<$BlogRSDURL$>

Saturday, February 28, 2004

Yesterday, one of my hometown papers , The Detroit Free Press, editorialize for the bill to sue gun manufacturers. One of the things that it said, was that the House didn't pass the bill, not because it rightfully is an attempt to degrade our second amendment rights, but because the House is in the control of the gun lobby. The editorial failed to mention the lobby that stood to profit from this bill, the trial lawyers. The problem is, and this is something that goes across the Left, is that any group that supports a conservative cause is a special interest, or a powerful lobby. Any group that supports Leftism, is not, they are simple campaign donors. Getting back on point, I will use on of the Left's favorite tactics, I will compare someone who I disagree with, as a Nazi. However, in this context it is absolutely true. The Nazis "acquired" lists of gun owners from town halls and confiscated guns from lawful owners. I would guess because it's easier to run a totalitarian government when you don't have to worry about the citizens opposing a repressive government. The Founding Fathers thought that the right to "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It was deemed to be important enough that this right, was the second right given to the people in the Constitution. This bill, is just another attempt to degrade the right of the people. The Left also doing another of their ploys to make our society more of a socialist "paradise" too, they are blaming someone other than the criminal. To say nothing of expanding the power of the government.

First they came for tobacco, but I did not speak for I was not a cigarette.
Then, they came for junk food, but I did not speak for I was not a candy bar.
Then, they came for big cars, but I did not speak for I was not an SUV.
Then, they came for guns, but I did not speak for I was not a firearm.
Then, they came for my income, and private property, and by then the Constitution had been so eroded that there was no way I could defend my rights.

Sounds pretty out there, doesn't it? They did come for tobacco, and now they are going for junk food, SUVs, and guns. The reason being, that we the people do not know what is best for us, and we have to have some Senator, or Congressmen, who have never met us, and might not live in the same state as us, tell us what is best for us. The problem is, is that these people who tell us what is best for us, go way beyond the Constitution when they dictate their decisions to us. If more of our elected representatives in Washington followed the Constitution, nonsense like this would not be happening and, "We the people," would have control over our own lives, we could choose what we want, without Big Brother trampling all over our right while trying to protect us from ourselves.
|

Friday, February 27, 2004

Allen Greenspan has it exactly right. Social security is a massive drain and it will fail soon. As a gen xer, I fully expect that social security will fail and that when I finally retire. My working theory is that social security money goes down the same black hole that union dues go to. It is money that is taken out of my paycheck "for my benefit" and it is money that I will never see again. Every politician talks about a social security "lockbox." There is no such thing. Social security money is taken and moved around creatively to other government programs to make it look like these other programs aren't as wasteful as they are. When FDR first envisioned social security, it was supposed to be an account managed by the government so that retires would have had money put away. Originally there were to have been 200 people paying into to it for everyone collecting it. Much like other socialist dogma, the theory sounds good, but the reality is another story. According to the Wall Street Journal, when all the baby boomers retire and the gen Xers are the primary payers, there will be three of us paying for one person collecting. The social security withholdings will have to double, or social security will be operating at a deficit of trillions. That trillions with a T. When all of the liberal "deficit hawks" talk about the government deficit, they should look at the real problem, the social security deficit. As I said before, the gen Xerox, and all that follow us will never see any social security benefits unless it is somehow fixed. The best way to fix it, so that it functions as it was meant to, it to privatized it. Social security comes with a return of approximately 2%. Money market accounts, CDs, bonds, offer a better rate of return. Why then, are liberals content to let money be thrown away down a black hole? Probably because it is another way for government to waste our money. They are scared that the creation of wealth will cause less and less people to be dependent on government entitlement programs. If less and less people are beholden to government, then they are less likely to vote for the party of big government, and then, they lose power. And what is happening now is a perfect example of why the Left is not a loyal opposition but a group of people who are more interested in power over the people than a party interested in power for the people.
|

Thursday, February 26, 2004

We are winning out war or terrorism, against specific terror groups, but the world is losing its war against the terrorists. Just look to the "world court" who refuses the recognize the right for Israel to exist. The "Palestinians" are "freedom fighters," but they take pains to attack civilians. The Israelis are "terrorists," but they take pains to attack the cowardly leaders of terror groups who hide behind civilians. Let's all remember though, if the UN and all of its auxiliaries had the least bit of respect for democracies, none of this would be happening, but we all know how much the UN respects democracy, it kicks the US off of the human rights commission but Libya, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other such paragons of "freedom" are responsible for human rights across world. If the UN wants to have the least bit of credibility, it must declare the countries that respect democracy are superior to those who are despotic dictatorships. Maybe the problem is that the leading democracies of the day (US, UK) had to fight to gain their freedoms, and other democracies followed. The UN was created. It never had to fight for anything. The UN has in effect, turned it back on the free democratic countries, and embraced the dictatorships. Its treatment of Israel is indicative of its anti-democratic stances. Thus, does the world lose its battles against terrorists and terrorist regimes when a world body (albeit a body as worthless as the UN) does not stand up for the rights of individuals who live under unelected dictators. I will go out on a limb here and say that the average American will not believe in the UN until the UN believes that democracy and Western Civilization is more important than totalitarian regimes who hide behind the UN for "credibility."
|

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

So, Johnny E. still thinks that he has a chance to win. I saw an item on Drudge that Johnny is throwing a hissy fit because he is been acknowledged to not be the front runner. I know that in a race, the candidates have to be optimistic of their victory, but Johnny E. doesn't have the resources to compete. I know that Johnny is a trial lawyer who thinks that people should listen to him just because, but I'll try to explain things to him. If you cannot compete, then you cannot win. Even if you don't know it yet, the rest of us do. It's the same as it was with Howie. Everyone else knows that you are not going to win the nomination.
After finally taking the attacks, Bush fired back who he will most likely face in the general election. I think that the little bit on the stances taken by the Senator from Mass. was pretty funny. Little Johnny K. showed us that he is scared that when his record is examined by the American electorate, and they see that he has never once taken a stance, most of them will not be too excited. Who wants American policy in the hands of someone on two sides of each issue? Johnny K. voted on both sides of the issue, he has supported each side of the issue, but now he is hiding from his stances. If he is not proud of his stances on any one issue, then he should take one stance and hold it. The problem is, as was shown in a first unsuccessful run for Congress, he doesn't know where he stands, so he follows the drunken lead of Ted Kennedy. John Kerry is not presidential material for one simple reason: he cannot take decisive action, and stand by his decision. For that one reason (among too many others to mention)Kerry will not be president.
|

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Some court in Europe wants to tell Israel that they cannot defend themselves from suicide bombers. Take note. This is the type of "internationalism" that the Demos want us to live under. The so-called "Palestinians" have had numerous chances to start a democracy of their own, and bring the wall protecting Israel down. The Left is more concerned with coddling dictators (Castro, Mao, Stalin, Hussein et al) than they are with trying to bring freedom to oppressed people. One of Clinton's supposed foreign policy "successes" was in Haiti. Some success putting in some corrupt dictator. But, what it comes down to is do we as Americans want to go to some dictator appeasing European "World Court" before we do anything in our own national interest? No. A very empathetic no. My theory on why Europe hates us is that WW 2 made Europe irrelevant. For the second time in the first half of the twentieth century, the US had to go into Europe to save them from themselves. As much as the "intellectuals" of both America and Europe can't stand it, America is the defender of freedom and Western Civilization. The "intellectuals" on both side of the Atlantic, can't stand to say that Western Civilization is better than dictatorships of other regions. Okay, fine. The "intellectuals" who think that there is nothing wrong with Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc. should go and live there. Show us how wrong we are. Any takers? No, I didn't think so.
John Kerry among many others on the Left want us to subordinate out defense policy to the UN and to other facets of the "intellectuals." As they have shown time and time again, the UN and "intellectuals" have no interest in defending society that shows respect for life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press. As for me, I will support Israel in any way that they choose to defend themselves for one simple reason, they are a fellow democratic country. Too many UN and EU "intellectuals" want to turn the world into a socialist bureaucracy that takes power away from the people. Anyone who wants to take power away from their country and give it to someone who does not represent their interests is extremely suspect. If the UN wanted respect from America, and if the EU wants respect from America, then they must do one simple thing. Respect democratic countries over dictatorships. Unfortunately, with the moral equivalencey leftist crowd, that will never happen.
|

Monday, February 23, 2004

Add Ralphie to the mix. Why are the Demos so worried about Ralphie? Aren't they the supposed party of inclusion? What do they care if someone who is running further to the left then Howie? They care because they are out of power. I would say that most of them while saying publicly are over Florida, most of them really aren't. Ralphie said something about stopping the supremely elected president, whatever that means. What the Demos want, is power. 2000 was such a close election that Bush came into office without at mandate. In the 2002 mid term elections, he got that mandate. The reason that the Demos are out of power, are their own reasons, they don't have a message. The Demo message is that they are not Bush, and that they oppose Bush's policies. But, they never say how they oppose them, just that Bush is wrong. When Bush campaigns with a message, and the Demos have no message, then they are fated to lose. The polls show that Bush is down now, but they don't mean anything. Kerry is getting all sorts of free media time, without a Bush response. Now, comes the response.
So, Johnny K is crying that the Republicans are attacking him. They question his voting record, and he cries that they are questioning his patriotism. If one person has questioned another's patriotism, it would be Gore's mindless rant against Bush. Even though, after Kerry sold out the solders still in Vietnam, his patriotism could be questioned, even though Kerry wants to give U.S. military control to the UN. Let's all remember that the Demos are the party of dirty campaigning, the party of the dead and multiple voters. Kerry has no reason to complain about dirty campaigning, his underlings are accusing Bush of everything, and the Republicans raise legitimate questions, and Kerry runs away. Scared of your voting record, Johnny? You should be. When the voters see your voting record they will run away from you.
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?