick,
handicapped, minorities, as well as the healthy, etc, etc,

OK with paying taxes,
if
money is used for

their own security,
i.e.
law-enforcement,
prisons,
and
national “defense”.

Understand that some taxes
must be steered toward strengthening law enforcement and national
defenses so that we can continue to have a secure nation where some
taxes can also be steered to protecting the young, old, sick,
handicapped,

Creativity
& New ideas:

Liberals
respect the ability of all men to think

for
themselves and welcome and respect

new
and different insights and discoveries by

thinkers
in every field. (Reason is supreme).

as long as the
insights and thinking come from fellow Liberals.
Closed minded to any insight or thinking from anyone
other than another Liberal, and are offended by the belief that God may
play a role. It is
this trait that leaves little to distinguish between the radical
Liberal Left and radical Islam. They
are kissin’ cousins.

Tradition
& Orthodoxy :

Conservatives
are insecure in their own ability to

find
the truth and need to have “orthodox” doctrine

handed
down to them from supernatural and / or

political
authority figures.

(Faith and blind obedience are supreme.)

Faith is indeed strong, and
their only blind obedience is to their pledge to keep our America free
and prosperous

The
contrast between “liberals” & “conservatives

in the area
of national policy :

“Liberals”

“Conservatives”

believe
large scale problems are best solved with public non-profit social
programs

Even when those programs
when controlled by government suffer at the hands of an inefficient
bureaucracy, and thus fail at their intended mission

believe
large scale problems are best solved with private profit-making
individual solutions

Because it has been proved
time and time again, that privately run programs are more efficient and
less costly to run, thereby serving more people, thus better serving
the mission

Trust
power in the hands of
large
(public) government over
large (private) corporations

Totally trust in the
politicians in power? And
Liberals accuse Conservatives of blind obedience – Wholly Cow!

Trust
power in the hands

of large (private) corporations
over large (public) government

Trust private corporations
to better develop the tools for government to work with to keep our
republic safe

Favoring
Distribution
of wealth

and
power to

as
many as possible

A proven failed policy world
wide throughout history. A
policy proved to breed social and economic despair and to dictatorships
doomed to bloody fall

Favoring
Concentration
of wealth

and
power in the hands

of
the elite few who have earned them

But support the right of
anyone to earn them and enjoy the fruits of that labor without having
their wealth stripped of them at gunpoint and given to those who will
not help themselves

Promotion
of Unions

&
Collective Bargaining

While blind to the fact that
powerful unions feed on the lifeblood of the lowly union workers,
sucking their compulsory union dues to give to politicians whom the
union heads want in power, but whom the union worker might not like and
would not vote for.

Promotion
of

individualistic
private enterprise

&
“Freedom to Work”

The keyword
“Freedom” the concept that has made America the
greatest nation in the history of the planet.

Union of States
and belief in federal government

Even though
bureaucrats in the federal government are far removed from the needs of
individual states, each of which have individual problems and needs

Independence
of States
belief
in “states’ rights” and distrust of federal government

Believe
freedom in the United States means the freedom of state and local
communities to decide their own affairs.
The country is so tremendous that trying to impose
one size fits all regulations upon all the states amount to tyranny in
communities where those regulations are different from what the people
need or want

History
of opposition to slavery

But support mandatory union
membership which is tantamount to slavery.

History
of defense of slavery

Abraham Lincoln was a
Republican, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves

promotion
of higher

minimum
wage and
even
“a livable wage”

Even though raising minimum
wages leads to inflation and unemployment

keep
wages as

minimum
as possible

(whatever “the market” allows
or even “dictates”)

Continuously raising minimum
wages encourages those making minimum wage to be satisfied with it,
makes them content to be the least they can be, and takes away their
motivation to be more than they are, and to provide a better life for
their families, and perpetuates that lifestyle in their families for
generations

The
public should

insure just wages for all its citizens, by law

Even though this is another
form of distribution which diminishes productivity – if the worker who works hard to produce makes the same wage as the worker who
is unproductive, the motivation to be a productive worker diminishes,
production suffers and the company is doomed to mediocrity or failure.

Nothing
but “market forces”

should
determine what employers
have
to pay employees

Profit sharing and reward
for productive work, the more a worker produces, the more the company
makes, therefore company is motivated to pay the worker more to produce more, and the company and the economy flourishes.
It ain’t rocket science.

promotion
of Health Care

for all who need it :
(Universal
public plan).

Even though it has been
proven world wide that universal healthcare leads to care rationing,
and substandard inferior care. People
in nations with universal health care who can afford it, regularly
leave their country for the United States where the quality of medical
care is second to none

Health
Care Insurance

only for those who can afford it.
(for–profit
private plans).

The
United States has the highest quality of health care in the
world.
Our system is just. Anyone who is in need of
emergency care will get it. They
cannot be turned away. As
with any other private enterprise, it is the competition that makes
quality continue to rise and keeps costs low, ultimately bringing
better quality care to far more people in need

Both sides
view themselves as champions fighting for liberty, freedom and justice,
but they have very different ideas as to whom to protect and from whom :

Freedom
for ALL : (requiring

restraint of the rich and powerful)

You can’t prove a
vague baseless positive

Freedom
for the rich and

powerful
: ( with as much

“deregulation”
as possible)

You can’t disprove
a vague baseless negative

Oppose
the proliferation of guns, because they end up so often killing innocent people.

Would take away the
protection of guns for themselves and for everyone even though they
know that the enemies who want to destroy them are already armed.

Embrace
guns, because they enable even weak people the ability to threaten and
overpower large numbers of other people.

Embrace the right to own
guns to protect themselves, that includes protecting Liberals against
those who would do them harm, and because the right to bear arms is
granted in the United States Constitution

span>

The
contrast between “liberals” & “conservatives

in the area
of international policy : :

“Liberals”

“Conservatives”

Believe
in United Nations

&
the World Court

Even though the United
Nations is a corrupt entity with an anti-United States agenda, who
gives platforms to terrorist leaders to spew their violent anti-free
world zealotry

Distrust
United Nations

&
of World Court

Because the United Nations is a
corrupt entity with an anti-United States agenda, who gives platforms
to terrorist leaders to spew their violent anti-free world zealotry

Do everything possible to achieve Peace, and settle for War only as a last resort

Do not realize and have not
learned despite the lessons of history, that waiting for the enemy to strike first, and waiting to strike only as a last resort is too often
deadly for many Americans. The lessons of December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001 at
the World Trade Center

View waging War as proof of patriotism, manhood, etc., and Peace as proof of
cowardice

Understand the lessons of
December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001 at the World
Trade Center, and understand that a foreign policy of appeasement with
enemies whose sworn duty to their god is to destroy our nation is cowardice which only angers those enemies more and emboldens them to strike.

“Liberals”

“Conservatives”

Hate
and are ashamed of our great nation, and are enamored with the tragic
failed policies of Marxism, Socialism and Communism

Know
that The United States is the greatest nation in the history of the
planet, and know that no nation has done more good for more people
globally than any other nation. Are
proud of our nation and remain resolute in preserving our freedom from
Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, the freedom that was won through the
sacrifice, blood and tears, and lives of our fathers.
And will fight to the death to preserve the
Constitution, to protect our nation and protect ALL of her people
– including Liberals.

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

Coakley, Obama and Brown, Oh My!

January 21st, 2010 by Ted Silberstein

The liberal Left depressed over Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachussetts election have now begun to categorize Brown’s supporters as mostly the jobless who will soon be saying to themselves “What did I do.” Talk about getting it backwards. I supported Scott Brown over Martha “Marsha” Coakley and I have a job. In fact I have what I consider to be a fairly respectable job as a police Lieutenant, in this career for 25 years. I would love to see the left provide facts or statistics to support their claim that most of Scott Brown’s supporters don’t have jobs. But that’s not as misguided as their belief that those who voted for Scott Brown should be saying “What did I do.” The fact is if Coakley had won, it would be those who supported and voted for her who would be saying ‘What did we do” when they learned of her history of corruption and flawed judgment. Let me school ya folks.

Coakley has quite a history. Back in 1984 the infamous Fells Acres daycare sexual abuse case led to the daycare sex abuse hysteria of the 1980′s. Fells Acres was the infamous case of alleged sexual abuse of children at what was then the highly respected family owned daycare run by the Amirault Family Massachussetts. The allegations included that one of the owners, the man plunged a butcher knife up into the rectum of a child, and the knife got stuck and he had to force it back out again. Another child was allegedly tied to a tree by one of the women and sodomized with a stick they called the “magic wand.” Guess what – no physical injury, ANY INJURY to either child. Listen to that again – a butcher knife stuck up into the rectum of a small child so far that it got stuck before being forcibly pulled out – NO INJURY or any physical evidence. I spent several years of my career as a detective investigating sex crimes against children, and for a child to have a butcher knife thrust into his rectum and twisted and pulled out and leave no injury whatsoever – read my lips: IMPOSSIBLE. Nevertheless, astoundingly the prosecution moved forward with the case based solely on the disjointed and coashed statements from young toddler children.

The Amiraults were sentenced to lengthy terms but the case began to utterly disintegrate on review. One of the harshest hanging judges in Massachussetts known for giving out long sentences stated even he never witnessed such flagrant prosecutorial misconduct in the courtroom, with every dirty trick in the book used by the prosecutor. The case was widely and overwhelmingly recognized to have been a classic case of witch hunting for the political advancement of the prosecutor, and the Parole Board voted 5-0 to commute the sentences of the Amiraults. But as the Attorney General, Coakley even knowing the case was a sham, in an effort to advance herself as a guardian of justice, worked harder than ever before to convince the governor the same guardian of justice agenda as Coakley, who was seeking re-election overruled the Parole Board and an innocent man remained jailed.

A letter to the editor of the Boston Herald by Margaret Hagen, a professor of psychology at Boston University and author of the book, Whores of the Court, sums up the case against Martha Coakley.

“The cynical manipulation by the Middlesex County prosecutor’s office of the child witnesses against Gerals Amirault, who are now young adults makes it depressingly clear that the office of prosecutor is intended by its occupants to serve their political ambitions and not the cause of justice. Martha Coakley and her cohorts and precursors know full well that children who were 3, 4 and 5 years old at the time of the Fells Acres trials some 15 years ago – 15 years filled with constant reasertions by prosecutors and parents of the validity of the original claims – do not, cannot and will not ever be able to have untainted memories of their experiences. Hauling these innocent young people out for a press conference was disgraceful.

These children were victims of politically ambitious and woefully ignorant prosecutors who chose to disregard the coercive interrogations by the inexperienced graduate student assigned to dig the “truth” out of the children, to ignore bizarre claims that defied all rationality (e.g. sodomy with lobsters and knives) and to close their eyes to the utter lack of substantiating physical evidence.”

In the time since the Fells Acres case and the malicious persecution and prosecution of the Amiraults we have seen many changes in the laws governing the way the police are allowed to obtain testimony from children and how that testimony can be used in court, and many of these laws come about specifically as a result of the prosecutorial misconduct by Coakley and prosecution team in that infamous landmark case. “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.”

But that’s not the end to the Coakley story. Turn the clock ahead to 2005. A Massachussetts police officer Kieth Winfield sodomized a child with a curling iron. In this case physical evidence of injury to the child supported the arrest, but Coakley who disingenuously holds herself out to be tough on these crimes resisted seeking an indictment, and only eventually did so because of intense public outrage over the case. But despite this, Coakley still recommended Winfield be released on his own recognizance without the need to post bail. Thankfully, Coakley’s successor picked up the ball and won a conviction and two life terms for this deviant.

Why did Coakley resist doing her job to get Winfield convicted? Was Winfield’s father being a union representative with ties to Coakley’s campaign a factor? Does it matter? Is that who hard line Massachussetts Democrats want to be their Senator? This is the history of “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha” Coakley, and Kieth Olberman has the temerity to publicly label Scott Brown as the candidate who is “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women? Huh?

And the left will have trouble swallowing this too, but this also wasn’t a party line vote. Republicans and probably most Democrats voted the way they always vote – no surprises, so that didn’t win the election. The Republican candidate won this one because Independents and even growing numbers of Democrats recognized Coakley for what she is, and in the larger picture because they are beginning to get more than a little uncomfortable with how much government is looking to take control of their lives, exactly what the founders of this country fought against.

For liberals to suggest that Republicans and conservatives with no jobs are the cause of this election outcome and every other problem is bazzarro world, up is down, day is night denial. We have always had the upper, middle and lower classes, but now we have slowly been adding the new and exponentially growing jobless Democrat feeding parasite class. The difference between jobless conservatives and jobless liberals of the parasite class: the conservatives who are jobless actually want to work. The Democratic Party plan is to provide the parasite class with everything they need to survive and be taken care of without having to do a thing for themselves which is what the parasite class wants. It’s a marriage made in heaven. And in return, the really ingenious part of the Democrat Party plan is that the Democratic Party gets a lifetime of indentured voting servitude from the parasite class who will be glad to oblige.

If the Democratic Party could remain in control long enough with enough consecutive presidential and congressional election victories, that plan might be more worrisome. Thankfully however, because the presidency and control of congress historically always reverts back to the other party after the sitting president leaves office, neither party retains control for longer than an 8 year stretch anymore, thus the Democrats probably could never hold power long enough for their plan to come to fruition. Nevertheless, the disturbing emerging Democrat fed parasite class has arrived. Where’s the Orkin Man when we need him?

Finally, the slickest liberal deflection tactic in reaction to Scott Brown’s victory came from Barak Obama with his assessment that the Massachusetts election was a result of voter anger over the last 2-8 years while managing to completely omit what has happened in this country in the LAST 12 MONTHS under presidential and congressional control of Democrats! Not to mention that for the last 8 years, make that 50 years, that Massachussetts seat in particular has been held by a Democrat. Trying to confuse everyone with confusion, what a clever ploy! Arrogantly insulting the intelligence of all of America has been Mr. Obama’s strategy from the moment he began his run for the White House, and this demonstrates that he intends to stay that course. Clearly he and the rest of his machine have failed to notice that his approval rating has plummeted farther and faster than any other president in history in his first year in office, and gathering speed with each passing day. But then arrogance does that.

Ted Silberstein
Florida Cop

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | No Comments »

OBAMA STILL UP IN THE AIR OVER TROOPS

November 18th, 2009 by Rich Szabo

BEIJING (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday he is “very close” to a decision on boosting troop levels in Afghanistan and would make an announcement “in the next several weeks.”

In a transcript of the interview seen by Reuters, Obama said he did not want his successor as president to inherit the Afghan conflict, adding that a “multi-year occupation” would not serve the interests of the United States.

Barry has now been dragging his feet since August. On
August 30, 2009 General Stanley McCrystal submitted his Commander Initial Assessment

You can view it here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19995042/Commander-Initial-Assessment-McCrystal

General McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London the last week of September.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where Barry had arrived to pitch Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.

Remember that back in March Obama unveiled his “comprehensive new strategy . . . to reverse the Taliban’s gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.” The Dimwit in Chief pledged to properly resource this “war of necessity,” which he also called during the 2008 campaign “the central front on terror.” Barry then sacked his war commander, who had been chosen by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in favor of General McChrystal, an expert in counterinsurgency.

In June, General McChrystal launched his assessment of the forces required to execute the Obama strategy. His confidential study was completed in August and sent to the Pentagon. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen told Congress that more troops would be needed, and a figure of 30,000-40,000 was bandied about.

The figure has clearly spooked the Administration. Soon after, General McChrystal’s confidential report was leaked to the Washington Post The report said that the U.S. urgently needs to reverse a “deteriorating” security situation. Soon the full retreat began in Washington, led by a vocal group within the Administration that wants to scale back the mission. The White House told the Pentagon to hold off asking for troops and General McChrystal not to testify to Congress. Obama asked on the Sunday talks shows, “Are we doing the right thing?”

So now we are coming up on November and Barry is still thinking about it. What more is there to think about?

By the time this week is over, Barry will have visited twenty countries.
Exotic destinations across four continents. War zones. Palaces and ancient wonders of the world. So many invitations, so little time.

Instead of playing rock star, maybe Barry should think about BEING a president and staying home and taking care of the country.

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | 1 Comment »

Who’s Really Running the Country?

November 12th, 2009 by Rich Szabo

I did not write this and I give no opinion other than to share it for opinions.

    Who is Really Running the Country?

I have been having a nagging intuition lately that something is not quite right about Barack Obama. I am not suggesting there is something wrong with the man, per se. Nor am I talking about the crazy, even dangerous, policies coming out of the White House. No, lately, I have been wondering if Barack Obama is, in fact, the person who is actually functioning as President of the United States.

I mean, there’s no doubt that he fills the position of POTUS but is he really the one in command? The man actually seems lost at times. He seems to be reacting to ideas about which he does not really have a clue. He has left the writing of this health care bill to Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives and she, in turn, has farmed the writing out to several fairly radical community action groups. When questioned about health care, he seems not to know or understand the details and even with his silver-tongue seems unable to demonstrate any leadership on the issue.

With respect to Afghanistan and the rest of our foreign policy, he seems equally lost. Especially when it comes to dealing with other world leaders. He makes beautiful speeches but seems to be unable to cut deals which benefit our nation. He seems to be acting as a pawn of much more clever world leaders.

The more I watch the man, the more I see a person who appears to be the “face” of some other entity or group. He seems like a “front man”. And it is becoming clear that his strings are being pulled by someone else. He does not appear to be the man in command of the ship of state. At least, he is not in the driver’s seat.

You might recall that people said about Bush that he was a front man for the neo-cons and that it was really Dick Cheney that was running the show. It turns out that Dick Cheney was not as influential in Bush’s second term as many thought but, perhaps it is true that the neo-cons, whoever they may be, were pulling some of Bush’s strings.
On the other hand, with Obama, it does not appear that there is anyone who is visible to ‘we the people’ or the media who is pulling the strings. If they are there, they are not in elected positions as Cheney was. They are better hidden than that.

We know that he has been and remains surrounded by life-long radicals, professed communists and anti-capitalists, some of whom he has even appointed as czars in his administration. Thirty six czars, to date. But is it Obama who is picking the czars or is it the czars who are running the show and propping up Obama as their front man?

I know all this may sound crazy but, really, when you look at the man without the idolatry and media worship, does he really look like he knows what he is doing? Does he seem to have a direction? Firm convictions? Something he deeply believes in? The more he talks now, the more his words seems empty of content. Platitudes about America and the American people which, when he says them, simply do not ring true. They are words being mouthed but not believed by him.

Okay, so maybe he is really clever, is firmly moving the ship to the left while mouthing the words of a centrist but I don’t think so. What I used to think was that he was a really slick conman who was making us watch his left hand while he was manipulating us with his right. But, now I don’t think that so much. I think the man is more plastic than real. Now I begin to see him as the “Great and Powerful Oz”: a fearsome presence who is being manipulated by men behind the curtain. And while Obama does not have strong convictions, the men behind the curtain do. And they are moving this country down a dangerous path. All the while, we are being distracted by Obama and what he says and does.

Okay, maybe I am simply a mildly paranoid conspiracy theorist. Why, you might ask, have Obama up there? Why not have one of the actual people behind the curtain run for President. Well, being a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I can come up with an answer to that question. Those other people behind the curtain have backgrounds that are so radical that they would never have made it past the first few days of a campaign. Additionally, they are life-long community organizers and they know what kind of face can be effective if you wish to radically change the nation. First, you need a black man to gain the support of the vast black minority. Second, you need a pale skinned black man so as not to be too much of a threat to white Americans. For the same reasons, you need a mixed race man who allies himself with the poor and down-trodden.

And you need someone who speaks well enough to co-opt the language of the right and appear to be a uniter, not a divider. Someone who sees, or at least can articulate, both sides of an issue. This is the kind of man you would pick to be your front man so that while you move things drastically and dramatically left, the vast majority of Americans will not believe that was the intention of the moderate appearing front man.

Yes, Obama was a community organizer. Yes, he could be clever enough to have this all be his idea. But he really wasn’t a community organizer for that long. And when he was, he didn’t do anything truly radical. It was more a time during which he was being trained than a time when he was driven by a personal sense of commitment to anything in particular. There are people who are now in his government who have been community organizers and radical left wing activists for 20-30 years. These people have deeply ingrained commitments to changing the system and have been actively trying to do so for all that time. Obama is not one of them.

In my view, Obama has been trained and used as a puppet by others for a long time. His successes seem to have come too easily, as if they have been orchestrated. His life appears to have been pre-planned. I mean, Harvard Law Review without publishing a single paper of note. That is unusual. A community organizer for a short time, a State legislator for a few years, a freshman US Senator, a convention key-note speaker, and then POTUS. How does that happen? A person with zero governmental administrative experience is running the entire government of the United States.

How do 1,017 page documents get developed and put out in such short order? Who is writing all these proposals? Does it not seem that something is just not quite right here? Forget about the specifics of the policies for the moment. Have you seen this level of activity in the first few months of any other administration in your lifetime? Does Obama seem like the kind of person that could manage this level of activity in so short a time? Too much does not make sense here.
So, slowly but surely, I am becoming convinced that it’s not Barack Obama who is running the show. The White House has been captured by a group of people who are using Barack Obama as their front man. He is nothing but an articulate but empty suit. We have to start looking behind the curtains to find out who is really controlling the “great and powerful Obama.”

Something to think about….

Sphere: Related Content

Category: Politics | 1 Comment »