Leave it to the Left Angeles Times to have a left-wing degenerate actually say what many-not all-but many believe about the United States.
Joel Stein, who seems to just love to irritate for the heck of it, admits that he does not share the same love of this great land as many conservatives.
Written like a true lefty with no appreciation for what makes the United States different from any other nation, Mr. Stein writes this:
Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy. If it had been Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Israel or one of those Scandinavian countries with more relaxed attitudes toward sex, that would have been fine with me too.
See, Mr. Stein just lumps us in with other democracies. And, for good measure he gets a dig in that the United States is not as "relaxed" in our attitudes towards sex.
To be fair, Mr. Stein does point out what makes the United States different from other nations, including our allied democracies. But, once again he digs into what he does not like about the United States:
But there are plenty of things I don't like about America: our foreign policy, our religious fundamentalism, our provincialism, our intellectual laziness, our acceptance of sweat suits in public.
Religious fundamentalism? Intellectual laziness?
What planet is this Joel Stein on? It clearly can not be earth and surely not the present day United States.
It must bother someone like Mr. Stein that an overwhelming number of Americans are practitioners of their faith. Not just Christians, which is his real bugaboo. But Jews, Islamics, and any given non-monotheistic religions. Too bad for the libertine, Mr. Stein.
Intellectual laziness is a euphemism for not accepting anything told by those of Mr. Stein's ilk. That would include such unproven and possible falsehoods as globaloney warming. In fact, conservatives are much more intellectually willing to discuss any given topic. But the liberal-left, well they just want to save us from ourselves and do not even want discussion. Some intellectual openness.
Later in this opus of disdain, Mr. Stein recalls a conversation he had with radio and television talker Glenn Beck. As Mr. Stein quotes Mr. Beck, it is Mr. Stein's creepy comment that shows how serious he is of his lack of love for this Great Land. Here is what Mr. Beck said:
"If I were born in Great Britain and read about Britain and America, I'd love the values and principles and the men who founded this country," he said. "I love that we crossed these mountains and didn't know what was on the other side. I love that the Pilgrims didn't want to come here, but they came here because they felt prompted to by God. There's always been a spirit of adventure and awe in this land. And I don't think any other country has that."
But, Mr. Stein has this rejoinder:
Beck, it seemed, loves America the same way little boys love camping.
First, I doubt that Mr. Stein has ever been camping. And, why does Mr. Stein have to denigrate someones heartfelt love of his nation? Because, Mr. Stein does not love this nation. He looks at it as an accident of birth. And, Mr. Stein claims that he would be perfectly happy if he were born and raised somewhere else. Especially any given, generic Scandinavian nation.
As I read this it goes to the heart of an issue that I often discuss with Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast.
That liberals are, by nature, very unhappy people. Conservatives are generally happy people. Yes, I know some conservatives that are not very happy people, but this is a generalization. And, Mr. Stein plays right into it.
Thus, he can not have much love because that gets in the way of "intellectual curiosity". I will take bets now that his new marriage will not get to five years.
I want to make clear. I do not think that Mr. Stein represents the vast majority of liberals. Many that I do know love this nation. They want nothing but the best for all people of this great land. They mean well. But people like Mr. Stein are becoming the face of modern liberalism, which is increasingly socialistic in nature.
Thus, Mr. Stein represents a bad trend of liberalism. And, that is much more dangerous than anything a conservative can do. And at least Mr. Stein is honest about his disdain for his nation.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Madoff: An Ugly Stereotype Rears Its Ugly Head
The one aspect of the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme scandal that I am loathe to discuss is the fact that Mr. Madoff is Jewish.
That is a painful fact for me because I am part Jewish. I must emphasise that in the cultural sense since I am a Christian. My father's family are practicing Jews but my father, God rest his soul, was not.
Now in this story, it is really inescapable and has fed into my worst fears as to what Mr. Madoff has done. He has singlehandedly set back the Jewish people by feeding into the vile anti-Semitism of many. And it is on the left and the right. Anti-Semitism is one of those rare cases in which the fringes on both sides seem to be able to agree on.
My problems are these with Mr. Madoff.
He stole from Peter to pay Paul. Hence, that is what a ponzi scheme is. It is always bad when one does that from his or her own people and or faith community. And, it is something that has happened many, many times to churches.
And, he paid off a lot of Democrats.
And, worst of all, not one person seemed to want to think the worst of this guy for he has been doing this scheme for decades.
The racial/religious bigots are having a field day, but I think the three points that I made above are the three issues we need to discuss on this matter.
The fact that Mr. Madoff is Jewish and that he took a lot of Jewish people in his scheme is bad, but has no bearing over the fact that he is an alleged crook. Crookery knows no race, religion, social standing.
Remember that when discussing this matter.
That is a painful fact for me because I am part Jewish. I must emphasise that in the cultural sense since I am a Christian. My father's family are practicing Jews but my father, God rest his soul, was not.
Now in this story, it is really inescapable and has fed into my worst fears as to what Mr. Madoff has done. He has singlehandedly set back the Jewish people by feeding into the vile anti-Semitism of many. And it is on the left and the right. Anti-Semitism is one of those rare cases in which the fringes on both sides seem to be able to agree on.
My problems are these with Mr. Madoff.
He stole from Peter to pay Paul. Hence, that is what a ponzi scheme is. It is always bad when one does that from his or her own people and or faith community. And, it is something that has happened many, many times to churches.
And, he paid off a lot of Democrats.
And, worst of all, not one person seemed to want to think the worst of this guy for he has been doing this scheme for decades.
The racial/religious bigots are having a field day, but I think the three points that I made above are the three issues we need to discuss on this matter.
The fact that Mr. Madoff is Jewish and that he took a lot of Jewish people in his scheme is bad, but has no bearing over the fact that he is an alleged crook. Crookery knows no race, religion, social standing.
Remember that when discussing this matter.
These People Could Use Some Global Warming
Here is a little more on the globaloney warming front.
The good people of Duluth, Minnesota must think that they could use a little warmer temperatures since this is the earliest ice cover on Lake Superior in at least 17 years.
Get this. At some point, people will be able to drive between two islands because the ice will more than likely thicken up to do that. In recent years, people have had to take a ferry between Bayfield and Madeline Island all year long because there has not been a thick ice sheet to drive over in one's own car.
While much of the United States is cold and stormy, it is 52 degrees at 12:15 pm as I type this post, somehow I think most people will agree that if there is globaloney warming, how do they explain these type of events?
The good people of Duluth, Minnesota must think that they could use a little warmer temperatures since this is the earliest ice cover on Lake Superior in at least 17 years.
Get this. At some point, people will be able to drive between two islands because the ice will more than likely thicken up to do that. In recent years, people have had to take a ferry between Bayfield and Madeline Island all year long because there has not been a thick ice sheet to drive over in one's own car.
While much of the United States is cold and stormy, it is 52 degrees at 12:15 pm as I type this post, somehow I think most people will agree that if there is globaloney warming, how do they explain these type of events?
Thursday, December 25, 2008
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
The following is the Gospel account of the birth of Jesus ChristThe Holy Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to Luke:
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12And this [shall be] a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17And when they had seen [it], they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18And all they that heard [it] wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19But Mary kept all these things, and pondered [them] in her heart.
20And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
2([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12And this [shall be] a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17And when they had seen [it], they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18And all they that heard [it] wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19But Mary kept all these things, and pondered [them] in her heart.
20And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
May you all have a happy and very MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Please keep up with Santa Claus on his journey by going over to the NORAD site. I have bumped and updated it.
Tracking Santa
Last UPDATE and BUMP:
Santa has just completed his annual mission and is doing one last trek around the world to make sure that those who could not get to sleep right away still get their presents.
Once again, I, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and Scout the Wonder Dog wish you and yours a happy, blessed MERRY CHRISTMAS!
UPDATED and BUMPED:
Santa is soon going to begin his journey over North America! Keep track on the linked NORAD site!
Welcome to Christmas Eve!
Now, a fun thing is to track the journey that Santa Claus takes every Christmas Eve to bring the presents to all the good, and maybe not so good, little boys and girls.
Go on over to http://www.noradtrackssanta.org/ to enjoy Santa's travels.
Check out the videos as well.
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVE!
Santa has just completed his annual mission and is doing one last trek around the world to make sure that those who could not get to sleep right away still get their presents.
Once again, I, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and Scout the Wonder Dog wish you and yours a happy, blessed MERRY CHRISTMAS!
UPDATED and BUMPED:
Santa is soon going to begin his journey over North America! Keep track on the linked NORAD site!
Welcome to Christmas Eve!
Now, a fun thing is to track the journey that Santa Claus takes every Christmas Eve to bring the presents to all the good, and maybe not so good, little boys and girls.
Go on over to http://www.noradtrackssanta.org/ to enjoy Santa's travels.
Check out the videos as well.
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVE!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Please, Explain Global Warming To The Airline Travelers In Chicago
In this day before Christmas, most of the United States is deep in to winter.
Look at the travel delays at airports across the United States. Throw in the train, bus stations. And, if one is really daring, travelling on an interstate or state highway.
But, there are those in the Globaloney Warming death cult that will try to explain this.
Some have the nerve to actually suggest that cooling is a result of globaloney warming.
If nothing else, one has to get a chuckle of the title of this link over at American Thinker.
While you bundle up with your Snuggle blanket in the midst of this globaloney, remember, even the cold is a result of the warming that is all our fault.
And, here is my Christmas coal in your stocking!
Look at the travel delays at airports across the United States. Throw in the train, bus stations. And, if one is really daring, travelling on an interstate or state highway.
But, there are those in the Globaloney Warming death cult that will try to explain this.
Some have the nerve to actually suggest that cooling is a result of globaloney warming.
If nothing else, one has to get a chuckle of the title of this link over at American Thinker.
While you bundle up with your Snuggle blanket in the midst of this globaloney, remember, even the cold is a result of the warming that is all our fault.
And, here is my Christmas coal in your stocking!
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Conservative Of 2008. . .Sarah Palin, Of Course!
Well, it is official as Alaska governor Sarah Palin is the conservative of 2008 according to Human Events.
It is not a surprise as Gov. Palin is the one that took the ill-fated Sen. John "F--- You" McCain's presidential bid off of life support and energized a dejected Republican base.
But, it a bridge too far for many a conservative to have to vote for Sen. "F--- You" McCain even with Gov. Palin as the vice-presidential candidate.
Without a doubt, if Gov. Palin steers clear of the inside-the-beltway types that will try to remake her into something that she is not, she will be the conservative force for the GOP presidential nod.
It is not a surprise as Gov. Palin is the one that took the ill-fated Sen. John "F--- You" McCain's presidential bid off of life support and energized a dejected Republican base.
But, it a bridge too far for many a conservative to have to vote for Sen. "F--- You" McCain even with Gov. Palin as the vice-presidential candidate.
Without a doubt, if Gov. Palin steers clear of the inside-the-beltway types that will try to remake her into something that she is not, she will be the conservative force for the GOP presidential nod.
A New Way To Squeeze Blood From A Turnip
This is a really rich way for a state that is currently being run-or ruined-by liberal Democrats.
Take a whack at the judiciary to save money.
According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, New Hampshire courts are taking the drastic step of not holding jury trials.
Not holding jury trials? Why, you may ask?
Because after all, it costs money to seek jurors and to pay them the paltry sum of doing their civic duty.
Here in Los Angeles county, there is one day, one trial. What that means is that when one is called for jury duty, they appear at the said courthouse, wait to be potentially called in a jury pool and questioned and tough it out as to whether one is chosen as a juror or not. If one is not chosen, they can go on another panel. If still not chosen by the end of that day, the service is done. If chosen, said juror is not paid the rip-roaring sum of $15 a day for jury service. The juror is paid from the second day on to conclusion of the proceedings.
According to the article linked, the state of New Hampshire will save, drum roll please. . .$73,000 dollars!
Wow! Think of all that savings!
The real reason that this is nauseating is because this is a blatant attempt by the Democrat-dominated state government to sway public opinion.
They want to sway that opinion to institute either a hike in property taxes or a state income tax.
So, use a way that the public will be swayed to support such measures.
If people think that, somehow, potentially dangerous criminals may end up on the streets because of the fact that they are not given their constitutional right to a speedy trial why of course they will do anything to remedy that situation.
It is a tactic that usually has mixed results.
Here in California, Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger used a similar tactic in threatening to release thousands of incarcerated prisoners back on the streets. It was because, he claimed, there was not enough money to keep them locked up. Of course, because there was a public outcry and no support by the Democrat controlled state legislature, Gov. Benedict Arnold backed down.
It is what politicians on both sides do to try to get what they want. And it is being done in ways like this that is very bad.
This is a pittance that the state of New Hampshire will save. And do nothing but irritate an already irritated electorate.
A solution maybe to move the trials to North Dakota, a state that is governed by conservative Republicans and boasts a budget surplus.
But, back to reality.
This tactic is being done to create a crisis that is not there.
Paying people the small amount to do one of the very few things our government asks of us as citizens is not breaking the state and or county coffers. But, paying for entitlement programs or big, bloated bureaucracies are breaking all levels of government.
Which is why people need to demand that government promote reform, not a blindside to make people pay for more government.
But, just frighten the people into thinking deadly criminals will get out of jail is the latest way to go.
See how well that does.
Take a whack at the judiciary to save money.
According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, New Hampshire courts are taking the drastic step of not holding jury trials.
Not holding jury trials? Why, you may ask?
Because after all, it costs money to seek jurors and to pay them the paltry sum of doing their civic duty.
Here in Los Angeles county, there is one day, one trial. What that means is that when one is called for jury duty, they appear at the said courthouse, wait to be potentially called in a jury pool and questioned and tough it out as to whether one is chosen as a juror or not. If one is not chosen, they can go on another panel. If still not chosen by the end of that day, the service is done. If chosen, said juror is not paid the rip-roaring sum of $15 a day for jury service. The juror is paid from the second day on to conclusion of the proceedings.
According to the article linked, the state of New Hampshire will save, drum roll please. . .$73,000 dollars!
Wow! Think of all that savings!
The real reason that this is nauseating is because this is a blatant attempt by the Democrat-dominated state government to sway public opinion.
They want to sway that opinion to institute either a hike in property taxes or a state income tax.
So, use a way that the public will be swayed to support such measures.
If people think that, somehow, potentially dangerous criminals may end up on the streets because of the fact that they are not given their constitutional right to a speedy trial why of course they will do anything to remedy that situation.
It is a tactic that usually has mixed results.
Here in California, Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger used a similar tactic in threatening to release thousands of incarcerated prisoners back on the streets. It was because, he claimed, there was not enough money to keep them locked up. Of course, because there was a public outcry and no support by the Democrat controlled state legislature, Gov. Benedict Arnold backed down.
It is what politicians on both sides do to try to get what they want. And it is being done in ways like this that is very bad.
This is a pittance that the state of New Hampshire will save. And do nothing but irritate an already irritated electorate.
A solution maybe to move the trials to North Dakota, a state that is governed by conservative Republicans and boasts a budget surplus.
But, back to reality.
This tactic is being done to create a crisis that is not there.
Paying people the small amount to do one of the very few things our government asks of us as citizens is not breaking the state and or county coffers. But, paying for entitlement programs or big, bloated bureaucracies are breaking all levels of government.
Which is why people need to demand that government promote reform, not a blindside to make people pay for more government.
But, just frighten the people into thinking deadly criminals will get out of jail is the latest way to go.
See how well that does.
More Disaster In Zimbabwe
The situation in Zimbabwe is nearing total colapse as those who are supposed to be guarding the bulging prison population are reduced to stealing their food just to survive.
As Martin Fletcher reports, a prison warden that makes 200,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars (less than $1) a month and had to stand in line over four hours a day to access a pittance of that income. And, the "value" of the Zimbabwean dollar decreases even as I write this. And, the same warden said that he had not eaten bread in over a year. And that he had five children to care for.
So, the warden and the prison guards have been reduced to stealing a kind of porridge just to stay alive. As more and more prisoners die. Oh, and the same warden said most were not prisoners at all but people just like himself-desperate to steal food just to stay alive.
A question. Where is President Bush on this? Most important, President-elect Obama? Where is the so-esteemed United Nations on this? Zimbabwe's very prosperous neighbor to the South, South Africa?
The silence among all of these groups is deafening.
I noted in an earlier post that Islamofasicist terrorists love these unstable lands. They can swoop in, promise the moon and stability-or in this case food-and desperate people will welcome them in. It has happened in Somalia. And of course in Afghanistan.
This Zimababwe dictator, Robert Mugabe, is literally killing his own people by "famine" and the West, the United Nations, et al, stand by and do nothing. Many a dictator have been removed for much, much less.
It is appalling that we watch a once great and prosperous nation sink into oblivion. A nation that was once called the breadbasket of Southern Africa not able to feed its own people. We need to do something and now. There are duly elected leaders ready to come in and begining reconciliation and an eventual reestablishment of law and order.
Until then, stories like this just become more and more commonplace.
HT: Ed Morrisey @ www.hotair.com
As Martin Fletcher reports, a prison warden that makes 200,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars (less than $1) a month and had to stand in line over four hours a day to access a pittance of that income. And, the "value" of the Zimbabwean dollar decreases even as I write this. And, the same warden said that he had not eaten bread in over a year. And that he had five children to care for.
So, the warden and the prison guards have been reduced to stealing a kind of porridge just to stay alive. As more and more prisoners die. Oh, and the same warden said most were not prisoners at all but people just like himself-desperate to steal food just to stay alive.
A question. Where is President Bush on this? Most important, President-elect Obama? Where is the so-esteemed United Nations on this? Zimbabwe's very prosperous neighbor to the South, South Africa?
The silence among all of these groups is deafening.
I noted in an earlier post that Islamofasicist terrorists love these unstable lands. They can swoop in, promise the moon and stability-or in this case food-and desperate people will welcome them in. It has happened in Somalia. And of course in Afghanistan.
This Zimababwe dictator, Robert Mugabe, is literally killing his own people by "famine" and the West, the United Nations, et al, stand by and do nothing. Many a dictator have been removed for much, much less.
It is appalling that we watch a once great and prosperous nation sink into oblivion. A nation that was once called the breadbasket of Southern Africa not able to feed its own people. We need to do something and now. There are duly elected leaders ready to come in and begining reconciliation and an eventual reestablishment of law and order.
Until then, stories like this just become more and more commonplace.
HT: Ed Morrisey @ www.hotair.com
Sunday, December 21, 2008
A Little Winter Fun On The Shortest Day Of The Year
Ahh, December 21, 2008.
The shortest day of the year in the Northern hemisphere.
It means that fall is officially gone and we now enter the winter season.
Although, in So. Cal., it has felt like winter for a good couple of weeks!
The following link is a fun way to see that our furry, four-legged dog friends love the snow as much as we humans, well most of us, do.
Please, enjoy and if you have a doggie, give him or her a big hug and a kiss!
HT: Jonah Goldberg @ http://corner.nationalreview.com
The shortest day of the year in the Northern hemisphere.
It means that fall is officially gone and we now enter the winter season.
Although, in So. Cal., it has felt like winter for a good couple of weeks!
The following link is a fun way to see that our furry, four-legged dog friends love the snow as much as we humans, well most of us, do.
Please, enjoy and if you have a doggie, give him or her a big hug and a kiss!
HT: Jonah Goldberg @ http://corner.nationalreview.com
Jerry Moonbeam Brown Running For California Governor-On The Backs Of Gays And Lesbians
Although it is nowhere near official, it is all but certain that the current California attorney general, Edmund "Jerry" "Moonbeam" Brown is running for the Democrat nomination for governor of California in 2010.
And, he is doing so on the backs of gays and lesbians now that he has decided that he has found a reason why Proposition 8 should be voided by the California state supreme court.
Now, why do I write that about Mr. Moonbeam Brown running on the backs of gays and lesbians?
Because Mr. Moonbeam Brown vowed to defend Proposition 8 in the courts as willfully passed by the people of the state of California.
For the uninitiated, Proposition 8 went on the California ballot this past November and went on that ballot because of the state supreme court decision earlier this year that allowed same-sex couples to marry as do opposite-sex couples. The same court was asked to stay the original decision because of the possibility that the measure would be on the ballot in the next general election. The court said no.
And, this past election day, by a vote of 52-48%, the people of California did not ban same-sex marriage. It said that for legal purposes, only a marriage between one man and one woman would be recognized by that state.
Yet, to read every account, to hear every account, to watch every account, it always starts off like this: "The voter-approved ban on gay marriage."
So, once the constitutional amendment was passed, the attorney general, Mr. Moonbeam Brown said that "He planned to 'defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.' "
Well, that must have not set well with many of the underlings at the attorney generals office. And, since there has been rampant rumors that the reason Mr. Moonbeam Brown ran for attorney general in the first place was to keep his name out in the public eye as he prepped for another run at governor of the not-so Golden state, what better way to kill two birds with one stone than to gain the support of the gay and lesbian community and defeat the will of the people?
Now, the attorney generals office has grown much more left-of-center the past 10 years since the last Republican to hold that office, Dan Lungren, left to pursue the governor's office. Mr. Lungren was succeeded by uber-liberal and now state treasurer, Bill Lockyear. And now the office is occupied by another uber-liberal in the person of the former governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown.
So, it stands to reason that there was probably pressure from within the office for Mr. Moonbeam Brown to about face and support those wishing to void Proposition 8. And, as the linked Los Angeles Times article points out, Mr. Moonbeam Brown is a same-sex marriage proponent.
The legal argument put out by Mr. Moonbeam Brown is an interesting one.
It claims that there are certain unalienable rights guaranteed in the California state constitution.
And one is the right to liberty and of privacy. And that same-sex marriage falls under the right of liberty at the very least. The conflict, in the wisdom of Mr. Moonbeam Brown is that there is a contradiction of the right of liberty and privacy and the passing of a constitutional amendment that would take that right away.
Since the California state supreme court, in a 4-3 decision, only in May of this year found a right for same-sex couples to marry, it is hard to define whether or not there really is a conflict of the two suppositions.
But, there is no doubt that Mr. Moonbeam Brown is not but a savvy pol that has been reading the tea leaves.
The tea leaves have to show that same-sex marriage advocates are going to strongly support a Democrat for governor of California. And they may have their biggest Democrat champion in the current San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsome, in the race. For Mr. Moonbeam Brown to gain any support among the gay and lesbian community, he had no choice but to do the about face and now go before the courts to oppose the will of the people.
For this reason, among so many others, it is very important to read this post about why Bill Simon needs to get busy now and put himself in the running for the GOP nod for governor.
If for nothing else, it may come down to the kinds of judges the next governor puts in the state courts.
Because it looks like a real return to the 1970s if Jerry Moonbeam Brown makes another run for the governor's office in Sacramento.
And, he is doing so on the backs of gays and lesbians now that he has decided that he has found a reason why Proposition 8 should be voided by the California state supreme court.
Now, why do I write that about Mr. Moonbeam Brown running on the backs of gays and lesbians?
Because Mr. Moonbeam Brown vowed to defend Proposition 8 in the courts as willfully passed by the people of the state of California.
For the uninitiated, Proposition 8 went on the California ballot this past November and went on that ballot because of the state supreme court decision earlier this year that allowed same-sex couples to marry as do opposite-sex couples. The same court was asked to stay the original decision because of the possibility that the measure would be on the ballot in the next general election. The court said no.
And, this past election day, by a vote of 52-48%, the people of California did not ban same-sex marriage. It said that for legal purposes, only a marriage between one man and one woman would be recognized by that state.
Yet, to read every account, to hear every account, to watch every account, it always starts off like this: "The voter-approved ban on gay marriage."
So, once the constitutional amendment was passed, the attorney general, Mr. Moonbeam Brown said that "He planned to 'defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.' "
Well, that must have not set well with many of the underlings at the attorney generals office. And, since there has been rampant rumors that the reason Mr. Moonbeam Brown ran for attorney general in the first place was to keep his name out in the public eye as he prepped for another run at governor of the not-so Golden state, what better way to kill two birds with one stone than to gain the support of the gay and lesbian community and defeat the will of the people?
Now, the attorney generals office has grown much more left-of-center the past 10 years since the last Republican to hold that office, Dan Lungren, left to pursue the governor's office. Mr. Lungren was succeeded by uber-liberal and now state treasurer, Bill Lockyear. And now the office is occupied by another uber-liberal in the person of the former governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown.
So, it stands to reason that there was probably pressure from within the office for Mr. Moonbeam Brown to about face and support those wishing to void Proposition 8. And, as the linked Los Angeles Times article points out, Mr. Moonbeam Brown is a same-sex marriage proponent.
The legal argument put out by Mr. Moonbeam Brown is an interesting one.
It claims that there are certain unalienable rights guaranteed in the California state constitution.
And one is the right to liberty and of privacy. And that same-sex marriage falls under the right of liberty at the very least. The conflict, in the wisdom of Mr. Moonbeam Brown is that there is a contradiction of the right of liberty and privacy and the passing of a constitutional amendment that would take that right away.
Since the California state supreme court, in a 4-3 decision, only in May of this year found a right for same-sex couples to marry, it is hard to define whether or not there really is a conflict of the two suppositions.
But, there is no doubt that Mr. Moonbeam Brown is not but a savvy pol that has been reading the tea leaves.
The tea leaves have to show that same-sex marriage advocates are going to strongly support a Democrat for governor of California. And they may have their biggest Democrat champion in the current San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsome, in the race. For Mr. Moonbeam Brown to gain any support among the gay and lesbian community, he had no choice but to do the about face and now go before the courts to oppose the will of the people.
For this reason, among so many others, it is very important to read this post about why Bill Simon needs to get busy now and put himself in the running for the GOP nod for governor.
If for nothing else, it may come down to the kinds of judges the next governor puts in the state courts.
Because it looks like a real return to the 1970s if Jerry Moonbeam Brown makes another run for the governor's office in Sacramento.
Friday, December 19, 2008
It Figures-W To "Bailout" Two Of Three United States Automakers
In an announcement made by President Bush today from the White House, the president announced that since congress failed to "bailout" the Big Three United States automakers, he would just raid the money from the ill-fated $700,000,000,000 "bailout/rescue" of the financial services sector.
President Bush buys into the irrational notion that if one or all three of the United States automakers have to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and reorganization, it will set off a chain reaction of all going under and millions of Americans put out of work. Also, President Bush buys into another bad argument that consumers will not buy from a company that is in bankruptcy.
Thus, President Bush is going to hand out $17,400,000,000 to two United States automakers, Chrysler, which is taking its second turn and the federal government teat, and General Motors. Ford is not going to be part of this as they claim they do not need this "bridge" loan.
Let's take the notion that this is a loan.
If in March, when this will supposedly be reevaluated, and one or both can not reorganize and are even in worse shape than before the loan, how will they be able to pay it back? One way would be, you guessed it, Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization protection. There would be no other way for these companies to pay back the loan.
And really, people fly airlines that have done the same thing as what the automakers should do.
A better example is Circuit City. They are in the middle of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. I get my local Sunday fish wrap, aka Pasadena Star-News and still see their ads. People are buying products there. And warranties. And, while some people will just not shop there, most are not saying that they can not buy from a company that may not be around in a year or two.
And the scare tactic that millions will lose their jobs is just that. A scare tactic. Yes, some would unfortunately would lose their jobs. These would be people that work directly for one or both of the companies that want the hand out from the feds. And there is a possibility that some dealers and suppliers would have some residual effect. Yes, some dealers would close and some suppliers would have to lay off workers. But, the problem with the "bridge" loan is that this does not solve the long-term problem. It just stave's off the inevitable.
The real problem with this is the willingness of President Bush to believe that "doing something" is better than nothing. And, using the financial "crisis" is opening a can of worms that any industry that seems to be in a similar position (say newspapers) can beg for a similar "loan"
Even in the midst of an economic situation such as the one we are in, sometimes it is better to let the free market shake things out. Having the government try to solve these situations is not the way to go.
Good luck President-elect Obama.
President Bush buys into the irrational notion that if one or all three of the United States automakers have to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and reorganization, it will set off a chain reaction of all going under and millions of Americans put out of work. Also, President Bush buys into another bad argument that consumers will not buy from a company that is in bankruptcy.
Thus, President Bush is going to hand out $17,400,000,000 to two United States automakers, Chrysler, which is taking its second turn and the federal government teat, and General Motors. Ford is not going to be part of this as they claim they do not need this "bridge" loan.
Let's take the notion that this is a loan.
If in March, when this will supposedly be reevaluated, and one or both can not reorganize and are even in worse shape than before the loan, how will they be able to pay it back? One way would be, you guessed it, Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization protection. There would be no other way for these companies to pay back the loan.
And really, people fly airlines that have done the same thing as what the automakers should do.
A better example is Circuit City. They are in the middle of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. I get my local Sunday fish wrap, aka Pasadena Star-News and still see their ads. People are buying products there. And warranties. And, while some people will just not shop there, most are not saying that they can not buy from a company that may not be around in a year or two.
And the scare tactic that millions will lose their jobs is just that. A scare tactic. Yes, some would unfortunately would lose their jobs. These would be people that work directly for one or both of the companies that want the hand out from the feds. And there is a possibility that some dealers and suppliers would have some residual effect. Yes, some dealers would close and some suppliers would have to lay off workers. But, the problem with the "bridge" loan is that this does not solve the long-term problem. It just stave's off the inevitable.
The real problem with this is the willingness of President Bush to believe that "doing something" is better than nothing. And, using the financial "crisis" is opening a can of worms that any industry that seems to be in a similar position (say newspapers) can beg for a similar "loan"
Even in the midst of an economic situation such as the one we are in, sometimes it is better to let the free market shake things out. Having the government try to solve these situations is not the way to go.
Good luck President-elect Obama.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
New York State To Tax Anything And Everything
It appears that the new words that liberal Democrats and Republicans will use to replace taxes are "fee increases". And the leader in that will be New York State, without a doubt.
According to the New York Daily News, everything from iPods to regular sodas will face a tax and or fee increase.
Here are the increases proposed by the New York Democrat governor, David Patterson:
Tax raises for movie tickets, taxi rides, regular soda (not sugar-free), beer, wine, cigars and massages. And there would be sales tax increases for cable and satellite services as well as removing a tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110 dollars.
But, Gov. Patterson will not say that these are tax increases but fee increases. Really?
A tax is a tax and an increase in a tax is an increase in a tax.
The proposed tax/fee increases would bring an estimated $4,100,000,000. That would close a quarter of the projected $15,400,000,000 deficit in the New York state budget.
So, let us all understand this.
What we call luxuries will face a tax/fee increase, right? Is there any proposed serious cuts in the state budget of $121,000,000,000?
Of course not!
But even this article is misleading because it implies that there will be cuts in school funding and payments to hospitals and nursing homes.
Yes, there will be a proposed 3.3% reduction in school aid, but not a permanent cut. And the same for the hospitals and nursing homes. The state will simply reduce those payments. Reductions are not permanent cuts. But, believe you me, the liberals and Democrats will have you believe that they are.
To be fair, there is a proposal to eliminate seven state agencies that would result in laying off 521 state workers. But are these large agencies? Or are they antiquated agencies that are places to employ those that are not employable anywhere else?
Here is a quote from Gov. Patterson:
"If you start taxing at times when (revenues are) receding, you'll drive job creators out of the state."
No kidding?
So, why do you want to put movie houses out of business? Taxi drivers out of work? Liquor stores out of business? Legitimate massage houses out of business? After all, do these places not employ people? If these places expand, do they not create jobs? Of course they do. But, because these liberal Democrats are afraid of raising taxes outright, they are dancing around the whole issue. And not addressing serious budget reforms and yes, genuine cuts.
With all of the crisis atmosphere, the New York state budget will still increase by one percent. It should not increase at all, but remember folks, this is what happens when liberal Democrats run a state and drive out any kind of business that does not conform to its world view. The state of New York has been able to avoid this mess because, as Gov. Patterson himself admits, they had been able to have seemingly exhaustive tax collection from Wall Street. Gee, no one ever thought that there could be a down economy and that the stock market may go down with it.
Like many other states, California being one of them, run by the liberal, Democrats, they do not have any clue on having policies that encourage economic growth. Income redistribution, yes. But growth does not register on their radar screen. Favorable tax policy to encourage business to locate in their state. Not. Deregulation that would do the same thing. Not.
We are watching how a state that can not raise income taxes is dealing with a budget shortfall in a punitive and meaningless way. But sounding like they are "doing something" about it. Too bad it will lead to a disaster.
According to the New York Daily News, everything from iPods to regular sodas will face a tax and or fee increase.
Here are the increases proposed by the New York Democrat governor, David Patterson:
Tax raises for movie tickets, taxi rides, regular soda (not sugar-free), beer, wine, cigars and massages. And there would be sales tax increases for cable and satellite services as well as removing a tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110 dollars.
But, Gov. Patterson will not say that these are tax increases but fee increases. Really?
A tax is a tax and an increase in a tax is an increase in a tax.
The proposed tax/fee increases would bring an estimated $4,100,000,000. That would close a quarter of the projected $15,400,000,000 deficit in the New York state budget.
So, let us all understand this.
What we call luxuries will face a tax/fee increase, right? Is there any proposed serious cuts in the state budget of $121,000,000,000?
Of course not!
But even this article is misleading because it implies that there will be cuts in school funding and payments to hospitals and nursing homes.
Yes, there will be a proposed 3.3% reduction in school aid, but not a permanent cut. And the same for the hospitals and nursing homes. The state will simply reduce those payments. Reductions are not permanent cuts. But, believe you me, the liberals and Democrats will have you believe that they are.
To be fair, there is a proposal to eliminate seven state agencies that would result in laying off 521 state workers. But are these large agencies? Or are they antiquated agencies that are places to employ those that are not employable anywhere else?
Here is a quote from Gov. Patterson:
"If you start taxing at times when (revenues are) receding, you'll drive job creators out of the state."
No kidding?
So, why do you want to put movie houses out of business? Taxi drivers out of work? Liquor stores out of business? Legitimate massage houses out of business? After all, do these places not employ people? If these places expand, do they not create jobs? Of course they do. But, because these liberal Democrats are afraid of raising taxes outright, they are dancing around the whole issue. And not addressing serious budget reforms and yes, genuine cuts.
With all of the crisis atmosphere, the New York state budget will still increase by one percent. It should not increase at all, but remember folks, this is what happens when liberal Democrats run a state and drive out any kind of business that does not conform to its world view. The state of New York has been able to avoid this mess because, as Gov. Patterson himself admits, they had been able to have seemingly exhaustive tax collection from Wall Street. Gee, no one ever thought that there could be a down economy and that the stock market may go down with it.
Like many other states, California being one of them, run by the liberal, Democrats, they do not have any clue on having policies that encourage economic growth. Income redistribution, yes. But growth does not register on their radar screen. Favorable tax policy to encourage business to locate in their state. Not. Deregulation that would do the same thing. Not.
We are watching how a state that can not raise income taxes is dealing with a budget shortfall in a punitive and meaningless way. But sounding like they are "doing something" about it. Too bad it will lead to a disaster.
Hope And Change-Except For The South
Here is a little interesting tidbit.
There is not one Southerner that has been appointed to President-elect Obama's cabinet at this writing.
Why do you think that is?
There have to be some Southerners that supported The One that shoud be considered for his cabinet, right?
Or maybe outside of Florida, North Carolina and Virginia The One realizes there was not all that much support for him.
Who knows.
But it is interesting.
There is not one Southerner that has been appointed to President-elect Obama's cabinet at this writing.
Why do you think that is?
There have to be some Southerners that supported The One that shoud be considered for his cabinet, right?
Or maybe outside of Florida, North Carolina and Virginia The One realizes there was not all that much support for him.
Who knows.
But it is interesting.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
If You Are A Globaloney Warming Denier, Say It!
This is great!
Finally, a place for all to proudly deny the greatest hoax of the 21st century.
Globaloney Warming!
Come on, if you are like me, then say so with pride by following this link and writing a comment.
This push by so many to make us believe that we, human beings, are the only reason for the planet possibly warming to unsustainable levels is not much more than a last gasp at socialism.
If we allow so-called scientists to run our governments and or economies, the current economic fiasco will look very good in comparison.
The fact that so many do not believe in globaloney warming hook, line and sinker is good. But we can only have a debate if we are willing to be in the debate.
This is a start.
Finally, a place for all to proudly deny the greatest hoax of the 21st century.
Globaloney Warming!
Come on, if you are like me, then say so with pride by following this link and writing a comment.
This push by so many to make us believe that we, human beings, are the only reason for the planet possibly warming to unsustainable levels is not much more than a last gasp at socialism.
If we allow so-called scientists to run our governments and or economies, the current economic fiasco will look very good in comparison.
The fact that so many do not believe in globaloney warming hook, line and sinker is good. But we can only have a debate if we are willing to be in the debate.
This is a start.
Just Say NO To Another Kennedy In The Senate
I can not say that I am all that amazed, but more annoyed that the current governor of New York, David Patterson, is even considering appointing Caroline Kennedy to fill the soon to be departed Hillary Clinton senate seat.
Even more disturbing is the New York Post endorsing such a move.
Look, even Sen. Clinton had to run for the seat that she is to give up to become the secretary of state in the incoming Obama administration. And she had a tough first campaign.
But, for Gov. Patterson to appoint someone who simply has the name Kennedy is certainly not change we can believe in.
For many a Democrat, for some inexplicable reason, they can not let go of the era that gave the United States President John F. Kennedy. Yet, it was not all that rosy a period in American history.
Firstly, Sen. John F. Kennedy all but stole the election of 1960 thanks to the power of his running mate, the corrupt Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas and a little more help from the infamous Chicago political machine that gave the election to Sen. Kennedy. And while he squeaked by in that race, he had a lot of problems. Does any one realize why President Kennedy was in Texas that fateful day in November, 1963? Because he was in political trouble in Texas and he was trying to shore up support.
From the assassination of President Kennedy to today, there is this myth that the two and a half Kennedy years were "Camelot". They were treacherous years and not made any better by the succession of Vice-President Johnson.
Then in 1968, in an attempt to relive that time, the Democrats were about to nominate Sen. Bobby Kennedy when he was assassinated also, this time by a deranged Syrian named Sirhan Sirhan.
And let us not forget Sen. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy making a run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 1980 against the incumbent President Jimmah Carter.
Now, with no real reason but a name, a new chapter is trying to be written by the daughter of the first slain Kennedy, Caroline.
This paragraph from the Post' editorial endorsement of Gov. Patterson appointing Mrs. Kennedy is a howler:
Moreover, Kennedy's selection would be a welcome sign of Paterson's willingness to reject the politics of pander and special-interest pressures merely to satisfy some ethnic or geographic quota.
What?! Reject the politics of pander?! Is there any compelling reason to appoint Mrs. Kennedy other than her last name? Pander?! It would be nothing but a move of pander.
But, there are other reasons according to the Post.
In her two years heading the school system's Office of Strategic Partnerships, she raised more than $65 million in private-sector funds for the city's schools. She also serves as vice chairman of the Fund of Public Schools and is a board member of New Visions for Public Schools, which for two decades has worked to bring about systemic public-education reform.
As a member of Barack Obama's vice presidential selection committee - and a key early endorser of his candidacy - she remains close to the president-elect. That kind of access and influence surely would prove critical for New York.
Firstly, the New Visions for Public Schools has not been doing a bang-up job in public education reform if it has taken two decades. And, why did not this editorial give the reader the results of this reform? It would have actually either made or broke a fundamental reason to support Mrs. Kennedy's appointment to the senate.
And on being on President-elect Obama's vice-presidential selection committee, big deal. Did she make the difference in helping Mr. Obama choose Vice-President elect Joe Biden? We do not know. But, according to the Post, it is a close relationship to President-elect Obama that would somehow benefit New York state.
And really, is there not another person in the whole state of New York that can not be considered for this job? Really? I mean, there is the attorney general, Andrew Cuomo. At least he has had to run for office. The perception is that Mrs. Kennedy is being handed a gift rather than at least doing what Sen. Clinton did. And, that is not change I believe in.
I have no problem in Mrs. Kennedy actually running for the Clinton seat in 2010. So, she may face a fellow Democrat in a primary. Big deal. It would toughen her up for a general election.
What I think Gov. Patterson should do is appoint a caretaker type to hold the seat and let the voters decide in 2010.
Giving a member of a prominent family a seat that he or she does not have to run for is not exactly, well democratic.
Even more disturbing is the New York Post endorsing such a move.
Look, even Sen. Clinton had to run for the seat that she is to give up to become the secretary of state in the incoming Obama administration. And she had a tough first campaign.
But, for Gov. Patterson to appoint someone who simply has the name Kennedy is certainly not change we can believe in.
For many a Democrat, for some inexplicable reason, they can not let go of the era that gave the United States President John F. Kennedy. Yet, it was not all that rosy a period in American history.
Firstly, Sen. John F. Kennedy all but stole the election of 1960 thanks to the power of his running mate, the corrupt Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas and a little more help from the infamous Chicago political machine that gave the election to Sen. Kennedy. And while he squeaked by in that race, he had a lot of problems. Does any one realize why President Kennedy was in Texas that fateful day in November, 1963? Because he was in political trouble in Texas and he was trying to shore up support.
From the assassination of President Kennedy to today, there is this myth that the two and a half Kennedy years were "Camelot". They were treacherous years and not made any better by the succession of Vice-President Johnson.
Then in 1968, in an attempt to relive that time, the Democrats were about to nominate Sen. Bobby Kennedy when he was assassinated also, this time by a deranged Syrian named Sirhan Sirhan.
And let us not forget Sen. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy making a run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 1980 against the incumbent President Jimmah Carter.
Now, with no real reason but a name, a new chapter is trying to be written by the daughter of the first slain Kennedy, Caroline.
This paragraph from the Post' editorial endorsement of Gov. Patterson appointing Mrs. Kennedy is a howler:
Moreover, Kennedy's selection would be a welcome sign of Paterson's willingness to reject the politics of pander and special-interest pressures merely to satisfy some ethnic or geographic quota.
What?! Reject the politics of pander?! Is there any compelling reason to appoint Mrs. Kennedy other than her last name? Pander?! It would be nothing but a move of pander.
But, there are other reasons according to the Post.
In her two years heading the school system's Office of Strategic Partnerships, she raised more than $65 million in private-sector funds for the city's schools. She also serves as vice chairman of the Fund of Public Schools and is a board member of New Visions for Public Schools, which for two decades has worked to bring about systemic public-education reform.
As a member of Barack Obama's vice presidential selection committee - and a key early endorser of his candidacy - she remains close to the president-elect. That kind of access and influence surely would prove critical for New York.
Firstly, the New Visions for Public Schools has not been doing a bang-up job in public education reform if it has taken two decades. And, why did not this editorial give the reader the results of this reform? It would have actually either made or broke a fundamental reason to support Mrs. Kennedy's appointment to the senate.
And on being on President-elect Obama's vice-presidential selection committee, big deal. Did she make the difference in helping Mr. Obama choose Vice-President elect Joe Biden? We do not know. But, according to the Post, it is a close relationship to President-elect Obama that would somehow benefit New York state.
And really, is there not another person in the whole state of New York that can not be considered for this job? Really? I mean, there is the attorney general, Andrew Cuomo. At least he has had to run for office. The perception is that Mrs. Kennedy is being handed a gift rather than at least doing what Sen. Clinton did. And, that is not change I believe in.
I have no problem in Mrs. Kennedy actually running for the Clinton seat in 2010. So, she may face a fellow Democrat in a primary. Big deal. It would toughen her up for a general election.
What I think Gov. Patterson should do is appoint a caretaker type to hold the seat and let the voters decide in 2010.
Giving a member of a prominent family a seat that he or she does not have to run for is not exactly, well democratic.
What About Those Traditional Christmas Carols?
This is a continuation of The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year post as I have a question about the songs of the season.
What happened to the good, ol' fashioned Christmas carol?
I mean, I love almost all of the Christmas season music. Secular and sacred.
But, as The Other McCain notes in this article at The American Spectator, almost all of the Christmas music that was written in the 20th century is secular in nature. Nary is there even a mention of the dreaded "C" word. You know, CHRISTMAS. Why the very popular The Christmas Song starts out "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire. . ." I mean, again, I like the song, but it has no focus on the Reason for the Season.
My favorite carol is probably the most politically incorrect one of all.
"God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" is so in-your-face about the message but it has such a great tune and tone, that I do not think that anyone realizes the evangelical message of the song. Here are the complete lyrics:
1. God rest ye merry, gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay,
For Jesus Christ our Saviour
Was born upon this day,
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray:
O tidings of comfort and joy,
comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.
2. In Bethlehem, in Israel,
This blessed Babe was born,
And laid within a manger
Upon this blessed morn,
The which His Mother Mary
Did nothing take in scorn:
O tidings ...
3.From God our heavenly Father
A blessèd angel came,
And unto certain shepherds
Brought tidings of the same,
How that in Bethlehem was born
The Son of God by name:
O tidings ...
4. The shepherds at those tidings
Rejoicèd much in mind,
And left their flocks a-feeding
In tempest, storm and wind,
And went to Bethlehem straightway,
This blessèd Babe to find:
O tidings ...
5. But when to Bethlehem they came,
Where at this Infant lay,
They found Him in a manger,
Where oxen feed on hay;
His mother Mary kneeling,
Unto the Lord did pray:
O tidings ...
6. Now to the Lord sing praises,
All you within this place,
And with true love and brotherhood
Each other now embrace;
This holy tide of Christmas
All others doth deface:
O tidings ...
Note the very beginning of the song:
God rest ye merry, gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay,
For Jesus Christ our Saviour
Was born upon this day,
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray
That is in your face, telling all why Jesus Christ was born in the first place. To save us from Satan and that he will be the saviour of the world.
So why would it be politically incorrect?
Well, those merry gentlemen. What about the women? How about the message of the meaning of the birth of Jesus Christ? So judgemental, you know. Talking about Satan and all of that. And talking of that Harlot, Mary. We know that there is no virginess about her. People like the Episcopal heretic "bishop" John Shelby Spong tells us so. He even wrote a whole book about that.
Of course there is that pesky praying stuff. Please, why would Mary kneel to pray?
While I focus on "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen", there are many other sacred songs that get short-shrift during this season.
Here are the following sacred Songs of the Season that I do not hear as much on the local 24 hour Christmas radio station:
"Hark The Herald Angels Sing"
"Oh Come All Ye Faithful"
"The First Noel"
"We Three Kings"
"Oh Little Town Of Bethlehem"
"Away In A Manger"
"Silent Night"
"It Came On A Midnight Clear"
I am not writing that this is all that I want to hear. I just wished that we could hear more of it. After all, it is the Christmas season and the songs noted above are very much Christmas songs.
The following are winter or secular Seasonal songs:
"Winter Wonderland"
"Home For The Holidays"
"Let It Snow"
"Sleigh Ride"
"Frosty The Snowman"
I do love hearing these songs. But not over the Christmas songs.
BTW, I should also note that the Mainline Protestant churches shy away from the traditional carols. It is not just 24/7 Christmas music radio stations.
So, let me say this.
Enjoy all the Music of the Season. Just let us remember and encourage the traditional carols as equal with the fun and secular.
HT: The Other McCain @ www.rsmccain.blogspot.com
What happened to the good, ol' fashioned Christmas carol?
I mean, I love almost all of the Christmas season music. Secular and sacred.
But, as The Other McCain notes in this article at The American Spectator, almost all of the Christmas music that was written in the 20th century is secular in nature. Nary is there even a mention of the dreaded "C" word. You know, CHRISTMAS. Why the very popular The Christmas Song starts out "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire. . ." I mean, again, I like the song, but it has no focus on the Reason for the Season.
My favorite carol is probably the most politically incorrect one of all.
"God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" is so in-your-face about the message but it has such a great tune and tone, that I do not think that anyone realizes the evangelical message of the song. Here are the complete lyrics:
1. God rest ye merry, gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay,
For Jesus Christ our Saviour
Was born upon this day,
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray:
O tidings of comfort and joy,
comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.
2. In Bethlehem, in Israel,
This blessed Babe was born,
And laid within a manger
Upon this blessed morn,
The which His Mother Mary
Did nothing take in scorn:
O tidings ...
3.From God our heavenly Father
A blessèd angel came,
And unto certain shepherds
Brought tidings of the same,
How that in Bethlehem was born
The Son of God by name:
O tidings ...
4. The shepherds at those tidings
Rejoicèd much in mind,
And left their flocks a-feeding
In tempest, storm and wind,
And went to Bethlehem straightway,
This blessèd Babe to find:
O tidings ...
5. But when to Bethlehem they came,
Where at this Infant lay,
They found Him in a manger,
Where oxen feed on hay;
His mother Mary kneeling,
Unto the Lord did pray:
O tidings ...
6. Now to the Lord sing praises,
All you within this place,
And with true love and brotherhood
Each other now embrace;
This holy tide of Christmas
All others doth deface:
O tidings ...
Note the very beginning of the song:
God rest ye merry, gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay,
For Jesus Christ our Saviour
Was born upon this day,
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray
That is in your face, telling all why Jesus Christ was born in the first place. To save us from Satan and that he will be the saviour of the world.
So why would it be politically incorrect?
Well, those merry gentlemen. What about the women? How about the message of the meaning of the birth of Jesus Christ? So judgemental, you know. Talking about Satan and all of that. And talking of that Harlot, Mary. We know that there is no virginess about her. People like the Episcopal heretic "bishop" John Shelby Spong tells us so. He even wrote a whole book about that.
Of course there is that pesky praying stuff. Please, why would Mary kneel to pray?
While I focus on "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen", there are many other sacred songs that get short-shrift during this season.
Here are the following sacred Songs of the Season that I do not hear as much on the local 24 hour Christmas radio station:
"Hark The Herald Angels Sing"
"Oh Come All Ye Faithful"
"The First Noel"
"We Three Kings"
"Oh Little Town Of Bethlehem"
"Away In A Manger"
"Silent Night"
"It Came On A Midnight Clear"
I am not writing that this is all that I want to hear. I just wished that we could hear more of it. After all, it is the Christmas season and the songs noted above are very much Christmas songs.
The following are winter or secular Seasonal songs:
"Winter Wonderland"
"Home For The Holidays"
"Let It Snow"
"Sleigh Ride"
"Frosty The Snowman"
I do love hearing these songs. But not over the Christmas songs.
BTW, I should also note that the Mainline Protestant churches shy away from the traditional carols. It is not just 24/7 Christmas music radio stations.
So, let me say this.
Enjoy all the Music of the Season. Just let us remember and encourage the traditional carols as equal with the fun and secular.
HT: The Other McCain @ www.rsmccain.blogspot.com
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year
No, this is NOT the rightviewfromtheleftcoast family Christmas Tree. But we have a really good one that may make an appearance in another posting.
But, back to the point.
This is really the most wonderful time of the year.
There is just something about the Christmas season that just brings out the child in me.
The waiting, the expectation, the excitement of seeing people open their gifts and the hope that I did not blow it and get that person something so, well wrong. The feeling of stress and joy all at the same time.
Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I just finished decorating the rightviewfromtheleftcoast family Christmas Tree. And this year, it was a three day project.
Let me explain.
We bought our tree, real NOT fake, on Friday late in the day. Because it was late and we have to lug the tree up some stairs, we put our perfect Noble Fir tree in a container of water until yesterday. But then, we had other things to do yesterday and we just got the tree in the rightviewfromtheleftcoast manor and then up the stairs. So, we just finished with the white lights all around and the decorations. We almost get a tree ornament from where ever we take a trip. So, slowly but surely, our tree in the upcoming years will maybe be a travelogue by ornament.
While there is a time of joy for many, it is also a time to remember that there are many who can not share in the joy of the season.
There are many reasons for it. No need to list them all here. The real point is not ignore those that find this season one of pain rather than one of joy. We should do our best to embrace those people. In the best ways that we know how. They will let you know if you are going overboard or maybe not doing enough. And, sometimes it is keeping a distance that is best.
I, for one, just love the fact that I am able to be with those that I care for the most and able to give not just the right gift but of myself. This is a great time of year to remember that.
So, please, get those trees-make sure that they are real and not fake!-and enjoy the Christmas season.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
From Five Years Ago Today
It was five years ago today that coalition forces in Iraq captured the Thug of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein from nothing but a spider hole near his home town.It was a great day for freedom and the end result was a trial and rightful execution by an elected civilian government that he so long denied his own people.
Remember this today and as long as you can for this was reason enough for the United States and allies to liberate Iraq and free the people from this cowardly butcher, Saddam Hussein.
For California, Bill Simon For Governor In 2008
Yes, in this season of hope and change, and because it is never too early to start another campaign Death March, I offer the California Republican party its candidate for the 2010 governor's race.
His name is Bill Simon.
Bill Simon?!
Again?!
Did not Mr. Simon get his hat handed to him in 2002 against the last incompetent California governor, Democrat Gray Davis?
Did Mr. Simon not prove that a solid conservative can not win a race for statewide office in the not-so Golden State?
Well, let me answer some of that and provide some information that would make a second run for governor a better one.
Firstly, Mr. Simon did not get his hat handed to him by former Governor Davis.
In the 2002 governor's race, Mr. Simon got 42% of the vote compared to incumbent Governor Davis 47% of the vote.
Secondly, Mr. Simon was in a three-way GOP contest for the nomination against the moderate mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan and the then secretary of state and more ideological soul mate, Bill Jones.
So, it took a lot of money to win that race and to introduce Mr. Simon to the voters of California. In the meantime, Gray Davis was raising then untold sums of money for his race for reelection.
Mr. Simon had to get out what made him different from the incumbent. And that was hard when he was being vastly outspent. But, it was not impossible and Mr. Simon ran a credible race against an old warhorse like Gray Davis.
Mr. Simon is a conservative and on the issues he will govern as such.
This link provides a look at the issues that were important in the 2002 governor's race.
And let's look at those issues Mr. Simon highlighted in 2002.
1) Our roads are the most congested in America.
Can not argue with that. It is a fact that here in California, we have the most congested roads and while there was a bond issue passed in 2004 to supposedly alleviate that problem, it will take years to complete and the likelihood is that the problem will only get worse.
2) California public schools rank near the bottom nationwide.
And that is also true. California spends some of the most money nationwide to produce a lot of functional illiterates. Over 50% of freshmen entering the California State University system have to take remedial classes. That is an absolute indictment of the public schools in California.
3) We pay the country's highest electricity rates.
With governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger, that will get worse by 2010 because of all the ill-conceived green technology that he touts and has tried to get into law.
4) Our budget is out of balance and taxes are rising.
BINGO! That is the issue that will run through a 2010 gubernatorial campaign.
California tried with an actor that had no serious political ideology. Governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to get a series of reforms passed shortly after he won election in the infamous 2003 recall election of then Governor Davis. Since he went to far too fast and totally underestimated the opposition to those reforms, all failed in a special election. And after that, rather than try to take each issue one by one, he transformed into the "post-partisan" governor and essentially has governed like one of his in laws-the Kennedy family! Governor Benedict Arnold is proposing among other things raising the car registration fee-which is one of the reasons Gray Davis lost his job in the first place-and the state sales tax from 7.25% to 8.25%. In Los Angeles county, that will be 10.25%-the highest in the United States.
So, how can someone who is a solid conservative win the GOP nod and then run a good enough campaign to win election as governor of California?
Look, Mr. Simon has been there already. The only other serious candidate that may give Mr. Simon a race is the current state Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner. He is seen as a moderate, although not nearly a liberal as Gov. Benedict Arnold. If Mr. Poizner wants higher office, he should run for the United States senate. Lord knows we need to get rid of the dolt we have now, Sen. Barbara Boxer. And, Mr. Poizner will have a good record to run on.
So, with little if any opposition, Mr. Simon can spend time fundraising and trying to get the Democrats to nominate someone as wacky as their last gubernatorial candidate, Phil Angelides. A lot of people want to run for California governor and have a D after their name. One is the current mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villa. Oh, you know him as Villaraigosa, but once his wife divorces him, she will take back her name, Raigosa. Good for her.
Another potential candidate is current United States senator Diane Feinstein. And there are other, lesser-known figures.
So, with no internal opposition and a lot of time to define the other side, Mr. Simon will be able to define the issues. And be able to run against both the incumbent governor and the Democrat-dominated legislature. He can and should fault them for not solving problems. He can and should point out that Gov. Benedict Arnold should have used the opportunity that the current budget crisis has had to argue to tax and regulatory reform. So far, Gov. Benedict Arnold has not done so. In fact, he has chided Republicans in the legislature from doing just that.
Mr. Simon should make a case that the governor and the state superintendent of education need to work together for viable and serious educational reform. Again, that has not been done under this current legislature and governor.
Mr. Simon needs to tout the fact that he has been a businessman and a problem solver. And, a political outsider that has the will to not give up the fight. He needs to argue that reform will be the only way to solve the budget and tax crises facing California. As well as the education crises.
One other thing.
The statewide DDBMSOWM will focus on the social issues as they always do with a conservative and Republican. My advice to Mr. Simon, should he chose to run and be the GOP standard bearer. Do not run away from them. Talk about why you are pro-life. Why you believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Why we have worse than a culture of corruption but a culture of despair. But, be honest and admit that government can not necessarily solve these problems but can set the tone as to how these issues can be dealt with. There is nothing worse than a social conservative politician that tries to downplay these issues.
Bill Simon is the best choice for California Republicans to keep the governor's office and actually govern as a conservative Republican.
Therefore, I urge Bill Simon to run for the Republican nomination for governor of California in 2010.
His name is Bill Simon.
Bill Simon?!
Again?!
Did not Mr. Simon get his hat handed to him in 2002 against the last incompetent California governor, Democrat Gray Davis?
Did Mr. Simon not prove that a solid conservative can not win a race for statewide office in the not-so Golden State?
Well, let me answer some of that and provide some information that would make a second run for governor a better one.
Firstly, Mr. Simon did not get his hat handed to him by former Governor Davis.
In the 2002 governor's race, Mr. Simon got 42% of the vote compared to incumbent Governor Davis 47% of the vote.
Secondly, Mr. Simon was in a three-way GOP contest for the nomination against the moderate mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan and the then secretary of state and more ideological soul mate, Bill Jones.
So, it took a lot of money to win that race and to introduce Mr. Simon to the voters of California. In the meantime, Gray Davis was raising then untold sums of money for his race for reelection.
Mr. Simon had to get out what made him different from the incumbent. And that was hard when he was being vastly outspent. But, it was not impossible and Mr. Simon ran a credible race against an old warhorse like Gray Davis.
Mr. Simon is a conservative and on the issues he will govern as such.
This link provides a look at the issues that were important in the 2002 governor's race.
And let's look at those issues Mr. Simon highlighted in 2002.
1) Our roads are the most congested in America.
Can not argue with that. It is a fact that here in California, we have the most congested roads and while there was a bond issue passed in 2004 to supposedly alleviate that problem, it will take years to complete and the likelihood is that the problem will only get worse.
2) California public schools rank near the bottom nationwide.
And that is also true. California spends some of the most money nationwide to produce a lot of functional illiterates. Over 50% of freshmen entering the California State University system have to take remedial classes. That is an absolute indictment of the public schools in California.
3) We pay the country's highest electricity rates.
With governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger, that will get worse by 2010 because of all the ill-conceived green technology that he touts and has tried to get into law.
4) Our budget is out of balance and taxes are rising.
BINGO! That is the issue that will run through a 2010 gubernatorial campaign.
California tried with an actor that had no serious political ideology. Governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to get a series of reforms passed shortly after he won election in the infamous 2003 recall election of then Governor Davis. Since he went to far too fast and totally underestimated the opposition to those reforms, all failed in a special election. And after that, rather than try to take each issue one by one, he transformed into the "post-partisan" governor and essentially has governed like one of his in laws-the Kennedy family! Governor Benedict Arnold is proposing among other things raising the car registration fee-which is one of the reasons Gray Davis lost his job in the first place-and the state sales tax from 7.25% to 8.25%. In Los Angeles county, that will be 10.25%-the highest in the United States.
So, how can someone who is a solid conservative win the GOP nod and then run a good enough campaign to win election as governor of California?
Look, Mr. Simon has been there already. The only other serious candidate that may give Mr. Simon a race is the current state Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner. He is seen as a moderate, although not nearly a liberal as Gov. Benedict Arnold. If Mr. Poizner wants higher office, he should run for the United States senate. Lord knows we need to get rid of the dolt we have now, Sen. Barbara Boxer. And, Mr. Poizner will have a good record to run on.
So, with little if any opposition, Mr. Simon can spend time fundraising and trying to get the Democrats to nominate someone as wacky as their last gubernatorial candidate, Phil Angelides. A lot of people want to run for California governor and have a D after their name. One is the current mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villa. Oh, you know him as Villaraigosa, but once his wife divorces him, she will take back her name, Raigosa. Good for her.
Another potential candidate is current United States senator Diane Feinstein. And there are other, lesser-known figures.
So, with no internal opposition and a lot of time to define the other side, Mr. Simon will be able to define the issues. And be able to run against both the incumbent governor and the Democrat-dominated legislature. He can and should fault them for not solving problems. He can and should point out that Gov. Benedict Arnold should have used the opportunity that the current budget crisis has had to argue to tax and regulatory reform. So far, Gov. Benedict Arnold has not done so. In fact, he has chided Republicans in the legislature from doing just that.
Mr. Simon should make a case that the governor and the state superintendent of education need to work together for viable and serious educational reform. Again, that has not been done under this current legislature and governor.
Mr. Simon needs to tout the fact that he has been a businessman and a problem solver. And, a political outsider that has the will to not give up the fight. He needs to argue that reform will be the only way to solve the budget and tax crises facing California. As well as the education crises.
One other thing.
The statewide DDBMSOWM will focus on the social issues as they always do with a conservative and Republican. My advice to Mr. Simon, should he chose to run and be the GOP standard bearer. Do not run away from them. Talk about why you are pro-life. Why you believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Why we have worse than a culture of corruption but a culture of despair. But, be honest and admit that government can not necessarily solve these problems but can set the tone as to how these issues can be dealt with. There is nothing worse than a social conservative politician that tries to downplay these issues.
Bill Simon is the best choice for California Republicans to keep the governor's office and actually govern as a conservative Republican.
Therefore, I urge Bill Simon to run for the Republican nomination for governor of California in 2010.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Auto Maker "Bailout" Is Dead-For Now
It appears that the so-called United States auto maker "bailout" for Chrysler, Ford and General Motors has died a timely death.
But, do not expect this behemoth to go away any time soon.
The defeat came on a procedural vote in the senate, which received the House version of the bill earlier in the day.
And General Motors does have the wherewithal to realize that time is running short and according to this report from the Drudge Report is hiring outside council to at least look into the prospect of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and reorganization.
So, lets take a look at the possibility of one or all three United States automakers filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and reorganization.
Jim Manzi in National Review's The Corner provides some excellent analysis on this issue.
When there talk that up to 3,000,000 people will lose their jobs as a direct result of the filing, it is not all directly linked to the auto industry. It is the outliers. As Mr. Manzi points out, it is the people that maybe work at a 7-Eleven, who would lose jobs because people that used to work for any of the Big Three no longer buy their coffee there. And, then the 7-Eleven people not working would no longer shop at the local K-Mart because they are out of work.
If indeed the worst case scenario occurs and 3,000,000 lose their jobs, that is about two percent of the American work force. At a current unemployment rate of 6.7%, it would go up to 8.6%. At the height of the last worst recession, 1981-1982, the unemployment high was 10.8%.
Now, to be clear, no one likes and or wants to see any American worker lose their job. And it is that prospect that drives the government to make irrational decisions, such as offering a life line that does not end.
As Mr. Manzi points out, what makes anyone believe that the $14,000,000,000 asked for by the Big Three auto makers will be enough. Considering that fact that this is being called a "bridge" loan, it will not be anywhere near enough. Is there not a possibility that the end result could be as much as $100,000,000,000 given to the Big Three auto makers? Of course!
And with that money will come a great deal of strings including agreeing to the concept of a "Car Czar". Is that something that we really want to happen out of this? Can a "Car Czar" really make any better decisions than any of those in the auto industry that have made the bad decisions in the first place? It is doubtful.
The real issue is the thought that one of the largest parts of the private sector wheel will have to ask for protection and time to reorganize for better business practices and maybe actually looking at how successful car makers are able to make it. It is, without a doubt a psychological blow in a spiralling economic down turn. But it is necessary for a better end result and to maybe really save jobs in the long run.
The government handing out money and putting unrealistic strings on it is not the long term solution.
But, do not expect this behemoth to go away any time soon.
The defeat came on a procedural vote in the senate, which received the House version of the bill earlier in the day.
And General Motors does have the wherewithal to realize that time is running short and according to this report from the Drudge Report is hiring outside council to at least look into the prospect of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and reorganization.
So, lets take a look at the possibility of one or all three United States automakers filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and reorganization.
Jim Manzi in National Review's The Corner provides some excellent analysis on this issue.
When there talk that up to 3,000,000 people will lose their jobs as a direct result of the filing, it is not all directly linked to the auto industry. It is the outliers. As Mr. Manzi points out, it is the people that maybe work at a 7-Eleven, who would lose jobs because people that used to work for any of the Big Three no longer buy their coffee there. And, then the 7-Eleven people not working would no longer shop at the local K-Mart because they are out of work.
If indeed the worst case scenario occurs and 3,000,000 lose their jobs, that is about two percent of the American work force. At a current unemployment rate of 6.7%, it would go up to 8.6%. At the height of the last worst recession, 1981-1982, the unemployment high was 10.8%.
Now, to be clear, no one likes and or wants to see any American worker lose their job. And it is that prospect that drives the government to make irrational decisions, such as offering a life line that does not end.
As Mr. Manzi points out, what makes anyone believe that the $14,000,000,000 asked for by the Big Three auto makers will be enough. Considering that fact that this is being called a "bridge" loan, it will not be anywhere near enough. Is there not a possibility that the end result could be as much as $100,000,000,000 given to the Big Three auto makers? Of course!
And with that money will come a great deal of strings including agreeing to the concept of a "Car Czar". Is that something that we really want to happen out of this? Can a "Car Czar" really make any better decisions than any of those in the auto industry that have made the bad decisions in the first place? It is doubtful.
The real issue is the thought that one of the largest parts of the private sector wheel will have to ask for protection and time to reorganize for better business practices and maybe actually looking at how successful car makers are able to make it. It is, without a doubt a psychological blow in a spiralling economic down turn. But it is necessary for a better end result and to maybe really save jobs in the long run.
The government handing out money and putting unrealistic strings on it is not the long term solution.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Big Three Auto Maker "Bailout" Passes In The House
This is not good news, but totally expected.
The House of Representatives just passed the $14,000,000,000 so-called "bailout" for the Big Three United States auto makers, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.
The following are the last names of the 150 Republicans and 20 Democrats that voted against the essential nationalization the the United States auto industry:
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite,
GinnyBuchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis,
David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart,
L.Diaz-Balart,
M.Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hobson
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel
E.Mack
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
These congressmen and congreswomen said no, we should not nationalize the auto industry.
Let's hope that the Republicans in the senate make a filibuster so that this does not pass.
The House of Representatives just passed the $14,000,000,000 so-called "bailout" for the Big Three United States auto makers, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.
The following are the last names of the 150 Republicans and 20 Democrats that voted against the essential nationalization the the United States auto industry:
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite,
GinnyBuchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis,
David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart,
L.Diaz-Balart,
M.Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hobson
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel
E.Mack
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
These congressmen and congreswomen said no, we should not nationalize the auto industry.
Let's hope that the Republicans in the senate make a filibuster so that this does not pass.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Who Will Be The First DDBMSOWM Fossil To Ask President-Elect Obama About Rod Blagojevich?
I wonder, who will be the first member of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping, Media to ask the president-elect, Barack Obama, about his long time friend and associate, the now arrested governor of his home state of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich?
A good question would be to Mr. Obama, what party is Gov. Blagojevich in?
In the above link to the article in the bankrupt Chicago Tribune, there is no mention of what party he belongs to.
At least the other newspaper in Chicago, the not-bankrupt Sun-Times, does mention the fact that Gov. Blagoevich is a Democrat. . .in the thirteenth paragraph!
To the credit of The New York Times, they do not wait and mention Gov. Blagojevich is a Democrat in the second paragraph.
I point this out because this is the way that politics is played in Chicago, the hometown of the president-elect.
Back to the main point.
Will an enterprising reporter have the nerve to probe Mr. Obama about the charges against his friend and political ally? Ask whether selling his senate seat to the highest bidder is a good form of democracy? Ask whether or not this corruption will be tolerated in his upcoming administration? And the most important question is will he keep the United States attorney who handed down the indictment against Gov. Blagojevich, Patrick FitzGerald, on the case to its conclusion?
We shall see but if I were the president-elect, I would be very uncomfortable at this time about what Gov. Blagojevich may tell if he makes a deal.
A good question would be to Mr. Obama, what party is Gov. Blagojevich in?
In the above link to the article in the bankrupt Chicago Tribune, there is no mention of what party he belongs to.
At least the other newspaper in Chicago, the not-bankrupt Sun-Times, does mention the fact that Gov. Blagoevich is a Democrat. . .in the thirteenth paragraph!
To the credit of The New York Times, they do not wait and mention Gov. Blagojevich is a Democrat in the second paragraph.
I point this out because this is the way that politics is played in Chicago, the hometown of the president-elect.
Back to the main point.
Will an enterprising reporter have the nerve to probe Mr. Obama about the charges against his friend and political ally? Ask whether selling his senate seat to the highest bidder is a good form of democracy? Ask whether or not this corruption will be tolerated in his upcoming administration? And the most important question is will he keep the United States attorney who handed down the indictment against Gov. Blagojevich, Patrick FitzGerald, on the case to its conclusion?
We shall see but if I were the president-elect, I would be very uncomfortable at this time about what Gov. Blagojevich may tell if he makes a deal.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Bill Kristol, Your Are Wrong On Giving In To Big Government
For the most part, I like the Weekly Standard's William Kristol, but in his latest tome on The New York Times opinion page, his tortured reasoning for conservative big government is just plain wrong. And worse, it would be a continuation of a bad policy instituted by President Bush.
Where I hate to agree with Mr. Kristol is the point that most who run on the small government mantle find that it is impossible to actually make government smaller. It is a fair and regrettably accurate point.
And, Mr. Kristol points out that the very popular and successful former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush (imagine, a popular leader with the last name Bush!) actually increased government spending 50% over population growth and inflation. But, Mr. Kristol does not give concrete example as to where that increased spending went for. And Mr. Kristol points out that Mr. Jeb Bush cut taxes, privatized government services, and led in policy reforms, especially in education.
But, it is a fatalistic view that government size is going to increase no matter what party is in power.
Take the example that Mr. Kristol gives in the prescription drug benefit to senior citizens. Mr. Kristol says that it was the right thing to do and that it is popular. I think that it remains to be seen if the senior citizens of the United States are as enamored with the prescription drug benefit as is Mr. Kristol. And now that the Democrats run the show in Washington, we shall see how they tinker with it.
Here is part of the Kristol rationale to make the big-government conservative vs. small-government conservative:
Still, there’s a difference between a conservatism that is concerned with limited and constitutional government and one that focuses on simply opposing big government.
So: If you’re a small-government conservative, you’ll tend to oppose the bailouts, period. If you more or less accept big government, you’ll be open to the government’s stepping in to save the financial system, or the auto industry. But you’ll tend to favor those policies — universal tax cuts, offering everyone a chance to refinance his mortgage, relieving auto makers of burdensome regulations — that, consistent with conservative principles, don’t reward irresponsible behavior and don’t politicize markets.
Similarly, if you’re against big government, you’ll oppose a huge public works stimulus package. If you think some government action is inevitable, you might instead point out that the most unambiguous public good is national defense. You might then suggest spending a good chunk of the stimulus on national security — directing dollars to much-needed and underfunded defense procurement rather than to fanciful green technologies, making sure funds are available for the needed expansion of the Army and Marines before rushing to create make-work civilian jobs. Obama wants to spend much of the stimulus on transportation infrastructure and schools. Fine, but lots of schools and airports seem to me to have been refurbished more recently and more generously than military bases I’ve visited.
Point by point.
I am not a big-government conservative. I think that there is a reason for that. Because, it just does not work. Increasing the size of government does not produce jobs. It does not increase tax revenue because any one that can will try tax paying avoidance. Increasing government means that people are giving up freedom. And, it is false sense of security.
Take the example of bailouts/rescues. Mr. Kristol says that bailouts/rescues are A-OK if they are tied to across-the-board tax cuts (which I favor), offering everyone a chance to refinance their mortgages (do not agree with that) and deregulate the auto industry (favor that) but then rationalizes that if they are tied to conservative principles and do not politicize the markets, it is not a bad thing. The fact that the federal government would bailout/rescue any one company and or entire industry in totally politicizing the government in the marketplace. The fact is that the government has a real hard time running itself in an efficient, profitable manner, what makes any one think that they can do so entering the financial services sector? Or the auto making sector?
I oppose a so-called stimulus package. It is warmed-over Keynesian/Roosevelt economics. And it does not and has never worked. To argue as Mr. Kristol does that the way to win the argument is to try to get more money for the defense department. The argument Mr. Kristol makes is that a stimulus package is going to happen anyway, conservatives should have some effect as to the outcome. I agree. Conservatives should oppose mindless make-work schemes that do not have a long-term outcome. Any quick fix stimulus that is proposed by President-elect Obama and the Democrat congress is not going to be for a long-term solution to real problems. It will be a payoff to labor unions and their allies.
Nobody wants to eliminate government. But, conservatives want a government that has its priorities straight. How to raise money from the broadest pool possible, not just a select few in a confiscatory manner. What said government will spend money on. Will it be cost-effective. Is there a different way to have certain programs. None of that is anywhere on Mr. Kristol's radar.
There are some thoughtful conservatives that are going to make a case that government can be smaller, leaner and more responsive to the people's needs. And that starts from the bottom up. Some of those leaders are in the House, led by Indiana congressman Mike Pence. We are seeing leadership by Alabama senator Richard Shelby who has suggested that he will filibuster the so-called Big Three American auto maker bailout/rescue.
These are leaders that do not want to just tinker with the ideas of the liberal left. They want to offer a different way. A way that can be successful if actually tried.
Where I hate to agree with Mr. Kristol is the point that most who run on the small government mantle find that it is impossible to actually make government smaller. It is a fair and regrettably accurate point.
And, Mr. Kristol points out that the very popular and successful former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush (imagine, a popular leader with the last name Bush!) actually increased government spending 50% over population growth and inflation. But, Mr. Kristol does not give concrete example as to where that increased spending went for. And Mr. Kristol points out that Mr. Jeb Bush cut taxes, privatized government services, and led in policy reforms, especially in education.
But, it is a fatalistic view that government size is going to increase no matter what party is in power.
Take the example that Mr. Kristol gives in the prescription drug benefit to senior citizens. Mr. Kristol says that it was the right thing to do and that it is popular. I think that it remains to be seen if the senior citizens of the United States are as enamored with the prescription drug benefit as is Mr. Kristol. And now that the Democrats run the show in Washington, we shall see how they tinker with it.
Here is part of the Kristol rationale to make the big-government conservative vs. small-government conservative:
Still, there’s a difference between a conservatism that is concerned with limited and constitutional government and one that focuses on simply opposing big government.
So: If you’re a small-government conservative, you’ll tend to oppose the bailouts, period. If you more or less accept big government, you’ll be open to the government’s stepping in to save the financial system, or the auto industry. But you’ll tend to favor those policies — universal tax cuts, offering everyone a chance to refinance his mortgage, relieving auto makers of burdensome regulations — that, consistent with conservative principles, don’t reward irresponsible behavior and don’t politicize markets.
Similarly, if you’re against big government, you’ll oppose a huge public works stimulus package. If you think some government action is inevitable, you might instead point out that the most unambiguous public good is national defense. You might then suggest spending a good chunk of the stimulus on national security — directing dollars to much-needed and underfunded defense procurement rather than to fanciful green technologies, making sure funds are available for the needed expansion of the Army and Marines before rushing to create make-work civilian jobs. Obama wants to spend much of the stimulus on transportation infrastructure and schools. Fine, but lots of schools and airports seem to me to have been refurbished more recently and more generously than military bases I’ve visited.
Point by point.
I am not a big-government conservative. I think that there is a reason for that. Because, it just does not work. Increasing the size of government does not produce jobs. It does not increase tax revenue because any one that can will try tax paying avoidance. Increasing government means that people are giving up freedom. And, it is false sense of security.
Take the example of bailouts/rescues. Mr. Kristol says that bailouts/rescues are A-OK if they are tied to across-the-board tax cuts (which I favor), offering everyone a chance to refinance their mortgages (do not agree with that) and deregulate the auto industry (favor that) but then rationalizes that if they are tied to conservative principles and do not politicize the markets, it is not a bad thing. The fact that the federal government would bailout/rescue any one company and or entire industry in totally politicizing the government in the marketplace. The fact is that the government has a real hard time running itself in an efficient, profitable manner, what makes any one think that they can do so entering the financial services sector? Or the auto making sector?
I oppose a so-called stimulus package. It is warmed-over Keynesian/Roosevelt economics. And it does not and has never worked. To argue as Mr. Kristol does that the way to win the argument is to try to get more money for the defense department. The argument Mr. Kristol makes is that a stimulus package is going to happen anyway, conservatives should have some effect as to the outcome. I agree. Conservatives should oppose mindless make-work schemes that do not have a long-term outcome. Any quick fix stimulus that is proposed by President-elect Obama and the Democrat congress is not going to be for a long-term solution to real problems. It will be a payoff to labor unions and their allies.
Nobody wants to eliminate government. But, conservatives want a government that has its priorities straight. How to raise money from the broadest pool possible, not just a select few in a confiscatory manner. What said government will spend money on. Will it be cost-effective. Is there a different way to have certain programs. None of that is anywhere on Mr. Kristol's radar.
There are some thoughtful conservatives that are going to make a case that government can be smaller, leaner and more responsive to the people's needs. And that starts from the bottom up. Some of those leaders are in the House, led by Indiana congressman Mike Pence. We are seeing leadership by Alabama senator Richard Shelby who has suggested that he will filibuster the so-called Big Three American auto maker bailout/rescue.
These are leaders that do not want to just tinker with the ideas of the liberal left. They want to offer a different way. A way that can be successful if actually tried.
If Chapter 11 Is Good Enough For The Tribune Company, Why Is It Not OK For The Big Three Automakers?
In welcome news on the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media front, the Tribune company, owners of the Chicago Tribune and the local Los Angeles Times, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
It is welcome news because it will make this media behemoth have to actually decide whether to produce products that people want or continue to have newspapers that are propaganda rags for the Democrat party and television networks that produce woeful programming at best.
This is upon other DDBMSOWM news that the parent company of The New York Times is getting a line of credit against their home base building in New York City.
My first thought is why is Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection A-OK for a media conglomerate but not for the Big Three American car makers? I mean, does anyone think that jobs will not be lost? Newspapers sold or even folded? A broadcast network eliminated?
Of course all of that will happen.
Somehow, we are being convinced by a trifecta of the CEOs of the Big Three auto makers, the UAW and Democrats in congress that is one or all three of these auto makers do what the Tribune company did today, that will end the auto industry in the United States.
No, it will not end the auto industry, but make these companies restructure an antiquated business model. Without the the bankruptcy protection and a so-called bailout, all this will do is delay the inevitable.
Note, that Chrysler begged for government assistance, it was given and 28 years later, they are back at the government trough again.
What is good for the Tribune company is good enough for Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.
It is welcome news because it will make this media behemoth have to actually decide whether to produce products that people want or continue to have newspapers that are propaganda rags for the Democrat party and television networks that produce woeful programming at best.
This is upon other DDBMSOWM news that the parent company of The New York Times is getting a line of credit against their home base building in New York City.
My first thought is why is Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection A-OK for a media conglomerate but not for the Big Three American car makers? I mean, does anyone think that jobs will not be lost? Newspapers sold or even folded? A broadcast network eliminated?
Of course all of that will happen.
Somehow, we are being convinced by a trifecta of the CEOs of the Big Three auto makers, the UAW and Democrats in congress that is one or all three of these auto makers do what the Tribune company did today, that will end the auto industry in the United States.
No, it will not end the auto industry, but make these companies restructure an antiquated business model. Without the the bankruptcy protection and a so-called bailout, all this will do is delay the inevitable.
Note, that Chrysler begged for government assistance, it was given and 28 years later, they are back at the government trough again.
What is good for the Tribune company is good enough for Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Another "Promise" From President-Elect Obama
In a recent interview in a men's health magazine, President-elect Barack Obama pledges not to do something we rarely have seen but knows he does.
Light up a ciggy.
We all know that President-elect Obama is a cigarette smoker. And, he admits it in this article. And he says that he has been weak and "fallen off the wagon" and bummed cigarettes while running for president.
News flash, Mr. President-elect! It is not going to get any easier. Soon you will be president and have to actually govern. And take responsibility for the good and the bad. And, you will be under immense pressure from day one.
But, I think that this is like so much that he has promised and or pledged. There is an expiration date on everything. At some point, not even the DDBMSOWM will be able to cover up when a ciggy comes out of the box, into President-elect Obama's mouth and a lighter and or match goes up to said ciggy and, voila! He lights it up and relaxes.
I hope that he can stop smoking, but please do not make a big deal about it one way or the other. Do not fall for this PC claptrap.
Light up a ciggy.
We all know that President-elect Obama is a cigarette smoker. And, he admits it in this article. And he says that he has been weak and "fallen off the wagon" and bummed cigarettes while running for president.
News flash, Mr. President-elect! It is not going to get any easier. Soon you will be president and have to actually govern. And take responsibility for the good and the bad. And, you will be under immense pressure from day one.
But, I think that this is like so much that he has promised and or pledged. There is an expiration date on everything. At some point, not even the DDBMSOWM will be able to cover up when a ciggy comes out of the box, into President-elect Obama's mouth and a lighter and or match goes up to said ciggy and, voila! He lights it up and relaxes.
I hope that he can stop smoking, but please do not make a big deal about it one way or the other. Do not fall for this PC claptrap.
December 7, 1941-The Original Date That Shall Live In Infamy
Today is December 7, 2008 and the 66th anniversary of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawai'i.
As then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt correctly said, it is a date that shall live in infamy.
The worrisome aspect of this as more time is removed and more and more soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from that era go to the glory, is how many of us Americans will forget about what happened that day.
It was an amazing event because it was the first battle of modern warfare.
The Japanese Pacific fleet and air force did something that had never been done before in the history of warfare. An air attack against an enemy target. And, it was regrettably successful at that.
While there has been a lot of strange history that somehow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt actually knew of the impending attack and did nothing to stop it, it is as noted. Strange history. Some use that history to cite that because of that the United States could formally enter the war against the Axis powers that included Germany and Italy.
My take is that it is possible that the Roosevelt administration knew of the potential of an attack, but not how, by who, not when that could take place.
Such conspiracy thinking requires that all the players have to keep the conspiracy under wraps. And we know that there are always those that can not keep a secret.
The real lesson is that the United States has to always know who our friends are and be always watchful for those that wish us harm.
As Santayana once said, those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Big Win For The GOP
Tonight, the voters in New Orleans have spoken and said enough is enough and voted out the indicted incumbent Democrat congressman William "Big Bucks" Jefferson and elected the first Vietnamese-American and Republican Joseph Cao.
It is the second bit of good news for the Republicans in week on top of the big win by Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss this past Tuesday.
And it maybe the harbinger of things to come for the Democrats.
Remember folks, they now run the show. The White House on January 20, 2009 and congress now.
No more George W. Bush to kick around. No more Republicans to blame for all that goes wrong. Neither will be able to be blamed for a moribund economy. A foreign policy crisis. And, for corruption that will follow the Dems into the halls of power.
Of course it seems to go hand in hand that corruption=Democrats. Of course the Republicans took some lessons from the Democrats the last several years. And, that is why they got their hat handed to them in their hands. And they deserved it!
It is what was one of the leading reasons that led to the Republicans taking control of congress in 1994. Corruption.
Lets see now how the Dems will handle this issue now that they run the show. Except for a big win in Louisiana.
Here are the results from the election:
U.S. House - District 2 - General
Louisiana - 492 of 492 Precincts Reporting - 100%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Cao , Joseph GOP 33,122 50%
Jefferson , William (i) Dem 31,296 47%
Rahim , Malik Grn 1,880 3%
Kahn , Gregory Lib 548 1%
It is the second bit of good news for the Republicans in week on top of the big win by Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss this past Tuesday.
And it maybe the harbinger of things to come for the Democrats.
Remember folks, they now run the show. The White House on January 20, 2009 and congress now.
No more George W. Bush to kick around. No more Republicans to blame for all that goes wrong. Neither will be able to be blamed for a moribund economy. A foreign policy crisis. And, for corruption that will follow the Dems into the halls of power.
Of course it seems to go hand in hand that corruption=Democrats. Of course the Republicans took some lessons from the Democrats the last several years. And, that is why they got their hat handed to them in their hands. And they deserved it!
It is what was one of the leading reasons that led to the Republicans taking control of congress in 1994. Corruption.
Lets see now how the Dems will handle this issue now that they run the show. Except for a big win in Louisiana.
Here are the results from the election:
U.S. House - District 2 - General
Louisiana - 492 of 492 Precincts Reporting - 100%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Cao , Joseph GOP 33,122 50%
Jefferson , William (i) Dem 31,296 47%
Rahim , Malik Grn 1,880 3%
Kahn , Gregory Lib 548 1%
Guess The State The Recession Has Not Hit Yet
Much to the interest and chagrin of The New York Times, there is a state in this great land that the effects of the current resicion have not hit at all.
Can you guess the state?
Two hints.
One, it is not Rhode Island, the focus of the previous post.
Two, it is governed by Republicans.
Give up?
Why it is North Dakota, of course!
So the question is how have they done it?
The following from The Times article may help explain it in part
North Dakota’s cheery circumstance — which economic analysts are quick to warn is showing clear signs that it, too, may be in jeopardy — can be explained by an odd collection of factors: a recent surge in oil production that catapulted the state to fifth-largest producer in the nation; a mostly strong year for farmers (agriculture is the state’s biggest business); and a conservative, steady, never-fancy culture that has nurtured fewer sudden booms of wealth like those seen elsewhere (“Our banks don’t do those goofy loans,” Mr. Theel said) and also fewer tumultuous slumps.
I want to focus on the last part of the paragraph.
A conservative, steady, never-fancy culture that has nurtured fewer sudden booms of wealth like those seen elsewhere (“Our banks don’t do those goofy loans,” Mr. Theel said) and also fewer tumultuous slumps.
It is about the banks and the fact that they appear to be responsible and loaning to people and businesses that will pay them back. Thus, one would have to conclude that these banks adhere to strict structures as to how and who to loan to. Too bad a lot of other banks did not follow this approach.
While unployment is around 3.4%, North Dakota is having a problem filling jobs. There are 13,000 unfilled jobs in the state. North Dakota is now branching out to recruit potential employees to such deep recision states as Michigan.
As far as governance, under a Republican governor, John Hoeven, and Republican controlled legislature, the state is experiancing a $1,200,000,000 surplus. A surplus, mind you! And there is talk of property tax relief, a five percent raise for state workers, and more money for secondary education.
In neighboring Minnesota, the state is dealing with a $5,200,000,000 budget deficit.
The moral here as opposed to the post on Rhode Island previously is that responsible governance leads to a strong economy. Not going overboard with big, bloated government is the key to having a strong economy that leads to increased tax revenue and the ability to provide truly nessecary services.
It is too bad that so many states and localities in the United States do not follow the example of North Dakota.
HT: The Other McCain @ www.rsmccain.blogspot.com and Jammie Wearing Fool @ www.jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com
Can you guess the state?
Two hints.
One, it is not Rhode Island, the focus of the previous post.
Two, it is governed by Republicans.
Give up?
Why it is North Dakota, of course!
So the question is how have they done it?
The following from The Times article may help explain it in part
North Dakota’s cheery circumstance — which economic analysts are quick to warn is showing clear signs that it, too, may be in jeopardy — can be explained by an odd collection of factors: a recent surge in oil production that catapulted the state to fifth-largest producer in the nation; a mostly strong year for farmers (agriculture is the state’s biggest business); and a conservative, steady, never-fancy culture that has nurtured fewer sudden booms of wealth like those seen elsewhere (“Our banks don’t do those goofy loans,” Mr. Theel said) and also fewer tumultuous slumps.
I want to focus on the last part of the paragraph.
A conservative, steady, never-fancy culture that has nurtured fewer sudden booms of wealth like those seen elsewhere (“Our banks don’t do those goofy loans,” Mr. Theel said) and also fewer tumultuous slumps.
It is about the banks and the fact that they appear to be responsible and loaning to people and businesses that will pay them back. Thus, one would have to conclude that these banks adhere to strict structures as to how and who to loan to. Too bad a lot of other banks did not follow this approach.
While unployment is around 3.4%, North Dakota is having a problem filling jobs. There are 13,000 unfilled jobs in the state. North Dakota is now branching out to recruit potential employees to such deep recision states as Michigan.
As far as governance, under a Republican governor, John Hoeven, and Republican controlled legislature, the state is experiancing a $1,200,000,000 surplus. A surplus, mind you! And there is talk of property tax relief, a five percent raise for state workers, and more money for secondary education.
In neighboring Minnesota, the state is dealing with a $5,200,000,000 budget deficit.
The moral here as opposed to the post on Rhode Island previously is that responsible governance leads to a strong economy. Not going overboard with big, bloated government is the key to having a strong economy that leads to increased tax revenue and the ability to provide truly nessecary services.
It is too bad that so many states and localities in the United States do not follow the example of North Dakota.
HT: The Other McCain @ www.rsmccain.blogspot.com and Jammie Wearing Fool @ www.jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com
The Insanity Of Liberalism
Today's highlight of the insanity of liberalism, or in this case socialism, comes from the state of Rhode Island.
It is here that the infrastructure, roads, bridges and the like, are falling apart. Where neglect reigns supreme.
It is in Rhode Island that a blue-ribbon commission put in place by the Republican governor, Donald Carceiri recommended, among other things, a VMT fee. A VMT fee is a Vehicle Millage Fee, which could be as little as a half-cent to a full cent per mile. Or put it this way. Driving 10,000 miles a year in Rhode Island could cost another $50 to $100 dollars.
As those television infomercials say, but wait, there's more!
The state gasoline tax, currently 30c a gallon could go up another 15c a gallon.
State car registration fees would rise from $60 a year to $140 by 2013.
A potential $3 toll for cars and $6 for trucks-only at Rhode Island's border with Connecticut. Also there would be a possible $3 toll on a new bridge at the Sakonnet river.
All told, this could raise about $150,000,000 a year supposedly for infrastructure repairs.
Here is the richness of this scam.
According to the Providence Journal article that I linked, the state of Rhode Island depends on most of its transportation and department of transportation funding from the federal government.
Once again, a state that is dominated by liberal Democrats can not get in tax structure and funding straight.
In case one thinks that I am exaggerating the dominance of the Democrats in Rhode Island, after the just concluded election, the Democrats control of the legislature is as follows:
HOUSE: 69 D 6R
SENATE: 33D 4R 1I
So, out of 123 potential legislative seats, the Republicans control a grand total of 10. It is practically a one party dictatorship.
If Rhode Island followed the example of states that are growing, mostly in the South and the West, they would find other ways to fund highway repair and improvement. They would not have penalizing taxes, such as what is being proposed on actual driving, but funding from the general tax fund. Only in these states dominated by legislatures that have not met a tax that they do not like would people think this way.
BTW, our "illustrious" governor in California, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger, has thought of the idea of taxing by the mile. So, it is not an original idea.
People in high-tax states never stop paying high taxes until they find a way to just say no more.
That is what happened in 1978 here in California when Proposition 13 passed overwhelmingly. Up until then, the California legislature kept finding ways to raise property taxes to levels that people were actually losing their homes. Not to foreclosure, but being unable to pay the ever-increasing tax burden.
Until the people of Rhode Island and other states ran like Rhode Island just say no more, they can not get mad about those they elect to lead the state. Keep electing Democrats, and this is what one gets.
And, a state should not have their hat in hand for a federal government "bail out" any more than a bank and or an auto maker. Apparently, Rhode Island falls into the federal government trough quite often. And it has done nothing to improve the crumbling infrastructure.
Pro-growth policies and the like could be a solution. But, not when the first thing is "let's raise taxes in the most insane matter."
Rhode Island needs to decide priorities. What is important to fund. And they have not done so. And, it appears that they will not.
FTR, Gov. Carceiri has not endorsed or opposed any aspect of the commission's findings.
It is here that the infrastructure, roads, bridges and the like, are falling apart. Where neglect reigns supreme.
It is in Rhode Island that a blue-ribbon commission put in place by the Republican governor, Donald Carceiri recommended, among other things, a VMT fee. A VMT fee is a Vehicle Millage Fee, which could be as little as a half-cent to a full cent per mile. Or put it this way. Driving 10,000 miles a year in Rhode Island could cost another $50 to $100 dollars.
As those television infomercials say, but wait, there's more!
The state gasoline tax, currently 30c a gallon could go up another 15c a gallon.
State car registration fees would rise from $60 a year to $140 by 2013.
A potential $3 toll for cars and $6 for trucks-only at Rhode Island's border with Connecticut. Also there would be a possible $3 toll on a new bridge at the Sakonnet river.
All told, this could raise about $150,000,000 a year supposedly for infrastructure repairs.
Here is the richness of this scam.
According to the Providence Journal article that I linked, the state of Rhode Island depends on most of its transportation and department of transportation funding from the federal government.
Once again, a state that is dominated by liberal Democrats can not get in tax structure and funding straight.
In case one thinks that I am exaggerating the dominance of the Democrats in Rhode Island, after the just concluded election, the Democrats control of the legislature is as follows:
HOUSE: 69 D 6R
SENATE: 33D 4R 1I
So, out of 123 potential legislative seats, the Republicans control a grand total of 10. It is practically a one party dictatorship.
If Rhode Island followed the example of states that are growing, mostly in the South and the West, they would find other ways to fund highway repair and improvement. They would not have penalizing taxes, such as what is being proposed on actual driving, but funding from the general tax fund. Only in these states dominated by legislatures that have not met a tax that they do not like would people think this way.
BTW, our "illustrious" governor in California, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger, has thought of the idea of taxing by the mile. So, it is not an original idea.
People in high-tax states never stop paying high taxes until they find a way to just say no more.
That is what happened in 1978 here in California when Proposition 13 passed overwhelmingly. Up until then, the California legislature kept finding ways to raise property taxes to levels that people were actually losing their homes. Not to foreclosure, but being unable to pay the ever-increasing tax burden.
Until the people of Rhode Island and other states ran like Rhode Island just say no more, they can not get mad about those they elect to lead the state. Keep electing Democrats, and this is what one gets.
And, a state should not have their hat in hand for a federal government "bail out" any more than a bank and or an auto maker. Apparently, Rhode Island falls into the federal government trough quite often. And it has done nothing to improve the crumbling infrastructure.
Pro-growth policies and the like could be a solution. But, not when the first thing is "let's raise taxes in the most insane matter."
Rhode Island needs to decide priorities. What is important to fund. And they have not done so. And, it appears that they will not.
FTR, Gov. Carceiri has not endorsed or opposed any aspect of the commission's findings.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Kathleen Parker Keeps Going On, And On, And On
This post by The Other McCain says a lot about the rantings of Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker as she continues to insult evangelical Christians with a feeble "apology" in her latest column. The Other McCain: Dear Kathleen Parker . . .#links
Want the money quote as to why Mrs. Parker is nothing more than a religious bigot? Here it is:
It is an indisputable fact that conservative Catholics are the solid backbone of the Christian pro-life movement. (If you doubt this, come to Washington, DC, for the annual March for Life next month, and witness the crowds of Catholic students packed into the trains at Union Station.) Conservative Catholics also are staunch opponents of same-sex marriage and embryonic stem-cell research, and are the leading activists on the kind of end-of-life issues dramatized by the Terry Schiavo case. And yet you, Ms. Parker, say not a word about Catholics.
Bada bing!!
Mr. McCain hits it right on the head about Mrs. Parker and all who seem to have it in for the "white" evangelicals.
One thing that I have not heard from people like Mrs. Parker is how did Proposition Eight in California, affirming marriage as between one man and one woman pass? Oh, not by "white" voters but by mostly black and Hispanic voters. And-horrors-most of those Hispanic voters are Roman Catholic. Where is the shame of that group?
Listen for the crickets.
I am certain that Mrs. Parker was bashing then Republican presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush for daring to speak at evangelical Bob Jones University. BJU is known as anti-Catholic. And until recently anti-black. To their credit BJU realized that their anti-black attitudes were not Biblically based. But, BJU is a PROTESTANT, Christian university. And by nature, they have what can only be called an anti-Roman Catholic world view. There are different degrees to that and many Mainline Protestants are less anti-Roman
Catholic than in the past. But the bottom line is that BJU is what it is. Yet, then Gov. Bush was vilified for speaking there. And here is another money quote by Mr. McCain:
Because smearing Catholics still carries the taint of prejudice, whereas conservative Protestants are a favorite target of ridicule among the enlightened elite whose esteem you covet. And when you narrow it down by specifying that you mean white conservative Protestants, this allows you to disguise your appeal to bigotry as a call for diversity! (Neat trick, that.)
Here is the thing for Mrs. Parker.
If she wants to help the Republican party as she claims she wants to do, just get off this topic. Write about something you know something about. Oh, I guess that means you should take a vacation for a while to find something you can write about.
Want the money quote as to why Mrs. Parker is nothing more than a religious bigot? Here it is:
It is an indisputable fact that conservative Catholics are the solid backbone of the Christian pro-life movement. (If you doubt this, come to Washington, DC, for the annual March for Life next month, and witness the crowds of Catholic students packed into the trains at Union Station.) Conservative Catholics also are staunch opponents of same-sex marriage and embryonic stem-cell research, and are the leading activists on the kind of end-of-life issues dramatized by the Terry Schiavo case. And yet you, Ms. Parker, say not a word about Catholics.
Bada bing!!
Mr. McCain hits it right on the head about Mrs. Parker and all who seem to have it in for the "white" evangelicals.
One thing that I have not heard from people like Mrs. Parker is how did Proposition Eight in California, affirming marriage as between one man and one woman pass? Oh, not by "white" voters but by mostly black and Hispanic voters. And-horrors-most of those Hispanic voters are Roman Catholic. Where is the shame of that group?
Listen for the crickets.
I am certain that Mrs. Parker was bashing then Republican presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush for daring to speak at evangelical Bob Jones University. BJU is known as anti-Catholic. And until recently anti-black. To their credit BJU realized that their anti-black attitudes were not Biblically based. But, BJU is a PROTESTANT, Christian university. And by nature, they have what can only be called an anti-Roman Catholic world view. There are different degrees to that and many Mainline Protestants are less anti-Roman
Catholic than in the past. But the bottom line is that BJU is what it is. Yet, then Gov. Bush was vilified for speaking there. And here is another money quote by Mr. McCain:
Because smearing Catholics still carries the taint of prejudice, whereas conservative Protestants are a favorite target of ridicule among the enlightened elite whose esteem you covet. And when you narrow it down by specifying that you mean white conservative Protestants, this allows you to disguise your appeal to bigotry as a call for diversity! (Neat trick, that.)
Here is the thing for Mrs. Parker.
If she wants to help the Republican party as she claims she wants to do, just get off this topic. Write about something you know something about. Oh, I guess that means you should take a vacation for a while to find something you can write about.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Distrubing
It appears that the Roman Catholic church in Great Britain is proposing-I kid you not-to provide prayer rooms for Islamic students attending Roman Catholic schools.
Here is an interesting statistic provided in the Daily Mail article by the Church.
Thirty percent of students attending Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales are members of a non-Christian faith.
Thirty percent?!
Astounding.
It is no wonder then that the bishops have no problem giving in to those who are Islamic and attending a Roman Catholic school and providing not just a prayer room but implements for "purification" before said prayers.
The "purification" rite is called the Wudhu and includes the following:
Washing the face, hands, arms and feet three times each, gargling the mouth three times and washing the neck and inside the nose and ears. Some Muslims also wash their private parts.
Oh, and this is a real hoot: Islam teaches that Muslims are unfit for prayer if they have not performed Wudhu after breaking wind or using the toilet.
Remember, these Islamic students are attending a Roman Catholic school, not an Islamic school.
This is a result of a local Roman Catholic church that has lost its way.
The mission of the Christian faith is to share it with those who are not Christian. It is to save those from Hell and to teach those that there is a better way. The way of Jesus Christ.
Part of a Roman Catholic education should include the history of the Church. The persecution that the Church went through at the hands of many opposed to the Church (before the Reformation) and especially at the hands of Islamics. Is that even being taught in the Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales? Or for that matter, here in the United States?
A real question is this.
Would a majority Islamic nation make the same kind of accommodation to Christians? Jews? Non-monotheistic faiths?
No, no and no!!!
Look at Saudi Arabia. Iran. Afghanistan under the Taliban. The Sudan. These are Islamic majority nations. The Sudan fought a 30-year civil war to drive out black, African Christians in the south of the nation. Saudi Arabia does not allow any, I mean any, religion to practice in the land other than Wahhabi Islam. Even in the areas set aside for non-Saudi workers. Iran is a totalitarian, Shite Islamic state. And the extreme was on display in Afghanistan when the Taliban was running the nation. Thirteenth-century style. Why they could not even handle Buddhist shrines and they blew them up.
One expectation when a non-Roman Catholic attends a church school is that they adhere to the teachings of the Church. They do not have to necessarily become Christians and or Roman Catholic, but they must remember that they are attending a Christian school and will be taught Christian beliefs.
But, in the New Britain, actually believing in something is all wrong. The more that the government gives in to fanatical demands by radical Islamics, it is like a cancer and permeates in some unexpected areas. Such as the Christian faith.
One expects that Pope Benedict will have a say in this matter. And, he needs to. It is a matter of continuity. It is a matter that a Roman Catholic institution of learning must at the very least uphold some of the Church teaching and traditions.
It is a Brave New World in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. And it is not a good one in the least.
Here is an interesting statistic provided in the Daily Mail article by the Church.
Thirty percent of students attending Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales are members of a non-Christian faith.
Thirty percent?!
Astounding.
It is no wonder then that the bishops have no problem giving in to those who are Islamic and attending a Roman Catholic school and providing not just a prayer room but implements for "purification" before said prayers.
The "purification" rite is called the Wudhu and includes the following:
Washing the face, hands, arms and feet three times each, gargling the mouth three times and washing the neck and inside the nose and ears. Some Muslims also wash their private parts.
Oh, and this is a real hoot: Islam teaches that Muslims are unfit for prayer if they have not performed Wudhu after breaking wind or using the toilet.
Remember, these Islamic students are attending a Roman Catholic school, not an Islamic school.
This is a result of a local Roman Catholic church that has lost its way.
The mission of the Christian faith is to share it with those who are not Christian. It is to save those from Hell and to teach those that there is a better way. The way of Jesus Christ.
Part of a Roman Catholic education should include the history of the Church. The persecution that the Church went through at the hands of many opposed to the Church (before the Reformation) and especially at the hands of Islamics. Is that even being taught in the Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales? Or for that matter, here in the United States?
A real question is this.
Would a majority Islamic nation make the same kind of accommodation to Christians? Jews? Non-monotheistic faiths?
No, no and no!!!
Look at Saudi Arabia. Iran. Afghanistan under the Taliban. The Sudan. These are Islamic majority nations. The Sudan fought a 30-year civil war to drive out black, African Christians in the south of the nation. Saudi Arabia does not allow any, I mean any, religion to practice in the land other than Wahhabi Islam. Even in the areas set aside for non-Saudi workers. Iran is a totalitarian, Shite Islamic state. And the extreme was on display in Afghanistan when the Taliban was running the nation. Thirteenth-century style. Why they could not even handle Buddhist shrines and they blew them up.
One expectation when a non-Roman Catholic attends a church school is that they adhere to the teachings of the Church. They do not have to necessarily become Christians and or Roman Catholic, but they must remember that they are attending a Christian school and will be taught Christian beliefs.
But, in the New Britain, actually believing in something is all wrong. The more that the government gives in to fanatical demands by radical Islamics, it is like a cancer and permeates in some unexpected areas. Such as the Christian faith.
One expects that Pope Benedict will have a say in this matter. And, he needs to. It is a matter of continuity. It is a matter that a Roman Catholic institution of learning must at the very least uphold some of the Church teaching and traditions.
It is a Brave New World in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. And it is not a good one in the least.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Chambliss Wins-No Magic 60 For Senate Dems
Tonight, Georgia voters stopped the Democrats from getting their magical 60 seats in the senate by reelecting Sen. Saxby Chambliss by a large margin after he was forced into a runoff due to not reaching 50% plus one. That is a Georgia quirk.
But, it will prevent the Democrats from attaining the 60 needed to shut off debate and a filibuster proof majority that could have rammed any piece of legislation that they wanted to.
Most important, look for no help from the senate Dems in the Minnesota race still undecided between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democrat "comedian" Al Franken. They do not need him as much now that Sen. Chambliss won reelection.
And, will anyone note that Gov. Sarah Palin went all out to get Sen. Chambliss reelected?
But, it will prevent the Democrats from attaining the 60 needed to shut off debate and a filibuster proof majority that could have rammed any piece of legislation that they wanted to.
Most important, look for no help from the senate Dems in the Minnesota race still undecided between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democrat "comedian" Al Franken. They do not need him as much now that Sen. Chambliss won reelection.
And, will anyone note that Gov. Sarah Palin went all out to get Sen. Chambliss reelected?
So, Will Sarah Get ANY Credit When Saxby Wins?
Here she is, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in Georgia yesterday rallying the Republican base in getting out the vote in the senate run off between Republican senator Saxby Chambliss and Democrat challenger Jim Martin.
My question is this.
Will Gov. Palin get ANY credit when Sen. Chambliss wins reelection?
I think that I know the answer.
But, here are the facts.
Gov. Palin drew about 3,000 people at a rally in a senate runoff in the middle of the Christmas season. There are many who have been down to Georgia to help Sen. Chambliss win reelection, but none resonate as does Gov. Palin.
And, the timing of having her at the end of another endless campaign in brilliant.
But, do not expect that the DDBMSOWM will credit Gov. Palin with rallying the Republican base behind Sen. Chambliss. No, they will find a way to diminish her. But, Republicans and conservatives that are paying attention know that she is an asset, not a liability.
The real question should be where is President-elect Obama?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)