As If We Didn't Know

Out of the jackass' (Democratic symbol, that is - wink, wink!) mouth:



1992 Interview on CNN

Liberal "Logic"

Whenever the movie “A Time To Kill” is recalled, it is oft remembered as a mediocre movie with one very powerful scene.  A young, black girl is brutally assaulted in rural Mississippi by two members of the KKK; her father takes vengeance killing the men, and must then face an all white jury for double homicide.  His defense lawyer’s closing argument goes over every horrifying detail of the daughter’s attack, with his final admonishment to the jury being to imagine if the girl had been white.  It is such a haunting moment; the realization that some people are so dangerously intolerant they can only be convinced of a crime if they imagine the victim is of their own race.

It is, also, haunting to know this type of ignorance is blatantly rearing its head with sparse coverage from the media, nor any great outcry from the politically correct demanding answers.  It appears we must invoke the aforementioned “logic” once again, only this time in reverse:

On Election Day 2008, Minister Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of Philadelphia’s New Black Panthers, stood in front of a polling place dressed in paramilitary uniform yielding a nightstick.  Two more Black Panthers members, in identical uniforms, accompanied Shabazz—they were all caught on video, and all three were charged with the federal offense of voter intimidation brought forth by the Bush Administration.  Consequently, the DOJ obtained a default judgment, which is only fitting considering the violation of the Voter Rights Act.

However, Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed by the Obama Administration, quietly dismissed all charges against the two other members, while reducing Mr. Shabazz's charges to nothing more than a slap on the wrist.  Mr. Holder was satisfied to accept the word of the leader of The New Black Panthers, a racist and violence-inciting organization, that he’d refrain from carrying a deadly weapon near a polling place until the year 2012.  Mr. Shabazz, whose been videoed spouting his belief that in order to gain freedom “you’re gonna have to kill some crackers” and “you’re gonna have to kill some of their babies” too, and who is a staunch Obama supporter, had only to pinky promise to emerge unscathed from serious charges that were never rebutted by the defendants. 

Another frightening thought is what happens after 2012?  He can once again don his billyclub and intimidate “crackers”?  Is it really coincidence that the year 2012 was chosen, the same year Obama will run for his second term, allowing Malik Shabazz and the Black Panthers to be free and clear to enforce "security" once again?

Seeing as dangerous intolerance does not only run rampant in rural backwaters, I address the Obama Administration, and Mr. Holder in particular, on the new liberal “logic” needed to address this case:

Imagine the Klu Klux Klan dressed in white sheets and pointy hats yielding nightsticks, and standing in front of a polling place during election time.  What action should be taken?  What action WOULD be taken if the targets were not "crackers"?

Truth in Cartoons

"The Boxer must be woken every 6 years for the election ritual.  It allows her to feed undisturbed on small businesses and higher taxes."


copyright - Me (am)
Please do not reproduce, post, or download without permission

Oh! We're Just Ignorant!

Joe Biden (just knowing “Vice President” precedes that name takes me a minute to clear my head before getting on with my point – ok, ready) is making the election rounds, and is often being referred to as Obama’s traveling salesman.  I agree with this moniker, more specifically, a snake-oil salesman.  He pulls into every town unrolling his fraying “Hope & Change” banner over a ramshackle-wagon of talking points, then with great flair produces bottled promises brimming with shiny, glowing liquid that looks so “purty” it must be the real deal!

First he wants to assure us Obamacare is a boon.  Never you mind that no one really knows what’s in it, they will dole out that information like doggie treats to reward us for our unquestioning faith.  There is no need to worry simply because socialized healthcare has aided in crippling Europe, this time socialized healthcare will work.  They’ve given their word, and that should be enough. 

Secondly, THEY are the good guys—don’t, do not, listen to those conservative fanatics who believe in God and the Constitution.  Conservatives want guns and privacy because they’re hiding something, they must be.  Conservatives want small government, but then who would take care of you?  Thinking for yourself and personal responsibility are overrated; let the government tell you what you should believe in, like Global Warming (er, Global Climate Disruption since there has been no “Warming” since 1998, and many locations are facing their coldest season in years), and how much is too much earned so they can unburden your finances and redistribute the wealth.

Thirdly, he’s selling us on the idea that the stimulus is working.  Though we see no evidence, unemployment continues to rise along with foreclosures and the dollar continues to weaken, we shouldn’t doubt that all our ills are healing.  Biden assures us we don’t have to see to believe (hmmm, like God? No, of course not, how silly of me) because the innards of economics are THEIR specialty, and really “it’s just too hard too explain” (Biden interview aboard Air Force Two, 10/8/10).

I can’t even begin to explain the relief I feel, and the good night’s sleep I will get tonight.  For a while there, I thought we were facing the worst economic downward spiral since the depression, but good ol’ Joe has dazzled me with his bottles of fix-um-ups, and made me realize I and the majority of America, minus the handful of progressive elites in the sacred Obama circle, are wrong.  We are just too ignorant to grasp the grace that has been bestowed upon us as we descend into socialism and ever-growing government.

Thanks, Joe!

We've Hit the High Seas

On my sidebar I have links for news and commentaries, however, I wanted to call extra attention to this article:

Cruising Toward Destruction by Patrice Lewis

It is a conscientious analysis of our governmental and economic crisis.  Mrs. Lewis writes a weekly article for World Net Daily, and can also be found at (her blog) Rural Revolution.

Outsourcing

When a liberal newspaper, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, cannot bring itself to endorse a “Progressive” over a “Conservative” preferring to endorse neither, what other proof is needed who they believe the better candidate is?  One even has to wonder, is the Chronicle’s announcement of its non-endorsement of Barbara Boxer the closest it can come to pointing voters in the correct direction without damaging its liberal standing?  After all, it isn’t as if readers were clamoring for their opinion.

In this election, as every other in California, the almighty D behind the name carries a lot of weight.  Now, I know that can be just as true in red states, and the overlying reason is one of sound merit.  After all, people align themselves with a party because they tend to have the same ideological views.  I absolutely get that.  However, this can be a lazy merit when we don’t take the time to really look at the candidates and their issues.

Forget the D and R for a moment.  Pretend they don’t exist.  It is simply Boxer and Fiorina.

What exactly has Barbara Boxer done for California?  She claims that Fiorina is dangerous to our economy, but Fiorina has just come upon the stage and has not contributed to the mess we find ourselves, she’s not held office.  Barbara Boxer has, she’s been at the helm for years, and done nothing to improve our economic situation, but now she suddenly has the answers?  What’s different this year from all the others?  Her voting record indicates that she is for tax hikes whenever possible – the gas tax, the death tax, and in refusing to fully extend the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.  (These are all on record: USA Today, 5/94, www.ontheissues.org & The Sacramento Bee, 7/7/10).

She claims she is all about encouraging small businesses, yet she refuses to extend the cuts for people earning $250,000. and more a year.  I know $250,000. sounds like a lot of money (and yes for my income level it would be a BIG boost), but that is nowhere near Bill Gates territory.  You know who earns that average?  Mostly small business owners fall into this bracket.  I use to work for one such owner until he could no longer afford to keep employees, let alone offer them health insurance.  (Imagine the shape he’ll be in when Obamacare hits?  But that is another post.)  Barbara Boxer says it is “fiscally irresponsible” to extend the cuts for that income level because it will cost the government millions in revenue.  How can it cost them anything?  They weren’t already spending money they didn’t have were they?  Perhaps Boxer can vote no on a congressional pay raise (July 2009) the next time around, and find some revenue there.  Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman are vilified for giving themselves corporate pay raises, yet it is ok for Barbara Boxer to do it with OUR money?

The Small Business and Jobs Credit Act?  Oh, yes, this is one of the highlights on Boxer’s website.  She voted for it, yes she did.  This will enable those small business owners who are about to be hit with a huge tax hike to take out loans for expansion.  Except, what business owners understand, and politicians never will, is that you do not borrow and overspend in such uncertain times.  A majority of small business owners do not want a bailout, especially when they may come with government strings attached.  So, in effect, Boxer is crowing about a bill that is as ineffective as her tenure.  The irony would be comical if it weren’t so disheartening.

Let us also look at Boxer’s most vehement slam against Carly Fiorina.  Yes, she outsourced between 10,000 to 30,000 (or so) jobs while working for HP.  However, let us look at this in context:  She did what was in the best interest of the company she worked for because of a hostile business environment engendered by BIG government.  Big government voted on by Barbara Boxer.  Yes, all the regulations pounded on to businesses have a trickle-down effect in a negative way, unlike the positive trickle-down effect in economics.  Businesses pack up and go where it is less expensive.  However, if Carly Fiorina is elected, she will be working for US.  In which case, as a good businessperson knows, she will need to solve problems that are in our best interest.  In this climate we need businesspeople who understand cutting back on frivolous spending, not politicians who only come alive when the polls are about to open.

Now, I do not overlook Fiorina’s ouster from HP either.  HP took a hit in its stock while she was there, and a big climb up when she left, and her employment there was tumultuous.  In the end there are no denying two facts: 

1.  The Compaq merger was the right move, though it took a few years to prove itself. http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=14975

2.  Carly Fiorina’s performance was less than stellar, and her ego kept her from delegating tasks beyond her expertise.

It is a black eye in what would otherwise be an exceptional candidate.  My hope is that the lesson learned at HP will have humbled Fiorina into adapting her previous business acumen highlighted at AT&T where she excelled, and really carved her niche as a powerful, successful businesswoman.  Let’s not forget that her record does hold that, whereas for Boxer, the self-interested politician we see now is the one that has always been there.  Moreover, it is this very same politician who will continue to drag America, and California in particular, into economic oblivion if her stranglehold cannot be pried off the senate.  It is definitely time for some outsourcing of our own.

Unheard Voice

My political voice often goes unheard in California.  After all, I'm pro-capitalist, anti-socialist, anti-big government, and I tend to view unions with a bit of skepticism.  Wait!  Don't jump!  I know what you're thinking, but before you jump to conclusions let me state that I am a registered Democrat.  Yes, it's true.

I registered as soon as I turned eighteen - actually, let me clarify.  I did not run out into the streets and break into the registrar of voters' office at the stroke of midnight.  At the first opportunity I registered, on a business day and regular office hours allowing.  I could not wait to register, I had been anticipating that moment, patriotism having been instilled from my father, a first generation Mexican American who served in WW2.  Oh, and in case anyone is getting hung up on the math, my father was 58 when I was born, so it is not that I'm terribly old, I guess it's more that he was.  (Yes, I'm gender female, and though I count aging the least amongst my vanities, apparently, there is some resistance after all.)  However, back to my registration and proudly anointing myself a Democrat in the footsteps of my very proud, veteran father.

For the most part I voted Democrat, however, from very early on there were a few discrepancies on certain issues.  At these times I voted conservatively, but faithfully followed Democratic candidates.  Clinton?  Voted twice.  Er, both terms, mind you, no sneaking around the curtains to duck into another booth as if I was back in junior high stretching my movie dollars by hitting every theatre in the complex.  Yet those pesky issues, not to mention propositions that seem to take my money for a "much needed" enterprise and somehow only ensured that government grew bigger, continued to create a distance between my party and myself.  These props and agendas left me confused - weren't the conservatives the ones who took money from the poor?  Of which I most certainly was?  But let's face it, the props were easy enough to vote against and still maintain my party line, but then came the last straw:

Al Gore

This was the candidate I was supposed to vote for?! Whaaaaaaat?!  This was the best we could do?!

Well, there was nothing for it.  I began an intensive look at both candidates, and realized that the best the other side could do was George W. Bush.  Who knew that name would become synonymous with failure?  With war?  Yes, I voted for him.  And if I had to do over again?  Well, if Al Gore was once more my other option George would have my vote one more time.  Sometimes, we are left with the best of a bad situation, and in such cases, the D or R (or any other letter as long as it does not stand for communist or socialist) should not be the end all factor.  The D does not necessarily stand for your best interest.

Therein lies the true revelation of my political journey. The Democratic Party was no longer my father's Democratic Party.  As it became "progressive" and more "liberal", it moved "progressively" away about giving the underprivileged an unheard a voice.  Or perhaps that was all a ruse to begin with, and I just can't bring myself to admit my father and I were duped.  Certainly, I can look back at the generations before I could vote, and see the apathy, the patronizing stance for those "who cannot do for themselves", and the violation of the trust of those voters considering what they believe this party stand for.  

I do not make these statements blithely nor blindly.  I research tirelessly, often dejectedly, before I reach my conclusions.  I will gladly share those facts and their sources on this blog so that you may do your own research and come to your own conclusion, since, of course, my conclusions are peppered with my opinions.  But the facts themselves cannot be ignored.  The facts themselves should never be ignored.