Saturday, January 31, 2009
27 years ago the economy was just as bad as it is today. That is the relevnat message. This is not the "worst econmy since the Great Depression (although our reaction to what might have been a normal recessson may make it so. Is that not what the mainstream media is reporting? If the economy was this bad 27 years ago, it is hardly a new situation. Whta is new is our reaction to it:: the maintstram media reaction, the political reaction, and the reaction fo the newly minted fascists/Communists on Wall Street.
In 1982 the country was still in our hangover from the disastrous Carter years (where intterst rates reached toward 20%m and inflation toward 15%, at the same time--the combination being Reagan's "misery index"). Howefver, in 1982, Ronald Reagan was President. There was no talk of socialism. There was no talk that we "had" to have the Federal Government spend our way out of our economic troubles--inevitably making them worse. There was no talk by Reagan (such a greater President than either Bush 41 or Bush 43 that the mere thought of the comparison depresses me as to how far the Repubican Party has sunk). Reagan did not go on television and say that we had to betray our free market principles in order to save the free market (as President Bush 43 did, to his eternal shame). President Reagain did not panic the country, as the combination of the media, Democrats, Wall Street, and the Bush Administration has done this time).
What Reagan did was stick to his philosophy of tax relief and limited government (to the extent Democrats in Congress would let him). Reagan put into effect his simple tax structure of two tax rates (three, if you include zero): 18% and 28%. There was no move to socialism. There was no panic. Reagan did not abandon his principles. He merely tolad people, in a way they believed (in contrast to the "modern" Republican Party) that his (Reagan's) vision was the right vision.
The result was about the greatest 20 year period any nation has ever experienced on in the history of humanity on this Earth. Yes, this includes the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, but with the aid of the second conservative revolution--led by Newt Gingrich--which resulted in Republican control of the House on a conservative agenda). That is why it is absolutely stupid to say that it is "mean spirited' to want Obama "to fail" in enacting his socialist policy (yes, I am saying that CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, and the rest are STUPID: Mark Haynes, that means YOU). Clinton extended the golden years iniated by Reagan exactly because he "failed" to move us toward socialism. Unfortunately, President Bush 43 did not so fail. And now Demcrats, led by Obama, are ready to take us the whole way to disaster.
Yes, Reagan resissted the temptation that ruined President Bush. His reward was to iniate the best 20 years in the history of not only this country but--as stated above--almost any country in the hisotry of the world. Our "punishment" for ignoring the lesson of Reagan is going to be dire. I have my doubts that we can survive it.
There was no "stimulus package" under Reagan. For Reagan, the tax cut was stimulus enough, along with trust in the power of the free market to recover and trust in his phiosophy that limited government was best--trusting to the American people to bounce back, as they did, if they were allowed to keep more of their own money (with less incentive to avoid paying taxes--as Reagan knew that, within reason, lower taxes meant MORE Federal tax revenue in the end).
Instead of Reagan, we are now getting socialism. We are now getting the Obama message that only the Federal Government can "bail us out" (although only the favored get bailed out, and not small businesses like that of my brother). The faxicsts/Communists on Wall Street are now running the country, along with the Obama socialists (that unholy alliance of the financial/big business community and authoritarian central planners that is fascism). We now have developed the idea that the Federal Government has to prevent recessions, as well as protect everyone (except the disfavored) int he country from economic pain.
Yes. We are now in the Age of Obama, and not the Age of Reagan. That is the true VOICE OF DOOM. This is going to doom us. The only question is whether we are too far down this road, even now, to recover. I am not optimistic. But then I am a cynical pessimist, even while recognizing that is not the most healthy kind of person to be.
I would feel better if I saw a conservative leader out there ready to return us to the golden days of the Age of Reagan. Michael Steele (new Republican chairman) is a decent start, but I have no illusions aobut Steele. He is not goiingo to be the conservative leader to again sell conservatism to the American people, although he can be a solid lieutenant to prepare the policial ground for that leader. Nor is Rush Limbaugh capable of being the political leader to do so, although he is doing his best (which is pretty darn good) to prepare the ground for that conservative political leader of the future. But is the "modern" Republican Party capable of producing, or supporting, a "new Reagan"? I will stop here, since we are back to my cynical pessimism again.
Friday, January 30, 2009
No, I do not think he is an Obam style Messiah to lead conservatives the the Promised Land. He is not even a person with a spotless conservative record. He comes from MARYLAND, for God's sake. But I applaud the choice of Steele for this position. He speaks well. He is smart. He is, of course, black. That, however, is the least of his qualificatiosn.
As I have said, conservatives desperately need a leader to lead a conservative coup taking over the Repubican Party, and leading it into the next Presidential election (and even the 2010 election and the struggle against Obama socialism). I don't think Steele is really that leader (could always be wrong here). As a solid lieutenant to that hoped for leader, Steele can still start the recovery of the Repubican Party and and set the stage for the return of conservatives from our present exile into the political Wilderness.
Republicans have disappointed me before. I hope Steele does not continue the tradition. I still like the choice, and have never changed my opinion that he is an impressive man. I just hope he realizes the Repubican Party needs to recruit conservative candidates willing and able to go out and SELL conservatism (instead of constantly being on the defesnive, and acting like they prefer to trash Rush Limabugh--for media approval--more than they like to criticize leftist Democrats like Obama).
Little did my brother know that he would be proved right so literally (see below for explantion of a "ire in my cave"). Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Obama had hiked up the themostat in the oval office to maybe the 80 degree level--enabling him to wear "shirt sleeves". One of the Obama "gurus" (maybe Axelrod) said (basically): "What can you expect? He comes from Hawaii (Chicago anyone?). He likes it warm."
Now let me be clear here. I like it warm too. That is why I live in El Paso. I don't care if Obama turns his thermostat way up. But my brother is right. Obama and Gore supposedly care. Last year (I think in Gernmany, as Obama was declaring himself a "citizen of the world"--hence this blog's nickname for Obama), Obama went through the anti-American, leftist, "global warming" litany of American "sins" (you know, like having the thermostat at 72 degrees--when Obama personally sets it higher than that). Yes, Obama mentioned the very example of the thermostat, as he ended with the usual, "phantom" statistic that America has 3% of the world's people, but uses 25% of the world's energy. To the extent true, of course, this merely means that the U.S.--before the Age of Obama--has been a successful country. "Global warming" people want to turn this into an unsuccessful country.
"I want fire in my cave" is my brother's shorthand description of the hypocrisy of Ice Age politician "Al Gorice". As Gorice was regularly featured in the world's first known newspaper: The Ice Age Times (published in the time of the when Neanderthal Man and the ancestors of modern man were facing the need to adapt to a WARMING wolrd). Like the real Al Gore, Al Gorice kept roaring fires in his own cave (even to the extent of having to vent smoke into adjoining caves, resultig in smoke inhalation to many). However, Al Gorice was mainly known for his campaign to elminate reduce the use of fire to "preserve the pristine, Ice Age way of life" (quote fromt he exclusive archeological translations made available by the archaeological team to this blog). There is a new scientific theory that Al Gorice caused the extinction of Neandertahl Man by selling them on the idea of preserving the Ice Age way of life, while modern man adapted to the warming world. It is a well established scientific theory that Neanderthal Man failed to adapt to changing conditions, including the warming Earth, which explains his extinction. This new theory on Al Gorice is only an extension of the well estabished, accepted scientifc theory
Yes, there is some suspicion that Al Gore is a modern descendant of Al Gorice. More reasonable people believe that the archaeological team is haiving a little fun with the translations of the Ice Age Times articles, and that "Al Gorice" is merely a convenient name for the Ice Age politician. But Al Gorice is clearly the "philiosophical", nypocritical, "inellectual" descendant of Al Gorice--as is Barack "World" Obama (it being a matter of conjecture, by the way, whether Al Gorice was "black").
My brother lives in Tennessee (Nashville). He is very familiar with Al Gore, and with energy bills in Tennessee. My brother has a fairly large house (for now, until Obama does him in). My brother could not believe the energy bills for the mansions of Al Gore. According to my brother, the man had to have the equivalent of "roaring fires" going to run up those kinds of electric bills.
Yes, that is what my brother means by: "I want fire in MY cave." He means that Al Gore does what he wants. And all of these big businesses, banks, and Wall Dtreet people are being bailed out. Meanwhile, my brother's small (but with 200 employees) trucking company is left out in the cold. "I want fire in MY cave" was my broth'er's plaintive cry of pain that he was willing to convert to socialism/Obamaism, if only my brother could be bailed out too (although my brother realizes his would be disaster for the country, but so are the monster bailouts for the prsent groups/businesses favored by the Obama central planners--and Bush central planners).
Now my brother has been totally vindicated. He not only can point to the example of Al Gore (and Al Gorice), but he can point to Obama. "I want fire in MY cave" fits Obama and Gore like a glove ("if it fits, you must convict"). So my brother's business may be doomed, in this Age of Obama, unless my brother can pull it out somehow with his own efforts. However, my brother has the satisfaction (which, wiht $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks) of being totally vindicated.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Today's news is that the number of murders in Jurarez for this yer are already well above 200. This morning's news we woke up to in El Paso (the smae kind of news we wake up to almost every day in El Paso) is that the number of murders in Jurarez this January is triple the carnage of the previous, bloody Jaunuary. People are now being murdered in Jurarez at an "annual rate" of more than 2000 people. Yes, Jurarez is now officially a more dangerous city than Bagdad--surely one of the most dangerous cities, if not the most dangerous city, in the world.
And it is not just the drug war. News earlier this week was that some 58 women were murdered (officially) last year in Jurarez, even apart from the drug violence. For many years, the unsolved murders of women in Jurarez have been notorious, as hundreds of bodies of young women have been found in burial "dumping grounds". Mothers marched early this year in Jurarez because of this ongoing violence against women.
Nope. Mexico is a fialed country. We must stop the failure from spreading. Mexico is promoting illegal immigration (as are politicians in El Paso), for the very purpose of exporting their problems to our country (in the hope of taking the pressure off of Mexico).
No, I am not saying that El Paso politicians WANT us to experience Mexico's problems, but that is the effect of what they are promoting. You doubt me? Don't.
The El Paso City Council actually passed a "bill" propposing "discussions" (I think with Mexico, although it is not worth my time to examine this level of idiocy in detail) of LEGALIZING DRUGS as a desperate measure to reduce the drug cartel violence in Mexico. I could not make this stuff up. The mayor vetoed the City Council, and--miracle of miracles--his veto was upheld. This saved El Paso from natioinal mockery. The measure, as finally passed, just containted standard "open borders" pablum.
Do you see most o fthis is the national news? Nope. If El Paso had called for drug legalizatioin, the national "coverage" would only have been the leftist ikind of how "enlightened" it is to talk about legalizing drugs--especially since Americans are corrupting Mexico by supporint the illegal drug trade--by providing a market for the illegal drugs. IT IS ALL OUR FAULT THAT MEXICO IS A FAILID COUNATRY (This is how leftists think, and how the mainstream media leftists report things).
P.S. I am perfectly aware that some libertarians, and even William F. Buckley Jr. (virtual founder of modern conservatism), like the idea of legalizing drugs as a matter of FREEDOM. Need I tell you that leftists do not beliefve in "freedom", except the "freedom" to do what leftists want to do? Legalizing drugs would not help Mexico. I don't think it would help this country either. How hypocritical is it to talk about legalizing cocaine while the FDA can prohibit a person from obtaining a suopposed "cure" for cancer, even if the person wans to take the risk of being defrauded (likely)? Leftists want regulation of every aspect of your life EXCEPT recreatioinal drugs and sex. William Buckley Jr. was not that kind of hypocrite. However, I think he was wrong on this. I consider myself a "libertarian conservative". But I dont think we can afford to legalize all recreational drugs. It is a matter of protecting society, and our children (not of protecting people from themselves---leftist style).
Yes, the aobve is the present large headline on Drudge (you gotta love Drudge). Yes, we continue to ENCOURAGE illegal immigration (especially the "open borders" people (leftist Democrats and establishment Republicans)
P.S. It is not just Republicans reporting that the $500/$1000 dollar tax payments prooposed in the Democrat "stimulus" bill will go to illegal immigrants as well as American workers (it was always known that these payments would be essentially welfare payements--made to people who pay no taxes as well as those--few?--who still pay taxes and support the rest). The New York Tiimes is reporting this monrning the very same thing: Thatt the "tax credit" (welfare payment) will go to illeal immigrants under the House "stimulus" bill.
But Kim Komando showed me something in her 'radio minute" today. She showed herself to think like a conservative, at least in part, which means she actually thinks rationally (not joining the leftist religion that the government can do everything for you).
Nope. I don't know Kim Komando's politics. She may disappoint me in her overall political philosophy. She is, after all, a woman. But Ronald Reagan could not have said it better today. I know that you can say that about some of the things Obama says (such as yesterday's snow job with big business CEO's, where Obama did a Reagan imitation), but you know Obama does not mean it. Kim Komando clearly meant it.
Yes, Obama is planning to have the Federal Government spend 6 billion dollars to "bring faster internet to every American home". Komando noted that the internet camae about mainly without government help, and--not coincidentally--without substantial government interference. Yet, the Communication Workers of America (a union, which probably has a lot to do with the Democrat "concern" that every American have access to fast internet--which, by the way, you can get at most libraries) is proposing that the Federal Government spend 25 billion dollars to bring fast fiber optics to every American home.
Kim Komando reasonably asked: Do we really need the government to do this? Why? Do peple have a "right' to "fast internet", as well as to abortion (the Supreme Court, by the way, did NOT say that there was a "right" to have an abortioin, although leftists act like that is the case)? That is absurd, and yet that is the ilmplicit message behind the idea that the Federal Government needs to make sure that every house, and every family, not only has an up-to-date computer, but access to the fastest internet possible.
As someone who just, finally, gave up "dial up" for DSL (it being an understatement to say that I am not "modern"), I can personally attest that fast internet is NOT one of the "necissities of life".
Kim Komando, I salute you. You are one intelligent woman (on the evidence available to me, anyway). That probably means you are unfit for the Age of Obama.
P.S. Note that my poor brother is again out in the cold, along with most other small business people not favored by the leftist central plannners in charge or by unions. You will remember that my brother is the co-owner of a trucking company which needs 2 million dollars (a mere 2 million) to survive. In fact, 25 billion dollars (the number the Communications Workers of America wants to spend on fiber optics--taxpayer money) is the figure previously used as the number needed by the automakers. I ran the numbers, and calculated 25,000 small businesses like that of my brother could be "saved" with 25 billion dollars, with the saving/creation of 5 million jobs. See archives of this blog. Yet, in that Age of Obama, trucking is clearly not as "important" as fast internet. You don't really need the foold truckers bring you!!! Take the advice of Marie Antoinette: EAT CAKE. As previously noted in this blog, my brother is willing to be BOUGHT. At this point, he is willing to turn socialist if only he was made part of the bailout (even though he recognizes it will be disaster for the country in the end). My brother has the nerve to actually resent HIS tax money (he makes slightly above $150,000, so long as his company stays in business employing some 200 people), and therefore is one of the leftist targets to be taxed) being used for the Communications Workers of America and for Planned Parenthood. As this blog has noted, that is the inevitable result of central planning: The Federal Government chooses the winners and losers. So my brother is willing to become a revolutionary (wanting every single present political officeholder to be thrown out of office or overthrown). However, I am ashamed to say that my brother has--again--admitted in this blog that he can be BRIBED to be a socialist. If the governement will bail him out, he is ready to join the crowd. Unfortunately, that is exactly what leftist Democrats are relying upon (not to mention establishment, Big Government Republicans like Paulson and Bush). They are relying up people to look to the Federal Government fo "save" them, and ultimately to provide them with everything they want in life. Already, more than half the country depends on the Federal Government (not even including state and local government) in one way or another. The present mantra of leftist Democrats, the mainstream media, and establishment Repubicans is: ; PEOPLE CAN BE BRIBED. Establshishment Republicans are just noe very good at it, which is why the Republican Party is DEAD. The present evidence is that leftist Democrats are right: PEOPLE CAN BE BRIBED. That is why I admire Kim Komand. It takes some courage to stand against the current tide. Would she leave her husband and marry me? Probably not. No other woman on EArth has proved to be that stupid, except my ex-wife--who soon learned her mistake. As I said, Kim Komando, unfortunately, seems to be an intelligent woman. I need a DUMB one. Oh weill, I still salute Kim Komando for her clear thinking.
Republicans and this Blog: House Republican "Stimulus" Vote Proves This Blog Superior (in thought) To Limbaugh
WHY did I tell you that I could not vote for John McCain? WHY did I tell you a McCain defeat would be better for conservatives, the Republilcan Party, and possibly the country? Nope. It is not because I said McCain was worse than Obama. In fact, I told you that, in isolaton, McCain was better than Obama.
Problem: We are in the real world, where Presidents do not act in isolation. Every single Republican in the House has just voted aginst the Democrat pork (including sex pork--see previous entry) bill--otherwise known as the "stimulus package--in the House. Say John McCain were President. Would the "stimulus" bill have been any better if John McCain were President? Nope. Not a chance. That is proved by the Bush stimulus bill Republicans supported last spring, AND the bailout bill that McCain supported this falll--McCain supporting the ridiculous Senate "pork" version with even funding for ACORN. In fact, that is probably what cost McCain the Presidency, or at least guaranteed his defeat. If you remember, that is when this blog abandoned McCain for good. Limbaugh, meanwhile, continued to support McCain, even though it was clearly the WRONG thing for conservatives to do. Limbaugh doesn't like to lose (and has a radio show, and a certain "establishment" he is unwilling to abandon, even though he is--to his credit--willing to take on the Republican "establishment").
Would every Republican in the House (good luck on those losers in the Senate!) have opposed a McCain "stimulus package". Of course not. You only have to look at President Bush's last term, and even some aspects of his first term, to see that. Thus, as with President Bush, the "stimulus package" (and the country's coninued push to the left) would have been a REPUBLICAN bill. Conservatives would not have been able to blmae leftist Democrats, because a REPUBICAN President would have done it. That would have been the worst of all possible worlds. That is what I told you in the election campaign, when Rush Limbaugh could not bring himself to tell you that. I have already been proven right, as conservative talk radio is talking about a "new" REpublican "backbone".
Hogwash. Yes, I said "hogwash". It is easy for Republicans to oppose Democrats, especially if they know the legistlation will pass anyway (thus meaing that Republicans can't be blamed for stopping the legislation). That is what happened when Newt Gingrich took on Billl Clinton. Republicans fought Clinton at the Democrats at every turn, and succeeded in producing eight years that were better than ever could have been produced under a Repubican President.
Problem: Peopl'e memory is not quite that short, unless it ist he mainstream "journalistic" "memory" we are talking about whenever the past would embarrass a leftist Demcrat. Republicans did get in power. They blew it. They acted just like Democrats. Unlike Gingrich, they now look like partisan opportunists rather than people of principle (something I would not say of Rush Limbaugh, who has been more consistent in this philosophy, despite my quibbles, than almost anyone else of political prominence). Therefore, what Republicans are doing now simply looks like partisan opportunism, rather than principle.
You know what? What Repubicans are doing now IS partisan opportunism. Until they start showing some real principle, and real recognition of where the Republcan Party went wrong, no one is going to pay any attention to what Republicans say. Oh,, Republicans have the advantage that at least Obama and the leftist Democrats are on the hook for the RESULT. That is why Repubicans are suddenly taking this partisan stance, even though they know the public is not really with them (as they know they have forfeited most public goodwill). The public will turn against Obama if his socialist policies fail, and they are bound to fail (certainly in part, in thata it is impossible for central planners to make everyone happy--see recent entries about my small busniness owner brother). As memory of Republican perfidy fades somewhat, the new perfidies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will come to the fore. It is inevitable.
There is no doubt. The new Republican "backbone" is good partisan politics. Just don't ask me to forget that it is NOT the "backbone" of principle, but the "backbone" of partisan expedience. It is exactly what this blog predicted when I said that the defeat of John McCain would be good for conservatives, Republicans, and maybe the country.
"Wait a second,", you say. Whatever the reason, should you not be cheering on this new "backbone", just like conserative talk radio. Even if they have shown themselves to be people without principle, do not Repubicans need to be positively reinforced when they act in the interest of conservatives and the country? Yes and no.
Yes, it does not help matters much for me to continue to bash Republicans, even as they start to stand up for what I believe in. No, it does not help, in the long run, to give Repubicans the idea that their previous perfidy is easitly forgiven and forgotten. That would merely mean that they revert to type at the first opportunity.
Never doubt me. You only have to look at this week's entry on Politico.com, and the bashing of RUSH LIMBAUGH by supposed "conservatives" in the House. Even though I see more clearly than anyone that the "flap" was egged on by the lying leftists at Politico.com, the fact remains that Repubicans are willing to bash conservatives like Limbaugh more aggressively than they are willing to take on Obama and the Democrats. A leopard des not really chnage its spots, and the Republican "establishment" still has no spine. Political opportunism does not prove you have a spne. Rush Limbaugh stood against these Repubican turncoats when they were betraying conservatives. For them to be willing to trash Limbaugh, in what they think is their own interest, merely shows that the leopard has not changed its spots.
Yes, I welcome the Republican unity against the pork/"stimulus" package in the House. However, I predicted it, in foresight and during the election. Republicans are going to have to do better than this to have me again consider myself a Republican.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Sex Pork, House Democrats, and My Poor Brother (Left Out of the Democrat Pork Bill While "Free Sex" Is IN in the Age of Obama)
The above quote is from the story currently on Drudge, where you can read the entire story. Drudge, you will recall, broke the story earlier this week, with an enormous hedline under a picture of "Total Faiolure" Pelosi looking like a witch, of Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi trying to put $155,000,000 for "family planning" into the economic stimulus (translation: democrat champion pork bill of all time) bill. The publicity and absurdity (along with the obvious promotion intended fro Planned Parenthood and te abortion industry of death), caused Obama to suggest to "Total Failure" Pelosi that she "bakc off". See previous two entries earlier this week in this blog.
However, Democrats have evidently not given up on sex pork. Make no mistake about it. This is all about the leftist idea that one of the main goals of public policy is to make sure that sex has no consequences--not to make sure people are healthy. You only have to look at the 1950's and early 1960's (when I went to high school and girls generally didn't--either have sex in high school or get pregnant in high school. As the statitistics conclusively show, this is the healthy live style. IN fact, as this blog has conclusively shown time after time, SEX (outside of marriage) IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH> The next pandemic will most likely be a sexually transmitted disease, as was the last arguable pandemic (AIDS). Yet, the leftist approach to this problem is not to bring back the healthy sex habits of the 1950's and early 1960's, but to encurage sex "experimentation", while selling the idea of condoms, etc. As I have said in this blog with regard to Dr. Dean Edell and other leftists, their attitude toward sex and sexually transmitted diseases means that they HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. With AIDS alone, the failure to treat the disease as a "real" disease, for fear of stigmatizing gay sex, killed hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people worldwide. Yep. I am saying I blame the leftist attitude toward sexually transmitted diseases for the death of a whole lot of people, and not just because of AIDS. That is in addtion to the ruined lives caused by both early sex and pregnancy, in addition to the millions of abortion deaths. It is actually an understatement to say that leftists "have blood on their hands".
Nope. The "Playboy Philosophy" has this backwards. Their argument is that "conservatives" want people to be "punished" for sex with a sexaul transmitted disease or a baby. Obama bought into this leftist/Planned Parenthood religious creed when he said that he saw no reason for his daughers to be "punished" with a baby if they "made a mistake", despite their upbringing.
It is really the opposit. IN the Playboy/leftist Philosophy, sex is almost the ultimate good, and anythign that discourages "sexual freedom" is bad. Conservatives do don want to see people "punished" for ssex. Conservatives simply see clearly what the healthy lifestyle is, and think that "education" should tell people what it is. A campaign about how promiscuous sex is hazardous to your health, on the order of the campaign against smoking, would save more lives than any of the proposed "sex education" of leftists. Conservatives are aslo not blinded by the leftist attitude that sexual satisfaction is the ultimate good, such that conservatives buy the slogans of the left. It is not that conservatives believe theat people should be punished for sex. We simply believe that abortion is the killing of a human being, and that people are responsible for their actions. This means that we should not excuse killing in the name of "free sex" and "women's lib". Nor should ew ignore the most effective measures against sexually transmitted diseases simply because leftist prefer the diseases to taking effective action against them.
Yes, conservatives know that the "education" envisioned by the House Democrats is going to be leftist indoctrinatioin in the leftist idea of sex and human relations, from kindergarten on up. This is "central planning" with a leftist vengeance, as leftists try to remake the entire country in their image on all social and economic issues.
However, believe it or not, the above is not even the real point of this entry. I have called this "sex pork", because that is what it is. The entire bill is a "pork" bill, and this is just another example. Does leftist "education" on sexually transmitted diseases have anything to do with the economy? Of course not!!!!! This is pork, pure and simple, and Americans should realize that is what is coming with this "stimulius" bill--much more pork than stimulus. It is one large collection of "earmarks", as Obama dishonestly suggests that he is "eliminating" earmarks. If you put your pork in large spending bills like this, where no one can know everything that is in the bill--much less effectively complain about most individual items--you don't need earmarks.
That brings me again to that brother of mine, who is co-owner of the struggling trucking company that needs about 2 million dollars in capital and/or loans to be reasonably sure of not going under. In my previous entry on Planned Parenthood, I noted that the Democrat central planners were putting my brother's company behind Planned Parenthood for bailout--Democrts obviously believeing that small business is much less important to the economy of this country than Planned Parenthood.
Now my brother has to face another, bitter pill. Democrats obviously believe it is more important to the economy to "educate" about sexually transmitted diseases (probably increasing such diseases the way leftists want to do it), than it is to save small businesses like that of my brother. Again, adding insult to injury, my brother has to see HIS taxes used by the central planners to address a problem (sexually transmitted diseases) that he needs "education" on (and, unless my brother is doing things I don't know about, a problem that my brother does not "fear".
I have told my brother that he is a "total loser" in the Age of Obama. By that, I do not mean to criticize him. I mean to criticize the AGe of Obama, where the huge Federal Government is going to deterine the winners and losers. Small businesses, like that of my brother, are generally the losers. Wall STreet, Big Business, Planned Parehtnhood, the various "industries" dealing with "sexual freedom" and its consequnces, etc. are the winnters. The biggest winners, of course, remain the central planners themselves, as Big Government ("Big Brother") takes over our lives and controls the employment of more and more people.
California Leftist Leaders Crucify the State on a Cross of "Glbal Warmnig", as Leftists Plan To Do the Same for the Whole Country
The above is an email I got today. I would tell you from whom, but mention of his name has been banned from the blog for disrespect tot he blog and its author (as I experiment with the leftist attitude toward free speech). You will note how this email ties in with the privios entry. Yes, Obama and his fellow leftists fully intend to crucity our economy on a cross of "global warming".
We now come to my brother who co-owns the trucking company. If California is allowed to impose further restrictions on trucks operating in the state, my brother's co-owner has a simple solution (with which my brother concurs. My brother's company will simply pull out of California (which will prbably be the reaction of a lot of trucking companies). Thus, the insane leftists in California are ruining their state economy even faster than they are ruining the natinal economy. There may soon be no trucks in the state to even haul their food., No problem. Let them eat cake (to quote the perhaps unfarily falighned Marie Antoinette).
The above is the present main AOL weather headline (headline on linked story). Drudge carried a story earlier this week about how Al Gore was expected to testify before John Kerry's Foreign Rlation's Committee (so help me, I would swear that is what it said) about "global warming" (at least in part (high priest saving the world, you know--it being more and more clear that "global warming" is a religion, and a bad one at that), However, there were indications that the appearance might be scrapped because of that very strom referred to above (latest of seeveral this fall and vinter). The late Michael Cricton has already shown conclusively (see charts in his eco-thriller, "State of Fear") that there never has been any consistent warming TREND in the Untied States, where temperatures have gone up and down since 1880 with no consistent, discernible trend.
This is the very reason that the high priests of "global warming", and the mainstream media, have tried to chanage the term to "climate change". "Climate change" is, of course, one of the stupidest political (not even a real pretense of relating to the "science") terms ever invented for political purposes (joining "pro-choice" and "sexual orientation" as politically inspired terms with an ridiculous objective meaning). It has always been the goal of the "global warming" religion to cast aside its moorings in "warming", because the religion was always about politics and not scinece. In case the world stopped "warming", as it has, the leftist socialists behind the "global warming" religion wanted to be able to still call it "heresy" to oppose the idea of a man-made "glboal warming" crisis. It does not matter to them that the climate is always changing. They want to blame all "climate change", and all "severe weather", on......what? MAN (the idea being to enact socialistic/central planning policies based on the ida such are necessary to "save" the planet).
Problem: The theory of "global warming" is based totally on the warming effect of "greenhouse gases (a theory which itself igonored that the Earth--alternating Ice Ages and tropical periods--is perfectly capable of "warming" on its own). This also ignored the cooling frp, 1940 to 1970 (see Crichton's book again, where the charts and bibliography are real). Still, there was at least some substantial evidence that the Earth was warming between 1970 (or so) and 1998--perhaps enogh evidence to suggest an hypotesis (not really a "theory"--in scientific terms) that greenhouse gases were helping the world to warm more than it otherwise would (ture, by the way, of radios, televisions, computers, and all other energy producing devices, including the human boday and all other living things on this planet--one of the Laws of Thermodynamics being that the production of energy always produces heat as a byproduct; but the effect is samll in comparison with the energy produced by the sun).
Thyus, in leaving the "warming" behind, "global waraming" priests have left the scince behind. Yes, the Drudge story contained the assertion by many "envrionmentalists" that this wint'er's "wild winter spells" (translation: COLD spells) are actually caused by man-made "pollution". Unfortunately for these leftist priests, once you abandon the "warming", you have no evidence for man-made climate change. The only evidence that ever existed was the warming. Once you do not have that, you do not have a theory--at least not a scientific theory. You have mere speculatiion and assertion for polical purposes (which "'global warming" always was, in any event, but at least with a scientific veneer). Yes, the theory of "global wrming" has abandoned all moorings in science. It is now openly a religion.
You doubt me? Surely you have learned by now. What is the ultimate test of a scientific theory? It is NOT whether the theory explans the past. It is whether the theory accurately predicts the future. Once "global warming" priests start saying that any kind of "cliimate change" supports their "theory", they have abandoned science. A scientifc "theory" that predicts "everything" (that is, that can explain anything after it happens) is totally worthless. If a scientific theory cannot be TESTED by prediction of future results, it is not really a scientific theory at all. Taht is one of theknocks against String Theory (theory that the building blocks of the entire universe are very tiny, vibrating "strings"). There seems to be no way of really testing the theory/hypothesis. "Global warming" is actually far worse than String Theory, because we do not know enough about atmospheric physics to mathematically "explain" exactly how greenhouse hases are affecting the (mythical) "temperature" of the Earth. "Global warming" is entirely a theory produced from computer models making assumptions about the magnitude of the "greenhouse" effect--partially based on observational "warming". Once the models fail to predict correctly--as they have, and once the warming stops, there is no real theory. You are totally into the realm of speculation and religion.
Yes, this winter's weather is weather. But so is essentially all of the "evidence" for "global warming". The melting of sea ice in summer in the arctice? WEATHER. "Global Warming" theory is based totally on an infintesimal (geologically speaking) sample of weather/climate from 1970 to 1998, where the "theory" proved totally unable to predict the "climate" of the Earth, or any portion of the Earth, year to year (or for the decade from 19998 to 2009). Without consistent warming of the Earth (and really of almost all porthings of the Earth as large as the U.S.--where no warming trend is evident since 1880), the "theory" of "global warming" falls completely apart. Since 1998, there has been no such consistent warming of the Earth, and we seem to be entering a COOLING phase (with some scientists even suggesting a possible new Ice Age!).
"Global warming" is a fraud. "Climate change" is a deliberate falsehood--as leftist leave the "sicence" totally behind. Any real theory of the climate of the Earth has to at least be able to predict the climate fairly accurately from year to year. "Glboal warming" ehtory has never even pretended to be able to do that, or even to predict the next decade accurately (it did not in 1998). The attempt to "save" the "bloal warming" religion with the term, "climate change", is simply a transparent deception--designed to use leftist dominance of the mainstream media--"the end justifies the means" philsophy of Communism--to sell everyone a bill of goods.
Therefore, even as Al Gore plannned to testify in an ice/snow storm, the media/establishment positioin is the Biden positiion (which should embarrass everyone on this side): " 'Global warming' is a fact। Accept it. Yo have to trust us on this. Our policies are necessary to "save" the planet, and you dhould not allow anyone to confuse you with the actual facts, or the ordinary tests of a "scientific" theory."
If you buy this perversion of real science (a skeptical process, rather than revealed orthodoxy), then you are either a leftist or have a malfunctioning brain (redundancy there).
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Rush Limbaugh vs. Republican Leadership (Fight Stopped as Leaderhsip Outclassed): Filtered Trhough Liars at Politico.com
The Politico headline (what did I just tell you about them?) is: Republican Leadership Tells Limbuah to Back Off". The story itself does not quite back up this headline, which I have to regard as a Politico.com LIE. However, a House Republican "leader" (identified by Politco.com as a leading "conservative", which is about the only time a person will be identfied favorably as a "conservative" on Politico.com or anywhere in the mainstreamm media: when the person is attacking another conservative. Yes, I gurantee you that this Politico.com story is meant as an attack on Limaugh and conservative talk radion--with the incidental benefit of stirring up trouble for Congressional Republicans with people like me). However, there is little doubt that the Republican establishment is unhappy with Limabaugh and conservative talk radio, and with people like me. The feeling is mutual, and LImbaugh was accurately expressing that feeling, and has been, in his attacks on the Republican "leadership" (or lack of same) in Congress.
Let me make another declarative sentence: I was rooting for Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate leader) to LOSE on election night, as I was rooting for almost every Republican Senator to LOSE on election night. Rush Limbaugh and I agree: We are no longer Republicans. However, Rush Limbaugh is actually more tolerant of the Republican Party establishment/"leadership" than I am. I aabaondoned the Republican Party before Limbaugh, and more strongly. I refused to support McCain, and I have been (accurately) disparagin Republicans in the Senate for YEARS. Limbaugh is actually late to this party. You will remember that McConnell tamely helped push through the first Paulson bailout the way the DEMOCRATS wanted it, with funding for ACORN. The man is a loser. I would not have voted for him if I lived in Kentucky.
Limbaugh is only expressing the frustrations of the conservatives out here in the country (including almost all of my brothers, including the one who owns the trucking company that no one is proposing to bail out, while Republicans support bailouts of all of these other people). Nope. I will tell you something that is as close to an absolute fact as things get in politics: If the Republican establishment, and Repubilcan "leaders" (whether called "conservative" or not), prefer to tell Rush Limbaugh to "back off" more than they prefer to tell Barack "World" Obama and Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi to "back off", as was the case with John McCain and seems to be the case with virtually all Republican "leaders", then the Repubican Party is surely dead.
Yes, this means this blog is proven right again. I have pronounced the Repubican Party, as we know it, as DEAD. That is D E A D. It now requires a conservative coup, or a complete new party (uhlikely as lthat is) to lead the conservative banner.
I agree totally with Rush Limbaugh: You can't rely on the present Repubican leadership to lead conservatives. They have proven they are unfit for that job. So my message to them, as well as to the liars at Politico.com, is to BACK OFF. Your days are numbered, and your future is dark if all you can think of to do is trash Rush Limbaugh (emulating Barack "World" Obama, whose first Presidental interview was with ARAB media).
The above is from an article now linked on Drudge. Yep. "Total Failure" Pelosi is too stupid even for Obama to stomach. This is hardly a matter of principle with Obama, since he has already authorized taxpayer money to be paid to worldwide organizations promoting abotion. It is, whoever, recognition that "Total Failure" Pelosi's attempt to "earmark" Planned Parenthood as a part of the "stimulus" bill was beyond stupid. See yesterday's entry, about how Pelosi tried to suggest that "family planning" was "good for the economy".
My brother should feel a little--only a little--better. His business is still not favored by the new central planners, as is true of most small businesses. In fact, small businesses are disfavored, since their owners (like my brother) still get the privilege of seeing the taxes they pay go to benefit OTHER businesses. Howvever, my brother can at least be comforted that "family planning" (Planned Parenthood) is not YET deemed more worthy of bailout than he is. Stay tuned. In the Age of Obama, Planned Parenthood is one of the designated winners.
Now I am calling Kudlow a fascist? And I am adding Doug Stephan? Have I gone round the bend? Nope. I merely see reality. As this blog has stated before, the "ar right" (allthough the "far right" is not a logical extension of modern, Reagan conservatism at all) and "far left" merge at the extremes. There is little differece between Hitler and Stalin--between National Socialism (note the "socialism") and Communism. The reason I have decided Kudlow more belogns under the "fascisst" label (even though this is again hyperbole, in the sense I am not equating Kudlow with Hitler) is that "fascism" really envisoned a partnership between government and big business to create a totalitarian system. That seems to me to be exactly the principle Kudlow is now advocating.
There is a book out (named in a prior blog entry, although the name escapes me as this is being typed) which describes the rise of fascims (not Hitlerism, but the fascism of Mussolini, Franco, and the "intellectuals" behind the movement). The book draws the startling parallels between the path down which we are heading today and that former movement toward fascism (and Communism). Michael Crichton, in his critique--in the appendix to "State of Fear"--of the (political) "science" of "global warming", describes the "eugenic" movement that would lead to Gitler's "Final Solution", although that "Final Solution" was never publicly part of the doctrine of fascism. Planned Parehtnood is a natural descendant of that "eugenics" move described by Crichton, and in this new book. In short, fascism was not just another word for Hitler. It was a philosophy of total central planning, even down to reproduction and eugenics, that is not far from where Larry Kudlow and Doug Stephan now stand (although I don't pretend to know what they think of eugenics, other than their kind of thinking easily leads in that direction, if it were not so "politically incorrect" these days).
That brings me to Doug Stephan. As I have said before, my problem is that my alarm is set to the station (Rush Limbaugh station) that carries the Doug Stephan radio program, and I tend to wak up to that program (big mistake--it is not worth listening to). Doug Stephan is a John McCain, Northeast kind of Republican, which means he is a total idiot. You know that because he considers Uri Geller an "expert" on the "mind". Part of my "You Are a Kook If:" series: You are a kook if you believe that Uri Geller has special mental powers, or special expertise in the mind. Uri Geller is the fraud (Amazing Randi basically proved it) who clamie (falsely) to be able to bend keys with his mind. I digress (sort of).
I woke up to Doug Stepnan today, as the alarm wen off (I HAVE to do something about that). Therefore, I got to hear him say that (besides totuing Uri Geller yet again):
"If we let the (free market) system alone, businesses and people would fail. It will be really bad (as I said, the John McCain, Kudlow, Republican establishment, central planning position). But if the government steps in and keeps businesses and people from failing, it may not be bad at all."
Notice how we are back to Kudlow fascism/Communism--a central planning partnership between government and big business to contrl all of our lives, and to pick the winners and losers (under Hitler, the Jews were some of the losers).
See my entries over the past two days, describing my brother. Contrary to what Doug Stephan says, the government is NOT proposing to "save" all businesses and all people. Rather, the government is proposing to "save" big business and Wall Street, as it forms that unholly, central planning partnership between Big Government and Big Business. If you are favored by the new central planners, you may get a destructive kind of help (Obama is killing GM off even at the time he is purporting to save it). If you are part of the disfavored, such a my brother and every small business in this country, you are on your own--worse than on your own since you have to pay for the baoilout of the favored people, and for the salaries of the central planners themselves.
Nope. I stand by it. Larry Kudlow and Doug Stephan are fundamentally economic fascists. In the end, both fascism and Communism do not work. They create worse problems than they solve. In fact, central planning not only does not work; it cannot work. There is no theoretical way for it to work (except by luck and chance, over a limited period of time).
Those who disregard the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. To call Larry Kudlow and Doug Stephan "doomed" is to be too kind to them. It is no accident that Kudlow was one of those "conservatives" invited to have that infamous dinner with Obama (no one considering Dough Stephan important enogh to have dinner with anyone important). The problem is that the new fascists, like Obama, Kudlow and Stephan, are going to doom the rest of us--not just themselves.
Monday, January 26, 2009
I thought Planned Parenthood was already federally funded. How do they need a bailout?" My brother is, of course, corrrect. Planned Parenthood, even as it promises to use donor funds to abort minorities (taped phone conversations), already receives substantial Federal funds, along with state, local, United Way, and private foundation funds. Plus, leftist BILLIONAIRES swear by Planned Parehnthood. Cannot Planned Parehthodd get adequate funding from those sanctiomonious, homicidal hypocrites? Could not Obama's internet fund raising empire raise more than enought money for Planned Parenthood, without asking taxpayers to participate in funding what they regard (correctly) as an organization which promotes infanticide. Planned Parenthood is one of those groups that suppors unrestricted abortion up to the moment of birth. You can just feel the pain in my brother, as he realizes just how low on the present central planning list of priorities he is, except as a target (evil, carbon burning trucking comopany). Bill Clinton could "feel his pain". I doubt if Obama even notices, since he is too busy being the Messiah for his worshippers. What my brother fails to understand, of course, is that central planners, and central planning favorites, always want MORE. Oliver (in "Oliver Twist" and the movie) was a pker in comparison. Citigroup, AIG, Bank "Owned By" America, GM, Wall Street and PLANNED PARENTHOOD: They all want MORE. And they will continue to want more. The one rule of central planning is that when some amount of money and central planning does not do what it was supposed to do, the answer is always more central planning--more power for the central planners and more money for their favorites.