How to Tell a Conservative from a Progressive

I had an interesting discussion with my college-age grandson last night. It centered mainly on the 2 different ideologies in our country, how they differ, and is there any reconciliation. I asked him to explain to me his understanding of the difference between Conservatism and Progressivism.

His answer ran along the lines that Conservatives don't want change, preferring the status-quo or what worked in the past; while Progressives are for change, the change needed to fix what is wrong.

He was correct in explaining the definition of the terms according to Webster, but he did not understand the differences in their ideologies. Here is how I see the differences.

Conservatives believe:

1. The Individual is the backbone of society,
2. In the power and goodness of the Individual; that left to themselves, the Individual will try to better themselves and society,
3. That Individuals are best able to choose their destiny, what is best, and can collectively govern themselves successfully,
4. That Individuals should be rewarded for their productivity and value to the society.
5. That there are eternal truths and laws that never change, that obedience to these truths will always bring the same results.

Progressives believe:

1. The  Individual only exists to strengthen and promote the good of the Society,
2. That Individuals can not be trusted to choose what is right; that left to themselves, the Individual will lie, cheat, and steal from others and the Society,
3. That Society must monitor and regulate the Individual to prevent abuses, (corporations are now Individuals, as well,)
4. That Society should reward all individuals equally, regardless of their productivity or value to society.
5. That all truth is relative and changeable; that situations, circumstances, and desires dictate what is truth.

Using these definitions, we can see that Conservatives are generally found in:

1. The Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian and Independent political parties,
2. Countries where democracy exists, such as; The United States, Switzerland, Germany and maybe England, France, Spain and Italy.

While Progressives are generally found in:

1. The Democrat, Socialist and Communist political parties,
2. Socialist, Communist and other totalitarian governments, such as; Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, The Taliban, etc.

So, taking these things into consideration, we can see that it is fairly difficult to form any compromises with such extreme positions. 

1. Either the Individual is the backbone of society or they are the fodder that feeds society.
2. Individuals have innate goodness and can be trusted or they can never be trusted. If they can only be trusted some of the time, who decides when they can be trusted and when they can't?
3. If we have bee-watchers watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the . . . who will be left for the bee-watchers to watch?
4. If you reward everyone equally, regardless of their value or performance, won't the productive individuals loose their ambition to succeed and how can we ever motivate the under-productive to pull their own weight?
5. Without definable, unchanging truths, how can faith be established in laws or governments?

We also find Progressives slandering the Conservatives, labeling them as; greedy, selfish, stingy, and hoarders, while they applaud their idealistic goals of equal distribution of wealth, health and happiness. The Progressive motto, "the greatest good for the greatest number" sounds very great and good, but what about "the smallest group that is sacrificed for the good of the largest group"? Do they have a voice in the matter?

All people have an obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves, but Conservatives believe that is a choice for the Individual to make, not a mandate from the Government who will take what they think is needed to invest in a cause whether the Individual supports the cause or not.

Wait, who are "they"? In a Progressive Society, who governs, who decides, who controls the money and the people? 

Those who instigated the system. Individuals. 

But Progressives don't believe that Individuals can be trusted to make the right choices and it looks like they may be right. There has never been a Progressive/Socialistic/Communistic/Totalitarian government where the leaders have not stolen, conscripted, taxed, or taken everything they possibly can from the Society. Russia, China, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Columbia, England, France or the United States of America, the story is all the same. Take as much as you can as fast as you can.

Every deposed dictator left office with hundreds of millions of dollars in their personal bank accounts. Who was the King of Graft?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization had been given billions of dollars to help them establish a homeland in the Middle East. When Yassar Arafat, the leader of the PLO, died, it was discovered that he had over $2 BILLION US DOLLARS socked away in Swiss bank accounts. His posterity is still fighting with the PLO over who has the rights to the money.

Leaders in our own country enter the Congress or other government service with modest incomes and retire as multi-millionaires, with millions more accumulated as they dance around the speaking circuits. Hillary Clinton stated that when she and her husband left the White House, they were so deep in debt they were paupers, but 14 years later, they have a net worth of over $80 MILLION dollars. Bill Clinton even received $500,000 for a speech he never gave.

Well, these are all just facts. You, the reader will need to determine whether our country will be better off with the Progressive path or the Conservative course. 

Choose wisely or someone else will choose it for you.

Photos courtesy: http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/12/saturday-funnies-137/

Maleficent, A Story of Redemption

"I want my villains to remain villains, I can't have them change and become good." So stated my 17 year old granddaughter as we drove to see Disney's "Maleficent" a few weeks ago. "It just really bothers me," she moaned.

I understood her point, having your images of right and wrong change, so that the icon of wrong is now right or what was right is now wrong, can be disconcerting, but I explained to her that I couldn't agree with her. Last night we took some other grandchildren to the show, and I still feel the same way, "Maleficent" is a wonderful story of redemption.

Maleficent, emotionally destroyed by the one she loved most, became so blinded by anger, she cursed an innocent child as retaliation against her father. But after 16 years of bathing in the unconditional love of the child she despised, Maleficent's heart softened. She felt compassion, repentance and ultimately true, unselfish love for Aurora.

As the Cold War wound down in the 1980's, I heard some critics say, "Who will the United States hate now?" I was wounded at the implication that we had to have an enemy, that people had to have a common foe to galvanize against. Why, I asked, couldn't we have common ambitions that were positive, edifying and uplifting? But it seems that is not the case.

The natural man loves to be superior. In order to be superior, someone else needs to be inferior. We create social orders, caste systems and pecking orders so that someone else is always less than us. Then to maintain the status quo, we teach the less capable they can never change, they can never rise above their station, for as long as they remain in their place, we maintain our place.

I once heard that there is a little bit of good in the worst of us and a little bit of bad in the best of us. 

The ultimate goal of our loving Heavenly Father is for all of us to return to live with him in happiness and joy. He even gave his Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our mistakes and transgressions so we could ultimately overcome mortality.

No one is beyond the power of redemption.

• Not the jilted fairy who in anger evokes a curse she later regrets.
• Not the psychotic abuser who became so twisted that joy was found in the pain of others.
• Not the abused child who uses drugs or alcohol to dull the pain and finds themselves a homeless addict.
• Not the prostitute, drug dealer, rapist, liar, or thief.
• Not the greedy, the proud, the arrogant, or malicious.

The path back is different for each, just as the path to their situation was different. If Lucifer, the Devil himself, had a change of heart and truly wanted to repent of his transgressions, our Father and his Beloved Son would gladly embrace him and help him return.

Christ taught  the Nephites, "Nevertheless, ye shall not cast [others] out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent."  

Rather than cementing our icons of good and evil on the people we meet, we should always be willing to extend the hand of faith and friendship to everyone, regardless of how far they have strayed; for we "know not but what they will return and repent," and then "how great shall be [our] joy with them in the kingdom of [our] Father".

James Carney, Propaganda in the Living Room

Washington Mom Magazine did a piece this month on  Claire Shipman, the wife of James Carney, Presidents Obama's Press Secretary. Claire is an amazing woman; a wife, mother of 2 children, a home maker, and a contributor to ABC News. I applaud her for being able to keep all the balls in the air and still be happy and beautiful.

There was one rather odd thing that emerged from the photo of Claire and her two children in their home. On the wall behind them are two posters. You don't have to look too hard to see that they are Soviet-Era propaganda posters.

The posters are rather innocuous. The one on the right shows a Soviet Soldier asking the question, "Have you enlisted in the Army?"

The one on the left  states, "Women! Learn production, replace workers who went to the front! The stronger the hinterland - the stronger the front!" 

The translation and photos are courtesy of Hunter Walker in his article in Business Insider

The thing that baffles me is "Why would the Face of the White House and President of the United States have these posters in their home?" Granted, both James Carney and Claire Shipman worked in Moscow in the early nineties representing different new services. I know lots of people with souvenirs from places they have worked and lived, but jee-whiz?

I just can't see Vladimir Putin 

with this poster in his den.

 Nor would I expect this photo neatly framed in all the Planned Parenthood Offices across the country.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Photos from:
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/is-a-fetus-a-person/
http://www.washingtonian.com/mom/features/balancing-act/
http://doingitdt.areavoices.com/2011/04/08/fargo-more-heart-than-water/uncle-sam-wants-you/

Benghazi Lies - Terrorists, Treachery, and Treason

There has been too much hoopla and mis-representation about how President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice lied to the American people about the real cause for the attack in Benghazi. Rices's talking points, and new emails, that twisted the narrative of what happened that night of September 11, 2012, are for everyone, except Jim Carney, the Presidents Press Secretary, acknowledged as lies, mis-directing responsibility of the attacks onto an aspiring, political film maker. We supposed that the lies were to protect President Obama and his administration from a negative image of his foreign policy as he entered the home stretch in his bid for re-election against Mitt Romney, 2 months later in November.

Now it has come to light, with the release of a report from the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi, that there were many more lies that were much more serious that letting 4 Americans die at the hands of terrorists. Here is the link to the complete report.

Just in case you can't remember that well, here is a photo of Ambassador Christopher Stevens after he was killed, courtesy of an Al Qaeda terrorist and the internet. He and Glen Doherty were trapped in the Embassy the night of the attack. Doherty was killed in the compound and Stevens was found wounded in a Libyan hospital, but was killed and drug out into the street by the terrorists. (More photos from the night of the attack)

Here are photos of the 4 Americans who were killed that night. Woods and Smith left the comfort of a CIA safe house to go to the Embassy a mile away, but the attack there was over. They went back to the safe house to protect the other Americans hiding there, but it was attacked a few hours later and in the ensuing 4 hour battle, Woods and Smith were also killed.

The most terrible tragedy that occurred is that multiple mistakes were made that could have saved the lives of all 4 of these people, regardless of the reason for the attack.

• The Embassy security staff was reduced by Hillary Clinton's State Department office, from 16 to 4 people a few weeks before the attack.
• Woods and Smith wanted to leave the safe house immediately upon hearing of the attack at the Embassy, but were told to wait. They might have saved Stevens and Doherty
• Lt. Col. Gibson and his Special Forces Team heard of the attack on the Embassy and were on their way to board a C-130 cargo plane from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to the second attack on the safe house when he received a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, "You can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now." And so they did not go.
• Hillary Clinton and Military Commanders said there were no available resources (planes) to send in time. President Obama could have boarded a commercial flight and been there, from Washington DC, in 14 hours. They could have scrambled jets from Andrews Air Force Base and been there before the second battle started, (F-22 Raptor, 5221 miles/1220 mph cruising speed = 4 hours 30 minutes). But we also had scores of jets within 30-60 minutes; in Italy, Turkey, Germany, Spain, England, all armed and ready to fight.
• F-16 fighters were available and according to the Commission's report, “Even if they were not armed, even if they were not loaded with munitions, simply flying a jet like that low and fast on afterburner over a scene like this, has, in the past, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, had the salutary effect of absolutely scattering the attackers, who are taken by surprise and frightened out of their wits,”

In an article, What Assets Could US Military Use Against Syria Chemical Sites, by Michael Lipin, he discusses the positioning of US Bases and ships at the time of the Benghazi attack. This map was generated to show the US Military Assets available in the fall of 2012, capable of striking Syria. That little bump of land, below the back end of the destroyer, the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, in the Mediterranean, (15) is Benghazi. 

To quote Mr. Lipin, "Two U.S. navy battle groups capable of firing those missiles are on duty in the region."
"The USS Iwo Jima amphibious assault group is at sea as part of the U.S. 6th Fleet, whose area of responsibility includes the Mediterranean. Pike said that is where the group spends most of its time.The USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier group is on duty specifically in the Mediterranean. Pike said the two battle groups likely have about 500 Tomahawk cruise missiles between them." 
"The USS Eisenhower also has the ability to launch warplanes into Syria. Additional U.S. warplanes could be sent into Syria from a variety of air bases that United States shares with allies in Europe and the Gulf." (Bold text added)

Half of these planes would have flown past Benghazi on their way to Syria.

 The biggest mistake of all, was when the Libyan Rebellion began months before and we started to bomb the day lights out of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi offered to step down with only 2 conditions. 

1. Assurances that Libya would not fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda 
2. Legal protection for himself and his family

That was all he wanted. But we said, "No."

We then continued to provide support for the Libyan Rebels, by helping to broker a deal for guns to be purchased from Eastern Europe with a loan from the United Arab Emirates for about $1 billion. The guns were sent to Libya and the Transitional National Council, (the revolutionary government) which was staffed by the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Qaeda supporters) and enforced by Al-Qaeda operatives. As the guns were sent into the country, NATO had such a tight blockade, that nothing went in or out without NATO (and US) approval. This meant, the United States was knowingly helping to supply guns and ammunition to Al-Qaeda, the same organization who declared war on us on September 11, 2011 and over 3000 of our young men and women had given their lives fighting to destroy for the past 11 years.

(It should also be noted that during this time, the uprising in Syria was gaining momentum and many of the weapons purchased were also shipped on to Syria to aid the Al-Qaeda-backed rebels.)

The US Constitution states in Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consists only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid or Comfort." Anyone who condoned, allowed, or ordered this gun transaction to occur is guilty of treason.

Then to move from ridiculous to incredulous, the TNC decided to sell half of the guns and munitions to Qaddafi supporters for $500 million. That's right, they sold guns to the very people they were fighting. Since they had the backing of NATO, the TNC was sure they could not lose; so this transaction allowed them to raise cash, prolong the war and liquidate more of their opponents before a new government was installed.

To summarize:

• Qaddafi offered to step down shortly after the Libyan Rebellion began which was months before the Benghazi attack.
• Tens of thousands of lives and damage would have been spared if the President Obama had agreed, but he said, "No."
• The Transitional National Council was staffed by the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Qaeda supporters) and enforced by Al-Qaeda operatives.
• The rebellion and overthrow of Qaddafi were the goal of Al-Qaeda, supporting the ouster was supporting the agenda of Al-Qaeda.
• The US had brokered a deal for arms to be purchased and shipped to Libya to support the rebel fighters, knowing who they really were.
• The US and NATO allowed the guns and ammunition to pass through the blockade into the hands of the rebels.
• Providing aid to Al-Qaeda is treason.
• The rebels turned around and sold half the guns and ammunition to their enemies, Qaddafi supporters, raising cash and prolonging the war.
• The State Department, under the direction of Hillary Clinton, intentionally reduced the number of security personal at the Benghazi Embassy from 16 to 4, even though the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks were just a few weeks away.
• When the attack occurred, no one was mobilized to provide any aid or extraction for the Americans at the Embassy.
• Stevens and Doherty were completely abandoned by the United States Government.
• At least 2 different independent rescue missions were started, but told to "wait". The order to "stand down" was never given, but "wait" produces the same result.
• There WERE assets available to have evacuated the CIA safe house and possibly have saved the lives of Stevens and Doherty.
• Who abandoned our people, allowing them to be butchered and the debauchery published on the Internet?

Anyone who refuses to support investigations that get to the bottom of who was responsible so those people can be appropriately punished, is complicit or an accessory after the fact, in these horrible acts.

Bibliography:

Media Hits and Misses Covering Benghazi Press Conference

Committee Finds Major Problems with Benghazi

Declaration of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi

Did the U.S. help arm the Benghazi attackers?

How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror

Surreal: White House denies memo was about Benghazi attack

Report that CIA in Benghazi Told to Stand Down, Shot Down by Report that They Were Told to Stand Down

Benghazi Alert: Syrian Sideshow Hides New FOIA Report Obama White House Let Them Die

What Assets Could US Military Use Against Syrian Chemical Sites?

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi Releases Interim Report

All photos are from the afore-mentioned articles.

PC Police - Another Notch in Their Gun

The Politically Correct (PC) Police have struck again.

Last month it was Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich who was fired because he contributed $1,000 to support California's Proposition 8 which restricted marriage to just a man and a woman.

Mozilla has a detailed non-discrimination policy and some people in the company feel that Eich's action violates that policy, so much so that he should be disqualified from running Mozilla.

Now to put this into perspective, we must consider the following facts.

• Brendan Eich started with Netscape/Mozilla in the early days of the Internet in 1995
• Eich is the creator of Javascript scripting language, that is still used to day by billions of web pages
• The contribution of $1,000 to support Proposition 8 happened in 2008, 6 years ago
• Barack Obama was also an avid supporter of Prop 8 back in 2008
• The story came to light in 2012 with a little bit of flak on Twitter
• He was promoted to CEO in March, 2014; resigned under pressure in April, 2014
• Eich helped create and successfully lead Mozilla in various capacities without any complaints for 18 years

The uproar that was created by the vehemently hateful persecutors of hate speech, produced an environment inside Mozilla where Eich stated that "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." Therefore, after enduring all the wrong actions of politically correct zealots, Brendan Eich, a man who had done nothing wrong, nothing illegal or unethical, had to step down as CEO to protect the company he created and loved.

Now, the PC police struck again after Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, was recorded ranting on the phone to his girl friend that he didn't want her to be seen in public with blacks and she was to never bring any blacks to a Clippers Basketball game. In retaliation, the NBA has banned Sterling from attending any Clippers or NBA games, practices, business meeting, etc., AND they fined him $2.5 million dollars.

I need to be clear that Mr. Sterling has a long history of employee abuse, racists actions and inflammatory litigation, (See Ben Shapiro's article). He is not a nice man and I would never work for him nor invite him to my home for a barbecue. I do not condone his attitudes nor his actions. But as repugnant as he is (See Ann Coulter's article), Donald Sterling, like Brendan Eich, is still an American with the right of Freedom of Speech. He has the right to his own attitude and opinion, especially if others find it repulsive.

To put this into perspective, this is the same as if Warren Buffet had a fight on the phone with his wife forbidding her to associate with any lying, cheating, manipulating stock broker; then he was told by the Federal Exchange Commission that; he would be banned from buying stocks, bonds or Treasury notes, he could never attend a board meeting of any of his companies, and he had pay a $2.5 million dollar fine that would be given to organizations combating domestic violence.

Or, if Bill Gates had a fight with this wife in their bedroom where he prohibited her from ever using any browser other than Internet Explorer and then the Association of Internet Providers banned him for life from ever using the Internet, forced him to sell off Internet Explorer and fined him $2.5 million dollars.

It appears as though fornication, adultery, tax evasion, public lying of officials, and treasonous acts of elected officials are all condoned activities in the United States of America, but having racial views opposing the self-appointed PC police; requires confiscation of personal property, banning from public events, and destruction of your career. At this rate, it will not be long before the media and social pressure are the judge and jury of the future.

Donald Sterling has proven by his actions that he is racist, insensitive, greedy, and a first class jerk, but none of those things are illegal. As I understand the situation, he has broken no laws or violated any contracts in this matter. It was a private phone conversation with a close associate and he probably didn't know he was being recorded, which in California is illegal.

If the NBA wants to exercise authority over the Los Angeles Clippers and get rid of Donald Sterling, they need to choose reasons that are based on violations of law, agreements, or legal contracts; not emotional voodoo and hysterical hyperboles. The only way to beat a bigot is for everyone to stop associating with him until he chooses to change his actions. His players can quit and the fans can stop attending games, but the NBA has no bite behind their bark.

I will not be surprised to see Sterling fight this action and win.


Photos are from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/04/27/clippers-owner-donald-sterling-racist-recording-comment-girlfriend-audio/

Income Gender Inequity; Discrimination or Deception?

Victimization is on the rise. Calls of discrimination, racism, inequity, and persecution ring through the halls of Congress and reverberate across the country. Anyone who is misrepresented, opposed, or accused, now cheerfully claims that hate-spewing bigots are innocently attacking and maligning them. What a twisted day we live in.

While this problem is rampant in nearly every walk of life, I will only address one issue today, Income Gender Inequality.

Thomas Sowell published an interesting article in GOPUSA on this topic entitled, "Statistical Fraud". 

He sites the oft quoted statistic that women only receive 77% of the pay men receive for the same job. The point he makes is that the figure is skewed and unreliable because there are too many variables that have to be factored in to make the statistic reliable.

"It would certainly be discrimination if women were doing the same work as men, for the same number of hours, with the same amount of training and experience, as well as other things being the same, But study after study, over the past several decades, has shown repeatedly that those things are not the same. . ."

"Even where relevant statistics are available, careful judgment is required to pick samples of women and men who are truly comparable."

I am not so blind as to not admit that there are many instances where bigoted, chauvinistic males exert discriminatory control, pay less, denigrate and heap other forms of abuse over their women employees.  This behavior is not discrimination, but greed, contempt or sadism. There are also other examples where greedy, contemptuous, sadistic women exert the same type of control over males in the market place.

Mr Sowell expounds how difficult comparisons are to make and how the realities of life, along with our life choices, affect our incomes and career status much more than discrimination.

"For example, some women are mothers and some men are fathers. But does the fact that they are both parents make them comparable in the labor market? Actually the biggest disparity in incomes is between fathers and mothers. Nor is there anything mysterious about this, when you stop and think about it."

"How surprising is it that women with children do not earn as much as women who do not have children? If you don't think children take up a mother's time, you just haven't raised any children."

"How surprising is it that men with children earn more than men without children, just the opposite of the situation with women? Is it surprising that a man who has more mouths to feed is more likely to work longer hours? Or take on harder or more dangerous jobs, in order to earn more money?"

"More than 90 percent of the people who are killed on the job are men. There is no point pretending that there are no differences between what women do and what men do in the workplace, or that these differences don't affect income."

The real kicker is in his concluding paragraph, (remember, follow the money).

"If the 77 percent statistic was for real, employers would be paying 30 percent more than they had to, every time they hired a man to do a job that a woman could do just as well. Would employers be such fools with their own money? If you think employers don't care about paying 30 percent more than they have to, just go ask your boss for a 30 percent raise!"

So, again, as with Obamacare, Immigration, or Fast and Furious, etc., the President and his Party are trying to use manipulated statistics, lathered with disingenuous outrage, to fool the American People into accepting victimization and teach them to rely on the Federal Government to fix a national problem that doesn't exist.

Image from http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/03/31/payday-a-comparison-of-three-popular-payroll-systems/

The Key to Winning Elections; Money or Policy?

http://www.recallscottwalker.com/

The decisive re-election of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin during a recent re-call, highlighted a tragic flaw in the current election philosophy.  The Democrats continually harped that the reason they lost was they were out-spent by the Republicans, 7-1.  The national Presidential election has also resounded with this same concern; that the party who spends the most will be the party who wins the most.  Now, fundraising has become the primary occupation of electoral candidates.

Back in 2005, I wrote an article entitled, "Not Loud Enough or The Wrong Message", where Democrats were complaining they were losing elections because they were not able to clearly articulate their message.  I still believe today, as then, 

"The problem with the Democratic platform has nothing to do with clarity, definition or volume, it has everything to do with substance and character."

In Wisconsin, Governor Walker determined that several government employee unions were placing an undue burden on the State with their benefit packages; packages that included benefits the typical Wisconsin resident never saw and couldn't afford.  It was clear that eliminating or requiring the union members to pay for these premium perks themselves, would save millions of dollars and balance State budgets.  Walker was right, by cutting these freebies, the State was able to balance the budget.  

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/
how-much-respect-did-demonstrators-show.html

The union members were naturally upset.  They demonstrated, left their debris and hatred littering the State Capital, and finally petitioned for a re-call election to oust Walker.  But, in spite of their efforts, the Governor won re-election, not because of the money spent by either side, but because the majority of the people in Wisconsin didn't want to pay for the benefits of government union members.

The Presidential race is also showing signs of policy vs. the pocketbook.  In another article, "Obama Barely Beats Nobody" we saw how 2 different primary candidates who spent literally nothing on advertising, garnered 40% of the vote from Obama and in Tennessee, where Obama ran unopposed, he only won 60% of the vote.

Finally, a parting quote from "Not Loud Enough or The Wrong Message",

"Whether we like smaller or larger government, involvement in international affairs or prefer isolationism, most people want security in their homes, their jobs and in their community. The electrate has learned that policies change, storms arise and the world moves on. Because of this, they will always lean toward leaders they feel have character, integrity and the charisma to lead in a crisis regardless of the party."

Obama Barely Beats Nobody

President Obama has thrown his campaign to full swing, pulling out all the stops to regain the Presidency and it is a good thing he did.

On May 9, in West Virginia, he won a stiff primary battle against Keith Judd.  Obama took home 60% of the vote while Judd only held on to 40%.  Judd is a convicted felon serving time in a Texas Penitentiary.

Undeterred, 2 weeks later, President Obama beat John Wolfe in Arkansas by the same margin, 60% to 40%.  Wolfe is a Tennessee attorney who never ran an ad or made a speech in Arkansas at all.

And the same day in Tennessee, President Obama also won 60% to 40% over, . . . let's see who was it?  It was, it was . . ., a . . . Nobody.  That's right, with absolutely no opponents, Obama was only able to garner about 60% of the Democratic vote.

So, the man that Larry Flynt, owner and publisher of Hustler Magazine, gushed over and said , "President Obama as over-performed . . . he's done a marvelous job," can barely eek out a victory with his own party, even when there is no opposition.

Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin do much better than that.

There you have it, President Barack Obama, the only sitting United States President who barely beat nobody.

Photo from:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/frustrated-obama-sends-nation-rambling-75000word-e,18516/

The Gingrich Who Can't Handle Money

Poor Newt.
The old guy from the establishment, who thought he was anti-establishment.
The old guy who thought he was the only "true Conservative" in the campaign.
The old guy who couldn't remember who he was supposed to sleep with.
Now, he is the old guy who can't handle money.

After a hard-fought battle for the Republican Presidential Nomination, consisting mainly of flailing helplessly at shadows on the wall and ghosts from his past, Newt Gingrich finally tossed in the towel.  He will grudgingly be forced to support Romney as the Primary Pick, but not because he feels Romney is the right choice.  It is because it is the only way to get someone to bail him out of the mess he made. You see, Newt's campaign owes about $4,000,000.

Regardless of what he believes or says, the only "true Conservative" spends more than he makes.  Not only was his campaign spending more than it was taking in, he was hypocritically stating how he was the best choice for President so he could bring the Country back into balance.

Joel Siegel stated in his article in Good Morning America entitled, Newt Gingrich $4 Million in Debt: Staffers and Creditors Fume how much is owned and to whom.

Now, Romney and the Republican National Committee are suggesting that they may help to bail him out of this mess.  That would be a big mistake.  Newt, the size of the mess you make is not nearly as important how well you clean it up.

Julie Bykowicz in her article entitled ‘Newt Inc.’ Bankrupt as Campaign Operates on Shoestring, explains that while the campaign is upside down, Newt has amassed over $7,000,000 in assets before the campaign began from his consulting the past 10 years.  Therefore, the honorable and truly conservative action on his part would be to liquidate enough assets to pay back the debt that he created.

My advice to Mitt: Don't bail Newt out.  He is a big boy and has the means to fix his own mistakes.

Photo from Blue Herald

Very Funny Newt!

I just love it when comedians pretend to run for President. They really help us see the irony of the political process .

Orrin Hatch - Follow The Money

"Follow the money, always follow the money," was the best kept secret in Washington until "Deep Throat," the inside informant for what ultimately became known as Watergate, told Woodward and Bernstein in the movie, "All The Presidents Men." Following this advise, they eventually exposed illegal campaign activities and motivated the resignation of President Nixon.

On another note, I learned from a friend years ago, that the State Department has a policy that US dipolmats can only live in the country they are working for 3 years. At that time, the only options are re-assignment or retirement. It seems that after this time, their loyalties become clouded because of the depth of immersion they have experienced as part of their employment.

How do those 2 pieces of information correlate?

Point #1

Those who know me realize that I have felt Orrin Hatch, (R-UT) has been in Washington too long and needs to retire. He appears to have lost touch with the attitudes of his constituents here in Utah. He has also become so immersed in the culture of the Capital City, that all his closest friends seem to be Democrats, rather than Republicans. He claims this is so he can better influence the Senate and be more effective in working for us. I am afraid that he has scratched too many backs and owes too many favors, that it influences his choices more than him influencing the other members of the Upper House.

Point #2

After a little research, my son, Aaron, sent me a couple of interesting articles regarding Orrin Hatch and his money trail. This is an excerpt from his email.

Just browsing around today and came across this. It is pretty telling, 78% of Orrin Hatch’s campaign contributions are from out of state.

http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/orrin-g-hatch/e5aa63ec4a0746fbb9961b325ddb3627

He also is the only republican in the top 10 recipients from MPAA.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/motion-picture-assn-of-america/90b570b10c2b4483a1af69149521324a

So, Orrin Hatch receives 78% of his political contributions from people and companies that are outside the State of Utah. That leaves only 22% of his funding coming from his constituents. This begs 2 questions.

1. If he is that much more popular outside Utah than in, maybe he should leave Utah and represent them?

2. If he is receiving over 3/4 of his salary from people and companies outside Utah, where does his loyalties and allegiance lie, that is if he wants to keep his job? At least he says he wants to keep his job.

Regarding the MPAA or Motion Picture Association of America, these statistics are very interesting. Here is the list of the top 10 Congress people who have received contributions over the time the records were kept.

1. Max Baucus (D-NT) - $27,151

2. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - $25,466

3. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - $23,800

4. Howard Berman (D-CA) - $22,300

5. Harry Reid (D-NV) - $22,300

6. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -$22,140

7. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - $21,900

8. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) - 20,900

9. Jane Harman (D-CA) - $20,788

10. Gray Davis (D-CA) - $20,500

Now, if your remove those from California, which the MPAA should be giving money to, and consider those outside of California, Orrin is the 4th largest recipient of MPAA funds, ever. That is 4th place out of 485 Representatives and Senators in the entire Congress.

Normally I would consider 4th out of nearly 500 to be a commendable showing, but when it is being influenced to sponsor and support such bills as SOPA and PIPA, this puts Orrin Hatch on my naughty list. I already expounded my apprehension, no, it's not apprehension, it is simply fear of this legislation.

I have called his office and voiced my opinion about him as well as these bills. I was assured by a kind staffer, that he is not supporting PIPA in its present form and asked that it not be debated or voted on yet. Unfortunately, he was one of the original sponsors and didn't change his position until popular opinion overwhelmed his switchboard.

Too bad he didn't think to stop it before it was written, I might have supported him then.

Photo courtesy of Reddogreport.com

The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But a Fabrication

First we had a President who didn't know the definition of "is" or the implications of a double negative. Followed by CEO's that run multi-billion dollar companies whose accounting skills don't go beyond calculating their stock bonuses, (General Motors, Chrysler, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.).

Then we had members of Congress who can't do their own taxes, (Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, etc., and obviously are too poor to hire someone to do it for them.) We even have the Secretary of the Treasury, (Timothy Geithner,) the head tax collector, who didn't learn how to do his own taxes until he was nominated to the post.

Now we are plagued with the Attorney General of the United States of America, (Eric Holder,) the man who makes everyone stand up and swear they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the truth, unable to separate truth from fantasy.

(I could say it is coincidental that they are all Democrats, but then I might be guilty of profiling.)

In regards to his testimony before Congress acknowledging when he first knew about Operation Fast and Furious, his recollection process reminds me of progressive Alzheimer's Disease. Every week, Mr. Holder is able to remember further back in time.

In May 2011, relating to the Operation which started in 2009, before Congress he said, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." But, a memo addressed to the Attorney General, July 5, 2010, explains Mr Holder was briefed on the program 10 months earlier. Oh, now he remembers.

In a speech Eric Holder gave to Mexican Authorities, April 2, 2009, he said. "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail." Oh, that's right, he did say that.

We now know that in 2009, the White House gave stimulus money to the Department of Justice to the tune of $10,000,000 to implement Project Gunrunner or Operation Fast and Furious. The exact wording is "10,000,000 shall be transferred to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, salaries and expenses for the ATF Project Gunrunner."

But his aids say that Mr. Holder didn't know the details of the project at that time, so he really didn't know what was happening. Let's see, the last time I asked for $10,000,000 for a project, I really didn't want to know any of the details, just in case I had to deny culpability later, right?

Well, now that his memory has been restored and the facts are on the table, Mr. Holder was asked a very pointed question by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), in another Congressional Hearing last week. The question was,"Tell me, what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?"

“Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie,” Holder said.

In other words, if you intended to lie, it is a lie; if you didn't have that intent, then it isn't a lie. Or, if you made a statement you thought was the truth, which later was proven to be based on a false premise, you didn't lie; you too, were deceived. I can agree entirely with Mr. Holder on his textbook answer.

His problem is, he knew about the program in April, 2009 and was briefed in written memos on it almost weekly, for 2 years. He even pontificated in public discourses his support for the program. For him to sit before Congress or the people of the United States in May, 2011, and say that he only knew of the program a few weeks before, is by definition, a lie. He knew the truth and chose not to say it.

For Mr. Eric Holder to retain his job after supporting this controversial program that killed 2 American Agents and hundreds of Mexican Nationals is hard to imagine. But for him to commit perjury, under oath, on multiple occasions, regarding his involvement in the program, and remain employed, is unfathomable. He should be fired or impeached immediately.

*Image courtesy of - http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/sarah-palin-calls-for-the-firing-of-the-employee-who-shouldve-never-been-hired/ This is also a great article on the history of Eric Holder and the pile of asinine judicial orders and bungles he has implemented.

All That Is Necessary For The Triumph of Evil, Is For Enough Good Men To Do Nothing

I was devastated to see the destruction that fell upon Penn State from the actions of one. Joe Paterno had sing-handedly taken a small college football team from oblivion to the National Championships and became the winningest college football coach in history. In contrast, Jerry Sandusky, formerly the assistant football coach at Penn State, by his persistence in perverted extra-curricular activities with young boys, destroyed that golden image and broke everyone around him.

Not only was the image of the Penn State tarnished, but several good men, including Paterno, have lost their jobs and probably their careers.

But as sad as this all is, the greater sorrow is that it all could have been averted. There was no need for this scenario to have spun out of control.

It is not enough to just be a good person; to be an example of honesty, decency and morality. Joe Paterno was all of these. He inspired tens of thousands of students to never settle for anything less than their best, to live the principles that would bring them happiness and joy throughout their lives.

We must also stand up against that which is wrong. The more evil it is, the faster and firmer our actions need to be.

According to reports surfacing from the investigation, there were many, many times over the past 15 years, school officials could and should have stepped forward. Each of those times, rather than confronting the problem, these good men chose to remain quiet, not rock the boat. A large splash in the pond 15 years ago would have been so much easier to deal with than the tsunami engulfing Penn State today.

One lie, always requires another. Inaction on any issue, invites more inaction. Turning a blind eye to evil results in tolerance of deviancy; whether we acknowledge it or not.

From government war rooms, to board rooms, to our bedrooms, we must expect moral behavior and stand for what is right.

Because, if we don't stand for the right, we'll find that we will fall for anything.

Post Script, January 24, 2012

Joe Paterno died this past weekend. It was a sad day for all of us. It is tragic that his departure was likely hastened by the unfortunate events of the past few months.

Good-bye, Joe. We will miss your fine example.

Photos Courtesy of

http://www.section247sportsblog.com/page/2/

A Link to - The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas

In the not too distant future.

The U. S. Attorney General, back-lit in a dim room, shrouded with an Inquisition style hooded robe, solemnly declares, "You have been accused to be in suspected violation of vaguely stated copyright laws, wherein you presumably allowed to be uploaded, 1 copyrighted file to the 327,246,135,753 existing files on one of your servers, without making herculean efforts and/or spending tens of thousands of dollars, (USD) to ferret out such malicious activity; thereby providing the possibility that one or more rogue internet user(s) might download said file, bypassing the obligation of paying just and due compensation to the legal and legitimate copyright holders, namely; unnamed recording and/or motion picture and/or digital archives; consequently, stealing, defrauding or interfering with the due process of collection of revenue for copyrighted materials, as outlined in Congressional Edicts, SOPA and PIPA, respectively.

As a result of this flagrant violation of the sovereign right of compensation as out-lined in Congressional Edicts, SOPA and PIPA, respectively, for recording and/or motion picture and/or digital archives, this Internet Service Provider, Your Name Here , (ISP) is hereby and un-equivocally ordered to cease and desist operations, services and compensation to all clients, customers, and/or consumers, until a complete review of the above named site and files, as well as all SOPA and PIPA compliant protocols to prevent such actions, are completed by a Senate sub-committee under the direction and over-sight of a combined Senate and House committee on the Implementation and Voluntary Compliance of Protocols to Prevent the Mis-Appropriation of Funds Legally and Lawfully Awarded to Unnamed Recording, and/or Motion Picture, and/or Digital Archives, For Works They Own, But Didn't Produce.

He stops and surveys the crowd, as 666 security guards, surround him and escort him from the room. . .

_______________________

The United States Congress is considering legislation that will give control of Internet Service Providers (ISP) sites to the Attorney General in an effort to control internet piracy of copyrighted material. With this authority, the Attorney General could legally, upon "suspicion" of piracy, shut down suspected offending sites and then begin an investigation. This could happen regardless of whether the ISP had any knowledge of the alleged infraction.

While I don't know all the ins and outs of the proposed laws, the page, The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas, does. In this article, Mike Masnick elequantly describes what is in the laws, why they won't achieve the desired result and why the recording industry needs to embrace new technology for greater profits rather than spending millions of dollars fighting the advancements.

The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas

By Mike Masnick

There's been plenty of talk (and a ton of posts here on Techdirt) discussing both SOPA (originally E-PARASITE) and PROTECT IP (aka PIPA), but it seemed like it would be useful to create a single, "definitive" post to highlight why both of these bills are extremely problematic and won't do much (if anything) to deal with the issues they're supposed to deal with, but will have massive unintended consequences. I also think it's important to highlight how PIPA is almost as bad as SOPA. Tragically, because SOPA was so bad, some in the entertainment industry have seen it as an opportunity to present PIPA as a "compromise." It is not. Both bills have tremendous problems, and they start with the fact that neither bill will help deal with the actual issues being raised. . . . (read the rest of the article)

You can also read the text of the bill here.

I urge you to contact your elected representatives and the bill's sponsors to express your feelings regarding this. Remember, Senator Hatch, (R-Utah), proposed in 2003, that all computers that had pirated software be remotely destroyed, until it was discovered that his own web-site was running an unlicensed application. I voted against him in 2006 and will again in 2012.

*The image above is from: http://act2.freepress.net/call/pipa_call/?akid=3086.9828048.Ssc8mA&rd=1&t=1

A Primer of Progressive Economics Policies

Recent articles have described the efforts world-wide to prevent the collapse of Greece and other EU member countries whose economies are sitting in the toilet. These are countries that have over spent their incomes, borrowed billions, are so far in debt that they can never repay, but, the only solutions seriously being considered are to give them more money. The only hurdle is,"Who is stupid enough to lend them more?"

It is interesting to look back a couple of years to the problems of the big 3 auto makers as the melt-down of the financial markets in the US occurred.

All 3 companies found themselves over-extended, under-productive and about to sink into the quagmire of insolvency. Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, in prophetic ignorance declared that the auto industry was to big and important to be allowed to fail. (The real reason was that she owned too much stock in them.)

When the magical bailout buoy was offered by the White House, General Motors and Chrysler were the only ones who latched on. Ford said they could fix their problems by themselves.

I was very critical at that time of all 3 companies in an article entitled "Five Foxes in the Hen House", but especially at Ford for the outrageous compensation packages of their chief execs while their company tanked.

Now, 3 years later, Ford is reporting sales are up and they are operating back in the black. While GM and Chrysler are admitting that they will be lucky if they can pay back the American people 30 cents on the dollar.

Back in the 1960's, while Pres Lyndon Johnson was fighting his war on poverty by throwing more and more money at the problem, creating Medicaid, food stamps and inter-city projects, I would listen to my dad expound how it was not possible to spend yourself rich. The only bumper sticker he ever placed on his car said, "I fight poverty, I work!"

Back to today, the question still looms, do we throw more money at Greece or let then Pay the Piper? If we loan more money to Greece, where does it stop? With Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England? The list goes on and on.

I ran across this poem that personifies the deluded interpretation of economics by Progressive Governments.

SMART
By Shel Silverstein from his book, “Where the Sidewalks Ends”

My dad gave me one dollar bill
'Cause I’m his smartest son,
And I swapped it for two shiny quarters
‘Cause two is more than one!

And then I took the quarters
And traded them to Lou
For three dimes – I guess he don’t know
That three is more than two!


Just then, along came old blind Bates
And just ‘cause he can’t see
He gave me four nickels for my three dimes,
And four is more than three!

And I took the nickels to Hiram Coombs
Down at the seed-feed store,
And the fool gave me five pennies for them,
And five is more than four!

And then I went and showed my dad,
And he got red in the cheeks
And closed his eyes and shook his head –
Too proud of me to speak!