Thursday, May 24, 2012

Press conference by Jay Carney.

In one of his press conferences, Jay Carney opened up as to why Obama should be elected over Romney.

Reporter: What, specifically, are Obama's proposals to reduce unemployment during his next term?
Carney: Romney hates women.
Reporter: OK, but what is Obama going to do or propose to Congress to help create jobs?
Carney: Romney was CEO of Bain Capital.

Reporter: OK, I see we are not going to get an answer. Next question - What are Obama's plans to
improve foreign policy and America's reputation around the world?
Carney: Obama killed bin Laden.
Reporter: Yeah, we heard that. But, now what?
Carney: Osama is dead.

Reporter: OK. Next question - how does Obama plan to improve the economy?
Carney: Romney put his dog on the roof of his car and drove for 12 hours.
Reporter: All right, but what about his economic policies?
Carney: Romney is a rich fat cat with a mansion.

Reporter: I see that we are not getting anywhere with that line of questioning either. How about this - How will Obama, in his next term, reduce spending?
Carney: Romney hates blacks.
Reporter: What does that, if it were true, have to do with reducing spending?
Carney: Romney is a racist.

Reporter: Wow, this is really getting tedious. Ok, how does Obama propose to reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country?
Carney: Romney hates hispanics.
Reporter: All right.

Reporter: OK, what are Obama's plans in the event the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare?
Carney: What's "ObamaCare"? I am not aware of any law or legislation named "ObamaCare".
Report: OK then, the Affordable Care Act.
Carney: Oh, why didn't you say that in the first place?
Reporter: OK, so if the Supreme Court overturns?
Carney: Romney attacked a gay student while in high school and cut his hair.

Reporter: Ok, I can see that this interview is going nowhere and it is time to bring it to an end. I would like to thank you, however, for sitting down with me, Mr. Carney.
Carney: My pleasure. The Obama administration, in fullfilling its promise of absolutely transparancy, is always happy to answer any and questions.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Court Rules Intelligent Design is Unconstitutional

On Tuesday, 12/20/05, John Edward Jones III, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, rejected the "teaching" of Intelligent Design by the Dover Areas School District and, in making his decision, scathingingly attacked the defendents from the bench. I find it most insulting that a sitting judge would use his position to express his personal feelings about an issue in such defamatory, disgusting, and insulting manner!

First, this case was never about the teaching of ID - and, let's be honest here folks, "intelligent design" is nothing more than a politically correct way of saying "Creationism", and, hating PC speech as I do, I will use the term Creationism - but was just the excuse the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wingers and their dictatorial allies, the ACLU, used to get their true goal before the court and further their agenda of controlling the minds of individuals and suppress their right to think, learn, and speak freely!!

Let's start with the article appearing, among other sources, in today's (12/21/05) edition of the New York Times - note the lead of this article:
"Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design" - this headline is specifically worded in this manner in an effort to influence the readers' thinking as they read the story. But, the hypocritical crack in their agenda begins to show through in the very first paragraph:

HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

Again, this paragraph is carefully worded so as to imply that the School District was attempting to "teach" the theory of Creationism. But, as I stated earlier, what the Dover Area School District did was not an attempt to teach Creationism and did even request that students even accept this theory. Nor did they, as the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wingers would have you believe, attempt to endorse the theory of Creationism.

Here, from the text of the case, is what the Dover Area School District required their teachers to read to their ninth-grade biology classes - and, it should be noted that the teachers were required to read this only once, at the beginning of the school year.

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is a explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Desigh actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assesments."

As, you can see, the School District was not advocating the teaching of The Theory of Creationism - or, for that matter, any other theory - over or even along side of the teaching of The Theory of Evolution! The School District was merely informing the students and their parents that there were alternative theories should the students and/or their parents wish to learn about them. The School District merely stated that alternative materials were "available" should the students and/or their parents wish to learn more about these theories. The School District merely informed the students and/or their parents, truthfully, that there exist gaps in The Theory of Evolution which cannot be explained. The key point here is that the Dover Area Shcool District has never required any student to learn about The Theory of Creationism or even to accept these theories as "science"!! And, as is stated in the statement, the School District would continue to teach ONLY the Theory of Evolution!

And, keep in mind, the teachers were required to read the statement only one time in each school year, at the beginning of the school year - not at the start of each class. Further, the School District did not require the teachers to accept or believe in any particular theory. On the contrary, teachers - and students - ARE forced to accept the Theory of Evolution, whether or not the individual believes this theory! Can you be any more hypocritical??

But, let's look deeper into the implications of this ruling. This ruling is nothing more than the suppression of free thinking and learning. In short, this ruling supports indoctrination!!

I was taught that education is basically the teaching of the ability to learn. By that, I mean, education and the schools should teach their students how to learn and the basics of education - math, science, language, etc. - is merely a tool to achieve that end. In my opinion, an educated person is one who learns the how's and why's of questions. The educated person studies a question even though the information he learns may contridict his previous "beliefs". But, today's educational system, for the most part, no longer asks their students to learn but only to accept, without question. In today's educational system, students are required to study only that information that supports the beliefs of the educator. If students or educators dare study something might prove to contridict the currently held "beliefs", they are vilified.

This is why the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wingers are so terrified of the study of Creationism - they realize that if Creationism were truly studied and the same "scientific" standards they demand of Creationism were applied to Evolution, their arguments would be seen as the hypocrisy that it is and their "facts" might be debunked as nothing more than a "belief"! They realize they cannot debate this position (or any other position, for that matter) on an intellectual basis, so they have to deflect and distract by claiming that the Theory of Creationism is nothing more than the preaching of religion - never mind that the Theory of Evolution is nothing more than the preaching of secularism. And, they decry that Creationism violates the "seperation of church and state" thereby making it unconstitutional. (I will deal with this absurdity in a later post) Of course, in the case presented above, this is nothing more than a dodge!

As I stated above, according to the text of the case, the School District never intended to teach Creationism. The School District never endorsed Creationism. The School District never endorsed religion or any particular religious doctrine. No, the School District merely stated that there were others out there that had alternative views and stated that these other views were available if the individual student wanted to pursue them. But, the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wingers can't abide any educational system that would offer a student the opportunity to learn and, therefore, make their own decision based on what they learned through careful study! No, they demand that the students accept, without question and without study, what they - in their elitism - deem is acceptable!! So, they distract from the true basis of their opposition by trying to make you believe the School District's statement was intended to teach religion as science and, even worse, that it was trying to teach Christian religious principle.

In making his ruling, Judge Jones justified his ruling by stating that Creationism (ID) "was a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity." "This statement alone highlights the biasness and prejudicial nature of this ruling. To my knowledge, every known, recognized religion believes in Creation by a divine source - not just Christian religions! These varying religions may use a different word for that diety but the concept is the same.

So, this ruling is not just an assault on religion in general - and Christianity in perticular - as the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wing would have you believe. This is merely the lesser of the assaults. The more serious and threatening danger is their assault on free will, free speech, and free thinking. This ruling is an assault on students' ability to learn!

In short, this ruling is nothing more than a judicial approval of INDOCTRINATION!!!!!

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Iraq another Viet Nam 'quagmire'?

Is the war in Iraq another, as the Democrats would have us believe, "quagmire" in the mode of Viet Nam?


Many Americans, it would seem, are now coming to that conclusion - at least if you believe the Democratic and major media and their never-ending "polls"! But, let's look at the reality of this situation.

First, let me state emphatically that I do not believe that the US 'lost' the Viet Nam war - victory was given away be the same type of people that would willingly give away any chance for victory in Iraq. When the conflict in Viet Nam began, most American really did not know much about what was going on. Once the public began to realize what was happening in Viet Nam and why, they were largely supportive. Then the 'anti-war' crowd got into the act and the liberal press jumped on the bandwagon. It was at this point that the mood slowly began to change. Why?? Did the American people come to not believe in democracy? Did they come to not believe that America was attempting to give another - weaker - nation that same democracy which we so love? Did they come to believe that America was wrong to want to help a small nation that was trying to stop a brutal dictatorship from killing their people and committing unspeakable horors? NO!! The majority of the American public has always believed in democracy for the world and has always been ready to support other nations that seek what we have. Well, then, what changed??

The hate-America crowd (better known at the "anti-war crowd") began to become more vocal. The cowards among us who are more than willing to benefit from the goodness and liberty that is America but are not willing to pay the price began to fear that it would be they that would be called on to ante up. They began to fear that they would be asked to pay their portion of the tab - and we all know that the liberals deem it an outrage that they should have to pay for the ideas that they espouse - by actually having to defend their right to freely bash and hate this great nation.

This hate-America crowd was then joined by the major media. If you go back and look at the press coverage of the Viet Nam war - starting especially around 1968 - you will find that the media overwhelmingly 'covered' the negative aspects overseas and downplayed any good that was being done by our troops. The press continously broadcast American body counts (while, at the same time, decrying the military's use of enemy body counts), concentrated on images of 'civilian' homes and villages being destroyed (while ignoring the fact that these homes and villages were used by the NVA to hide troops and materials used to kill Americans), constant reports of "alleged" tortures and atrocities by American troops (while ignoring known and proven tortures and atrocities by the government of Ho Chi Mihn), and began 'questioning' the ability of the military and the 'winnablility' of the war.

Back home, the press became absolutely orgasmic in their reporting of the "anti-war" demostrations and individual protesters - while largely ignoring or vilifying any defenders of the war or the military! The major press rarely interviewed any soldier who supported the war - they seemed to seek out only those soldiers and/or commanders who would say the things that they wanted said (John Kerry is the most vivid example of this despicable tactic!), they rarely investigated any claim that blackened the American military, and constantly posed pro-war or pro-military troopers as killers! The press contiunously pressed the case that the fed government "lied" and/or manipulated the information that led us into the war and constantly sought to put the government and the military on the defensive with the American public. The press glorified draft-dodgers as people of principle and honor rather than what they were - COWARDS! And, the most honored of this group were not the ones who were willing to pay the price for 'convictions and principles' (risking imprisonment) rather they glorifyed those who ran!

Finally, the press and the hate-America crowd - backed, supported, and led by known communist groups - turned their hate, not only on the military and the government, on the individual soldier - the kid (and they were just kids!) who did not want to be in military in the first place and, more often, did not want to be in 'Nam, did not want to or enjoy killing people, and certainly did not want to die! These kids had no choice about what they were doing or where they assigned (remember, the bulk of the military was drafted at that time); they were simply doing what they were forced to do and trying to survive! Yet, these kids were villified and attacked, individually, as "baby-killers" or "war-mongerers" or "willing pawns" - is it any wonder that many 'Nam vets suffered, and still suffer, mental problems?

These actions by the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wingers (now the leaders of the Democratic Party) and their cohorts in the major media led to drop in morale by the troops - they began to doubt that the American people supported them which led to doubts about what they doing - and empowering the NVA. The North VietNam government concluded that if they could wait out the mood of the American public (as presented by the American press), they could succeed in forcing the American government to simply give up. In other words, they concluded that they could win not through military means - the US military never lost a major engagement - but, through political means! And, it worked!!!

Finally, in 1972, the hate-America crowd and their media cohorts won the day - the US caved and simply packed up and went home! With their departure, VietNam immediately fell under the tryannical, brutal, and murderous dictatorial government of North VietNam - with retribution immediately implemented against the people of South VietNam. Over the next few years, literally millions of VietNamese were tortured, brutalized, and killed.

Worse, the American soldier and the families of those brave kids who sacrificed their lives and bodies were left to ask WHY?? Why were they sacrificed for nothing? Why did not THEIR country, at the very least, offer their thanks for the sacrifices? Why did not THEIR country, at minimum, sypmthasize with their plight and their situation??? Why were THEY singled out individually as a target of the hate?

Now, today, the same tactics are being used in the hate-America crowd's opposition to the war in Iraq - led by the very same major media that did so much damage in the '60's and '70's. And, even worse, these hate-America tactics are being used by the very Democratic leaders that sent the men and women over to fight the war in the first place!! These Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wing Democratic "leaders" who, through their votes to approve the war, sent these brave men and women to war are now giving the terrorists the weapons they did need to defeat us - namely the loss of support of the American people. Is it any wonder that 'support' for the war seems to be declining? Thanks to the major media (as with the VietNam war) and Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wingers in the Democratic Party, the public is never given any positive information. The hate-America crowd and their press allies constantly trumpet that the war is based on lies and manipulation of intelligence, question the ability of the military and it's commanders, glorify ANY information that casts a negative light - accepting as fact any negative statement by an individual, while at the same time discounting any positive information produced by a mulititude of people and documents - that the war is not "winnable", and attempt to "explain" why the terrorist want to kill us!

And, don't for one minute, believe that this hate-America crowd support and love the troops. As this war continues and the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wingers see that their current tactics are not producing the results they want, they will give up this charade and turn on the individual soldier!! And, when this happens (not if, but WHEN), it will be even more ugly for the individual soldier than was displayed to the 'Nam vet - after all, the military is entirely volunteer now, unlike 'Nam.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Illegal Immigration debates - "Knee-jerk Solutions"

As often happens when dicussions turn to the illegal immigration problems, the reactions are invariably "Seal the borders!". All of the proposals seem to center on this concept and the "solutions" put forth echo this - increase the Border Patrol funding and agents, support groups such as the Minute Men, install fences and walls and sensors, and other such measures. But, these are only "knee-jerk" solutions and they will not work and this is the reason that the libs and the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wing of the Democratic party appear to support such measures. Never dare to assume that the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wing of the Democratic party actually wants to see a positive and effective program to decrease the influx of illegals - they see these people as their upcoming power base and they don't want to negatively impact that potential source. Oh, they will "mouth" the proper phrases as this is a hot topic right now and the American public is fed up with this problem.

But, let's look at the deeper problems concerning illegal immigration!

Sealing the borders and apprehending a few illegals is the easiest and least productive solution. Yes, you will stop a few - for the moment - from entering the country and it will make people feel a little better. But, as we all know, these people will simply reenter the country illegally a short time later. Why?? Because the benefits of entering this country illegally outweigh the risks!

Under our current system, put in place by the liberals and the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wing of the Democratic party, - these same people who are now echoing the conservative cry for tighter border control - illegal really do not suffer any punishment. Thanks to the Marxist/Socialist extreme left-wing and their "enablers" - the ACLU - these people are treated as disadvantaged CITIZENS rather than as the criminals that they are! They are given "hearings" to insure that their Constitutional rights are protected (disregard the fact that the Constitution is meant to apply only to US citizens); if an illegal woman gives birth, not only do we pay for the hospital care, the baby is automatically a US citizen (then the illegal is afforded the right to stay so as not to "break up the family"); they are given medical care and welfare; and on and on and on. And, even when an illegal is actually caught - either at the border or after having been in country illegally for a number of years - they are merely shipped by to their country of origin (at taxpayer expense, of course) with the 'severe' warning of "Don't enter the country illegally again!". Only to turn right around (usually at the origin country's airport arrival terminal!) and begin immediately plotting ways to return - illegally!!

From the Los Angeles Times, 10/30/05, highlights this situation: (added emphasis is mine)

SAN SALVADOR -- On a sweltering afternoon, an unmarked white jetliner taxies to a remote terminal at the international airport here and disgorges dozens of criminal deportees from the United States. Marshals release the handcuffed prisoners, who shuffle into a processing room.Of the 70 passengers, at least four are members of Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, a gang formed two decades ago near MacArthur Park west of the Los Angeles skyline.

For one of them, Melvin "Joker" Cruz-Mendoza, the trip is nothing new. This is his fourth deportation — the second this year.Wiry with a shaved head, the 24-year-old pleaded guilty in separate felony robbery and drug cases in Los Angeles. "MS" covers his right forearm. Other tattoos are carved into the skin above his eyebrows.In the last 12 years, U.S. immigration authorities have logged more than 50,000 deportations of immigrants with criminal records to Central America, including untold numbers of gang members like Cruz-Mendoza.But a deportation policy aimed in part at breaking up a Los Angeles street gang has backfired and helped spread it across Central America and back into other parts of the United States. Newly organized cells in El Salvador have returned to establish strongholds in metropolitan Washington, D.C., and other U.S. cities. Prisons in El Salvador have become nerve centers, authorities say, where deported leaders from Los Angeles communicate with gang cliques across the United States.,0,5805265.story?page=1&track=hpmostemailedlink

Further in the article, more information concerning Cruz-Mendoza: (again, added emphasis is mine)
Cruz-Mendoza has been riding the merry-go-round for eight years.He was a minor when he was deported in 1997 and again in 1998, federal immigration officials said.In December 2003, he was convicted of attempted robbery, after he shoved a woman into a fence while trying to steal her purse at a South Los Angeles bus stop, court records show. As he demanded money, she said, he made threatening gestures and reached into his pocket, where police found a six-inch steak knife when he was arrested shortly thereafter.In March 2004, he pleaded guilty to a second felony of drug possession, which was dismissed in a sentencing deal for the attempted robbery.After serving little more than a year in jail, Cruz-Mendoza was deported for a third time in January, records and interviews show.U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested him in Arizona a month later. At that point, he could have been charged with a felony for reentering the country after deportation, which could have landed him in federal prison for as long as 20 years.Instead, federal court records show he struck another plea deal with the U.S. attorney's office in Arizona, admitting to a "petty offense" of being in the country illegally. He was ordered to serve 90 days and pay a $10 fine, and was put on the July flight to San Salvador.

This article, in my opinion, highlights the current problems in dealing with and solving the problems of illegal immigration. To solve this problem we must, not only, look at ways to prevent the entrance of illegals - but, our overall system of dealing with them on a judicial, economic, and social level. And, again in my opinion, the solutions are quite easy if approached in a Common Sense outlook - although, admittedly, my solutions will require long-term applications.

First, illegals, both those caught at the border and those now living in the country, should be agressively pusured and apprehended - so far, agreement with the "seal the border" contigent. Once apprehended, the illegals should be immediately deported - unless they can prove that they are refugees fleeing legimate persecution in their home country (and, I will deal with this situation later in this post) - with the strict admonishment that the next apprehension will result in immediate imprisonment, at hard labor, of a minimum of five years - without benefit of pardon or parole -and, upon release, the illegal would again be immediately deported. Upon the second, and any succeding, apprehension(s), there would be no hearing, no negotiations, no appeals! Seem harsh?? Maybe so - but, remember, by entering the country in violation of our immigration laws, the illegal has already admitted his guilt; why waste taxpayer monies and court time?.

For the refugee fleeing their own country out of fear of persecution - and, I can understand that some circumstance (although only in extremely rare cases) might occur forcing this person to enter this country illegally - they would be given a hearing within sixty days and must prove, beyond doubt, an absolute for the basis of their fear. If that case is proven satisfactorily, the illegal will be given a visa but be required to obtain citizenship within five years. Should the persecution not be proven, then the person would be considered an illegal and subject to the above solution.

Next, should the illegal require medical care, it should be given only if the condition is immediately life-threatening. If the lack of medical care would result in the short-term loss of the illegal's life, then, of course, we should do everything humanly possible to save that person's life!! But, once the person's health is stabalized and they are no longer in danger, they become nothing more than the illegal that they are and subject treatment I described above!

If a pregnant female enters the country illegals and the birth is due immediately (within say a couple of weeks), yes she should be given the proper hospital care for the birth and the baby should receive the poper post-netal care. But, once the mother and child are stabilized, both are then immediately deported under the terms outlined above! And, further, the child should not be awarded automatic citizenship simply because it was born, illegally, on American soil!!

As a further proposal, illegals now living in this country should not be entitled to ANY taxpayer funded assistance - welfare, education, housing, etc. -, driving priviledges, working priviledges, and so on. The only thing an illegal should expect in the form of assistance is medical care to prevent immediate life-threatening circumstances (as pointed out above).

In other words, people, the solution to the immigration problem is to make the illegal's possible risks greater than the possible benefit. The only way to effectively control illegal immigration is to, not only, take away the incentive enter the country illegally but, also, provide an incentive to NOT attempt to enter illegally.

Now, I know that you are sitting there thinking (even if you agree with what I am saying): Well, if there were no jobs available, then the incentive for coming to this country would be greatly reduced. And, you are exactly right!! So, I would propose that employers' who knowingly employ illegals should be vigoursly pursued and prosecuted -- and, should an employer be found guilty, they should pay massive fines, serve (at minimum) three years imprisoment, and lose their license to do business. Now, don't get me wrong - I do not believe that illegal enforcement should lie solely with the employer, but, if the above proposals (no drivers' licenses, no social cards, no legimate ID would be available to illegals) were enacted and enforced, then the employers would face little burden in documenting the immigrant as "legal"; and it would also ease law enforcement in nailing the illegal employer.

I hope I have gotten you to thinking about the larger issue of illegal immigration and not just the short-sided (and largely ineffective) "solution" of simply sealing the borders. Additionally, I hope I have shown that the Democrats are only mouthing the usual 'feel good' platitudes that they are so famous for uttering. When it comes to illegal immigration, only a comphresive, exclusive plan will solve this problem.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

The "Entitlement Mentality" exposed

If no other lesson is learned from the devastation of Hurrincane Katrina, the lesson of the 'entitlement mentality' should be the greatest. It is my opinion that the greatest cause of the devastation was not the hurricane itself but the refusal of the citizens of New Orleans to take care of themselves and of the refusal of both the New Orleans and Louisiana officials to take care of their citizens - as they were elected to do!

The Louisiana state and New Orleans city 'leaders' simply sat back and waited for the federal government to take care of them. Knowing well in advance that New Orleans would probably be hit by the hurricane - and remember, up to a few hours before making landfall, all predictions and models showed that New Orleans would take a direct hit - and knowing well in advance the devastating effects that such a hurricane would cause, these officials did absolutely nothing to help it's citizens. They knew that a sizable portion of their populace would be unable to leave the city through their own means, yet they did nothing to help these people. Although they had vehicles available, they refused to use them. They provided no food or water for a shelter that they were advising people to go to. And, they provided no security for people once they got there - and it is a known fact that New Orleans is one of the most violent and criminal cities in the nation. No, these officials simply sat back and waited for someone to "take of the situation" for them.

Contrast Louisiana and New Orleans' actions with that of the states and cities of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. These areas were as hard hit as New Orleans yet they suffered very few of the problems experienced by New Orleans. Why?? Because the governors and mayors of these areas took control of the situation on their own and in a timely manner. They did not rely on other agencies to do what they were elected to do for themselves!

And, the "entitlement mentality" is even worse at the individual level.

When warned days in advance that NOLA would likely be hit directly by Katrina, what did the 'poor' do? They sat back and waited for the government to take care of them. Not only did they not try to get out of the hurricane's path, they did not even move to the shelters until the flooding began! And, at least according to all the information I have seen, they did not try to gather any supplies such as food or water. No, once the flooding began, they just starting trooping to the Superdome trusting that the government would 'taking care' of them by having emergency supplies at the shelter.

Much has been said - and politicized - about these 'poor people' being unable to leave the city due to their poverty, most had no transportation available and/or no money to pay for transportation. But, I would ask, whose fault is this? Yours? Mine? No, the fault lies in the "entitlement mentality"!

And, you have to look deep to understand the causes leading up to this situation.

We are constantly being told by the experts that the most effective way out of poverty is education. Every citizen of America is guaranteed by law the opportunity of a high-school education. Yet, look at the drop-out rate of young people:(from the National Center for Education Statistics, 2001 [latest stats available])
"In October 2001, some 3.8 million 16- through 24-year-olds were not enrolled in a high school program and had not completed high school (status dropouts). These individuals accounted for 10.7 percent of the 35.2 million 16- through 24-year-olds in the United States in 2001"
"The status dropout rate of Whites remains lower than that of Blacks, but over the past 30 years the difference between the rates of Whites and Blacks has narrowed. However, this narrowing of the gap occurred during the 1980s; since 1990, the gap between Whites and Blacks has remained fairly constant."

So, here we have kids dropping out of school and thereby condemning themselves to poverty. The "entitlement mentality" has led these people to rely on the government to take care of them rather than get the education that even the left acknowledges will lift them out of poverty. In other words, rather than get an education and then use that education, along with work experience, these people just sit back and wait for the government.

Yet, the left continues to push for greater entitlements and attempts to get you to ignore the outcomes that result. And, their reasoning is really quite simple - they want you dependent on the government! That is how, as with all totalitarian governments, they enslave and control you!!

So, every time you hear the left demand greater involvement by the government into your life, through (supposedly) caring and beneficial proposals, just keep Hurricane Katrina in mind and the tragic results of relying on the government!

I will get into other consequences resulting from the "entitlement mentality" in future post.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

It's all about appearance

The Democrats are in a quandry over the nomination of Judge Roberts to be the next Supreme Court Chief Justice.

First, they know that they can't stop the confirmation of Judge Roberts! Although they have tried their best to smear the man, he has outsmarted them at every turn. They have tried to set him up in various questions, but he would not rise to the bait.

But, on the other hand, the Democrats have to figure a way to satisfy their various special interest groups - I almost said their 'base'; but the Democrats have no 'base', only various special interest group that will bolt at the slightest perception of the party not kowtowing to their interest.

So, what are they to do??

It is my opinion that they are not discussing among themselves whether the man should be approved or not; whethere he is qualified or not; whether he is too much of an activitist. No, they are discussing how many votes they should or should not give him! Rather than making their decision based on what is best for the country, - their real duty after all - they are deciding how to vote based on political gain! They know that they have to confirm him, the problem for them is how many Democratic votes to give him in the confirmation. Too many votes and their special interest group begin howling and protesting - too few and they appear (and for the Democrats, appearance is everything!) to be strictly partisian and divisive. So, rather than concentrate on trying to confirm or deny an appointment to one of the most important positions in the goverment based on the qualifications of the man to hold that position, they are worried about how the number of votes cast in favor or opposition will reflect on them! They are more concerned with the "message" they are sending rather than the effect their vote will have on the welfare of the country. I would have much more respect for Democratic Senators who vote against Judge Roberts if they actually thought he would not be the right man for the spot - although I would think such a vote to be wrong - than to cast a vote simply to attempt a political gain or to "send a message"!

So, of course, we know that there will be enough votes from the Democratic Party to make it appear that they are non-partisian, but just how many votes remains the question. And, whatever count they come up with - they are merely setting the stage for the NEXT nominee!

With the Roberts nomination, the balance does not change - so he is a "safe" confirmation for the Democrats. The next nominee will be the pivot! And, it does not matter who the nominee is to be! They will fight that person tooth and nail. They will come out with the most vicious attacks they come up with. Any Republican nominee will be vilified, crucified, and attacked on the most personal level!

Monday, August 29, 2005

Cindy Sheehan and the GSMP

Cindy Sheehan, Celeste Zappala, and the other members of the "Gold Star Mothers for Peace" are the ones that are guilty of murder. And, they are being aided and abetted by the major media.

Murder?? How can these mothers possibly be accused of murder?, you may ask.
My answer will be as logical as these mothers' answers when they are asked why they call Pres. Bush a murderer. The mothers' response to the question is, in so many words, that he sent their sons to an illegal war causing their deaths. But, let's take another look at the situation.

Keep in mind that our military is all-volunteer, there is no draft. Simply put, these brave men asked to be in the military - whether active-duty, reserve, or national guard. All these men and women knew that, by joining, they would be subject to combat should the situation ever arise. Granted, many who joined, especially the reserves and/or NG, probably assumed that they would never have to serve in combat - but, again, they were aware of that risk.

But, more importantly, a substantial number of these men and women have enlisted or, more importantly (as was Casey's case), re-enlisted since the start of the war! These were adult men and women who knew fully what they were signing up for and they knew that the prospect of going into a combat situation was very probable. Yet, they volunteered anyway!! Such was the case of Casey Sheehan.

"Casey Sheehan enlisted in the Army in 2000 at age 20. The country was at peace. When he was asked to re-enlist four years later, he knew that he would probably be sent to Iraq. He re-enlisted anyway."

When you read the various articles about Spc. Sheehan - along with the other dead and wounded heros - the one, overriding statement made by and about them seems to be that they volunteered out of a 'Love of their country'. The next most common reason given by the military men and women themselves is a firm belief in the need for the War and the good that is being done by themselves and their fellow heros. The overwhelming majority of the military personnel believe that - by fighting in Iraq - they are defending their families, as well as yours and mine, at home. They believe that they are serving with honor in a just cause.

Can you imagine how Casey Sheehan would feel if he knew that his own mother was making a mockery of his life and his beliefs? How do think Casey would feel to hear his own mother say that he sacrificed life "for nothing" or "for oil"? I can think of no lower and no more despicable way of eugolizing the death of your own child!

But, how did Casey come to believe in the principles and values that he held? Most of us begin forming our systems of value and principles from our parents. Our parents attempt to instill in us a value system that they believe is the best way to live our lives. As we grow into adulthood, intelligent people begin to research these values (even though they may not know it at the time) and, in the end, decide how much of these values they want to apply to their own lives. But, more often than not, people's values and principles pretty much coincide with the value system of their parents.

With this point in mind, we now come to the mothers' responsibility in the "murders" of these brave young men and women, and the mothers' responsibility in the "needless" sacrifice of their children.

Isn't it logical that the values and principles held by Casey, and eventually led to his heroic death, were instilled - in a large part - by his parents (including his mother)? And, isn't it also logical that Casey evaluated and accepted those values based upon his own intelligent reasoning? So obviously, at least according to Cindy, Casey was so stupid that he could not think for himself!

And so, isn't it also logical that, by teaching Casey these values and principles, that his own mother "murdered" her son and "sacrificed" his life for "nothing"? Had Casey's mother instilled in him the "values and principles" she now espouses, would Casey not be alive today as he would now have joined the military in the first place?

I say that if Casey's death (along with deaths of the other men and women) is indeed a "murder", the "murderer" is not the President - it is the parents themselves!

What a way to "honor" the death of your child - by saying that HE was willing to sacrifice his for "nothing" and that HE was too stupid to know that! To "honor" the death of your child because he was WILLING to die so the oil companise could become richer! To "honor" your child because HE was willing to give up the most precious gift we have because HE believe that HE was doing the right thing!

Cindy, how can you sleep at night knowing YOU raised such a despicable human being - one that selfishly puts his own life on the line for his beliefs and our safety? How do live with yourself knowing that YOU raised a man that understood the greater good and had the audacity to die in order that YOU can so "honor" his death.

My pity to you Cindy in the loss of your brave son. More is my pity to your son and the rest of his family who have to listen to you "honor" him!

May my loved ones never so "honor" me!!