“Know what is evil, however much worshipped it may be. Let the man of intelligence not fail to recognize it, . . . because it cannot . . . hide its core; slavery does not lose its infamy, however noble the master.”
— Baltasar Graciàn, Spanish Jesuit (1601-1658)
Not a new thought — rather, a timeless one, as demonstrated by this 400-year-old proverb. Very similar instruction found in the Bible. Be vigilant in identifying evil for what it is.
The following is an excerpt from a column by Mychal Massie, titled “Black Racism Is a Mental Disorder”.
Mychal Massie is an ordained minister, and was founder of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The complete column can be found at http://mychal-massie.com/premium/black-racism-is-mental-disorder/
Excerpt:
I am reaching the conclusion that just as liberalism is a mental disorder so, too, is the reflexive apoplexy of many blacks who are quick to accuse whites of being racist. The majority of blacks in America today need to take a strong regard of themselves in the mirror. They must ask themselves how well they are being served by self-inflicted victimology, self-segregation, self-limiting behavior, and a rejection of modernity. They must ask themselves how the aforementioned behaviors make them feel.
Black Americans as a near whole are the angriest people both individually and collectively that there are in the United States, if not in the world. And the primary causal factor of their angst is what nebulous white people are doing to them.
The tragedy is that it’s not the whites; it is they who are holding themselves back. But in the case of victimology, there must be an oppressor because without same there cannot be a victim. Specific to that point, without white scapegoats their anger would have to be turned toward themselves. Without whites as scapegoats they would have to face the truth that they are their own worst enemy. They would also be forced to face the truth that the very liberals they support are committed to eroding the fabric of their future families.
[End of excerpt]
From Mark Levy, in a recent “Ask Mark” column:
“[L]iberal sensibilities are far different from the sensibilities of mainstream Americans. For instance, we’ve been told by liberals how great Obamacare would be, yet this week the CBO reported that 30 million people will remain uninsured after Obamacare is fully implemented.
“So after all this economic upheaval, we’re left with the same number of uninsured we began with. That is like cutting off the end of a blanket, sewing it onto the other end and claiming that it’s a larger blanket. That, my friend, is an example of sensible as defined by liberals.”
This complete column can be found at http://www.creators.com/opinion/mark-levy/obamacare-job-loss-liberal-sensibilities-and-jay-leno.html
Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover institution, offers a perspective in immigration reform in a recent column titled “Republicans to the Rescue?” I have included an excerpt below – the full piece can be read at http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/republicans-to-the-rescue.html
Excerpt:
Listening to discussions of immigration laws and proposals to reform them is like listening to something out of “Alice in Wonderland.”
Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them. One of the big problems that those who are pushing “comprehensive immigration reform” want solved is how to help people who came here illegally and are now “living in the shadows” as a result.
What about embezzlers or burglars who are “living in the shadows” in fear that someone will discover their crimes? Why not “reform” the laws against embezzlement or burglary, so that such people can also come out of the shadows?
Almost everyone seems to think that we need to solve the problem of the children of illegal immigrants, because these children are here “through no fault of their own.” Do people who say that have any idea how many millions of children are living in dire poverty in India, Africa or other places “through no fault of their own,” and would be better off living in the United States?
Do all children have some inherent right to live in America if they have done nothing wrong? If not, then why should the children of illegal immigrants have such a right?
More fundamentally, why do the American people not have a right to the protection that immigration laws provide people in other countries around the world — including Mexico, where illegal immigrants from other countries get no such special treatment as Mexico and its American supporters are demanding for illegal immigrants in the United States?
[End of excerpt]
Personally, although Dr. Sowell may seem a little over the top on this issue, he raises some interesting questions that Americans ought to consider before accepting comprehensive immigration reform that includes broad acceptance of those who broke laws to get into this country.
Thomas Sowell, the well-known black conservative economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, had the words below to say about economic inequality. The full column can be found at http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/the-inequality-bogeyman.html
Excerpt: [Bracketed material is mine – so is the bolding]
. . . . [D]ifferences in capabilities are inescapable, and they make a big difference in what and how much we can contribute to each other’s economic and other well-being. If we all had the same capabilities and the same limitations, one individual’s limitations would be the same as the limitations of the entire human species.
We are lucky that we are so different, so that the capabilities of many other people can cover our limitations.
One of the problems with so many discussions of income and wealth is that the intelligentsia are so obsessed with the money that people receive that they give little or no attention to what causes money to be paid to them, in the first place.
. . . . From the standpoint of a society as a whole, money is just an artificial device to give us incentives to produce real things — goods and services.
Those goods and services are the real “wealth of nations,” as Adam Smith titled his treatise on economics in the 18th century.
[A few paragraphs follow about John D. Rockefeller, his contributions to U.S. economic growth and his resultant fortune, with shout-out to Edison, the Wright brothers, and Henry Ford.]
|
|
Too many discussions of large fortunes attribute them to “greed” — as if wanting a lot of money is enough to cause other people to hand it over to you. It is a childish idea, when you stop and think about it — but who stops and thinks these days?
Edison, Ford, the Wright brothers, and innumerable others also created unprecedented expansions of the lives of ordinary people. The individual fortunes represented a fraction of the wealth created. . . .
Intellectuals’ obsession with income statistics — calling envy “social justice” — ignores vast differences in productivity that are far more fundamental to everyone’s well-being. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg has ruined many economies.
[End of excerpt]
Mona Charen, one of my favorite columnists, recently wrote the following paragraphs about the poor and unemployed in a piece that can be found in full at http://www.creators.com/opinion/mona-charen/will-anyone-watch-tonights-speech-why.html
I think this is very well said – enjoy. [I put “Poverty” in quotes in my title because I have serious concerns about how loosely we define poverty in this country — there are probably a few billion people in this world who would feel as though they were solidly in the middle class if they were as well off as most of the folks we have arbitrarily defined as “living in poverty”.]
Excerpt from Ms. Charen:
Most economists agree that increasing the minimum wage has a tendency to discourage hiring. Second, most people who earn minimum wage are not heads of households. Third, 80 percent are not poor. Fourth, most receive a raise within 12 months. Fifth, the states containing half the population already have minimum wages above the federal level.
What the soft shoe about income inequality and declining upward mobility is meant to disguise is that Obama has presided over an economy that is providing diminishing opportunities for work. People who work full time are almost never poor. The Current Population Survey of the Census Bureau found that among full-time workers, the poverty rate in 2013 was 2.9 percent. Most of those who are poor are not working at all or are working only part time.
Long-term unemployment is demoralizing for the jobless and expensive for taxpayers. Rather than attempt to set wages from Washington, Obama’s entire focus ought to be on removing obstacles to hiring. . . .
Obama will boast that he has a “pen and a phone.” He can use his pen to relax some of the job-depressing regulations his administration has imposed, particularly in the health, financial and energy sectors. He can use his phone to approve the Keystone pipeline. And he could use his influence to extol the essential habits of success, without which more and more Americans will fail to flourish. As the Annie E. Casey Foundation reported years ago, if Americans do three simple things, they will not be poor: 1) graduate from high school , 2) get a job and 3) wait until marriage to have their first child.
[End of excerpt]
David Limbaugh, in his recent column titled “The Left’s Latest Mantra: Income Inequality”, besides addressing the left’s unjustified claims to the high ground on income inequality, has this to say about the liberal world view in general. I thought it was well stated. The whole column can be read at
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-limbaugh/the-lefts-latest-mantra-income-inequality.html
Excerpt: [Emphasis is mine]
Whether or not liberals are able to process the reality that their programs have failed, they will not abandon them, because class warfare and government dependency programs are their ticket to power. CNN’s Candy Crowley unwittingly admitted as much when she asked Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker why any unemployed American or minimum wage worker would become a Republican.
It’s not that conservatives don’t care about the poor. It’s that we do care about the poor — and everyone else. We believe that our free market solutions generate economic growth, stimulate upward mobility and improve the economic lives of far more people, including the poor and middle class, than any other system. History vindicates us.
The left will always win the “look at how much I care about you” contest. But it loses in the “actually caring” department because at some point, people have to be presumed to have intended the damaging results their policies have consistently caused.
[End of excerpt]
From PA Pundits – International
“It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson (1781)
Columnist John C. Goodman noted recently:
“In a study for the National Center for Policy Analysis, David Henderson found that there is a big difference between families in the top 20 percent and bottom 20 percent of the income distribution:
Families at the top tend to be married and both partners work. Families at the bottom often have only one adult in the household and that person either works part-time or not at all:
In 2006, a whopping 81.4 percent of families in the top income quintile had two or more people working, and only 2.2 percent had no one working. By contrast, only 12.6 percent of families in the bottom quintile had two or more people working; 39.2 percent had no one working. …
Having children without a husband tends to make you poor. Not working makes you even poorer. And there is nothing new about that. These are age old truths. They were true 50 years ago, a hundred years ago and even 1,000 year ago. Lifestyle choices have always mattered.”
————————————————————————————-
I daresay, also, that people in the top 20% of the economic distribution also paid more attention to getting a solid education than those in the bottom 20%, and probably grew up in a two-parent family. One could argue that they started with an advantage, but at some point we have to bury that excuse and start strongly emphasizing and focusing on family values and the importance of education among the bottom 20%. I think this is the only way to improve the upward mobility of this group.
Linda Chavez, ex-liberal turned conservative (she wrote a book about the conversion, An Unlikely Conservative: . . . . ) has a new column out there entitled “The Content of Our Character”, in which she ties together the shameful conditions of many black communities and the recent crude sexual performance of Miley Cyrus on MTV (oh – did she sing, too?). The glue she uses is the degrading state of culture in America.
She wraps up the excellent column with a short, pithy conclusion about America’s “progress”: [emphasis is mine]
“Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream has been largely fulfilled. We now CAN be judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. And that’s the problem. “
‘Nuff said?
From the pen of the wise Dr. Walter Williams, black conservative extraordinaire:
“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. I’d like for the president, the civil rights establishment, white liberals and the news media, who spent massive resources protesting the George Zimmerman trial’s verdict, to tell the nation whether they believe that the major murder problem blacks face is murder by whites. There are no such protests against the thousands of black murders.
There’s an organization called NeighborhoodScout. Using 2011 population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 crime statistics from the FBI and information from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies in the country, it came up with a report titled “Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America.” (http://tinyurl.com/cdqrev4) They include neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, Houston, St. Louis and other major cities. What’s common to all 25 neighborhoods is that their makeup is described as “Black” or “Mostly Black.” The high crime rates have several outcomes that are not in the best interests of the overwhelmingly law-abiding people in these neighborhoods. There can’t be much economic development. Property has a lower value, but worst of all, people can’t live with the kind of personal security that most Americans enjoy.
Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about “having a conversation about race.” That’s beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though “breakdown” is not the correct word, as the family doesn’t form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems.”
I had written a blog entry about how the definitions of “poor” and “poverty” have become very gray as a result of all the “welfare” benefits being given out to people who qualify by some arbitrary definition. However, Dr. Sowell came along and stated my case so much better than I was about to do.
Republished on “PA Pundits” blog from Dr. Thomas Sowell’s recent original column.
“Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are ‘the poor’? … ‘Poverty’ once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. … Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers’ money. This kind of ‘poverty’ can easily become a way of life, not only for today’s ‘poor,’ but for their children and grandchildren. Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit ‘tax’ on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire. If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it? In short, the political left’s welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty.” –economist Thomas Sowell
Michele Malkin can be abrasive, over-the-top, etc., but I think this column titled “Rescuing Citizenship and Civic Virtue” is really good – relatively subdued language, but a powerful message. It comes from
http://www.creators.com/opinion/michelle-malkin/rescuing-citizenship-and-civic-virtue.html
Excerpts: [Bolding is mine]
As we celebrate our nation’s 237th birthday, a crucial facet of American life has all but vanished. We have forsaken, in any systematic and deliberate public manner, one of our most fundamental duties: fostering civic virtue in each and every one of our citizens.
What does it mean to be an American? Politicians in both parties keep pushing to create a new “path to citizenship” for millions of illegal aliens. But if sovereignty and self-preservation still matter in Washington, citizenship must be guarded ferociously against those who would exploit and devalue it at every electoral whim.
The pavers of the amnesty pathway think illusory requirements of paying piddling “fines” and back taxes will inculcate an adequate sense of responsibility and ownership in the American way. Other fair-weather friends of patriotism satisfy themselves with shallow holiday pop quizzes on American history to fulfill the “well-informed” part of the “well-informed citizenry” mandate of our Founding Fathers.
But Thomas Jefferson said it well: “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice… These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”__
John Adams said it better: “Liberty can no more exist without virtue … than the body can live and move without a soul.”
__And Thomas Paine said it best: “When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.”
Civic virtue cannot be purchased with token gestures or passed down in perfect form like a complete set of family china. A life of honor, honesty, integrity, self-improvement and self-discipline is something you strive ever to attain.
Being American is a habit of mind, but also a habit of heart and soul. . . .
Calvin Coolidge . . . echoed the Founding Fathers’ emphasis on virtue, restraint and work ethic. “If people can’t support themselves,” he concluded, “we’ll have to give up self-government.”
The failure of public schools to impart even rudimentary knowledge of self-government principles, natural rights theory and the rule of law is compounded by the suicidal abandonment of civic education. As Stanford University education professor William Damon notes: “Our disregard of civic and moral virtue as an educational priority is having a tangible effect on the attitudes, understanding and behavior of large portions of the youth population in the United States today.”
Add militant identity politics, a cancerous welfare state, entitled dependence and tens of millions of unassimilated immigrants to the heap, and you have a toxic recipe for what Damon calls “societal decadence — literally, a ‘falling away,’ from the Latin decadere.” Civilizations that disdain virtue die.
Independence Day sparklers will light the skies overhead this July 4th, but George Washington’s “sacred fire of liberty” belongs in the breasts of Americans every day of the year.
How to rescue citizenship and civic virtue?
Let’s start by sending a message to politicians in the nation’s capital who imperil our sovereignty.
Citizenship — good citizenship — is not just a piece of government-issued paper. It is not merely a bureaucratic “status.” It’s a lifelong practice and propagation of founding principles. A nation of low information is just half the problem. A nation of low character cannot long remain a free nation.
[End of excerpts]
OK – I “excerpted” 90% of the column – I just couldn’t figure out what to omit, and I know that readers often don’t want to click on links.
I got caught up in an exchange with someone on Facebook, and wondered what some of you might think about it. I would really like to know if you feel I was overbearing, rude, or inappropriately insistent.
The primary posting, which was from a third person, made the somewhat ironic/sarcastic point that while the administration can track and analyze billions of e-mails, phone calls, etc., of normal American citizens, how can it be that, eight months after Benghazi, we still can’t get the relevant communications from the government?
I posted the first comment, below, and it goes on from there. [Name of correspondent changed to protect the innocent]
Me: . . . or records on who did what with regard to the IRS targeting, or records on who authorized “Fast and Furious”, or . . . .
Joyce: or George Bush’s military records…gov has been dysfunctional for decades. Don’t kid yourself into thinking this is an “Obama thing”
Me: Oh . . . thanks . . . I forgot . . . OR Obama’s education records . . . . Government has indeed been dysfunctional (at least somewhat) for decades, but it’s the rate of acceleration of the dysfunctional state under Obama that scares me.
Joyce: Is that what really scares you? I do wonder…..
Me: Sorry, Joyce . . . . what do you wonder? Are you about to play that last-ditch-effort card that liberals often fall back on when their arguments fall apart? And, yes — I believe every American should be afraid for the future prosperity and freedom of this nation.
Joyce: I think you need to relax, Doug. 2016 will be here before we know it and you and all the others will have the opportunity to make change. And hopefully you will not try so hard to keep this country divided. But you guys seem to have your shorts in a knot every moment of every day….must be exhausting. Today is a beautiful day – go do something fun and forget about politics for a few hours. Have a good day!!
Me: We’ll try to get many important changes made in 2014, not 2016. Again, it seems obvious that dissenting with your position is interpreted by you as “try[ing] hard to keep this country divided”. Too many people are out enjoying the sunshine while we are being led by Democrats and Republicans alike down a path to national bankruptcy — financially and morally. We conservatives are trying to unite the country behind ethical and constitutional republican principles, not divide it. The principles that made us the greatest, most prosperous, and most generous nation the world has ever seen. God bless you.
What I would really like is some feedback on my attitude. Rude and crude? Condescending? “Fair and Balanced”? Not strong enough?
Not always a fan of Michelle Malkin — she seems sometimes like a rabid dog on the attack. On the other hand, it very often feels as though she is right on target. In an essay describing her concern about the “unauthorized” iris scans of students that occurred recently, she made the following statement that I thought was so well said that I would repeat it here. These days, it seems to apply to literally dozens of scenarios.
She said:
“Those who scoff at us ‘paranoid’ parents for pushing back at Big Brother in the classroom suffer from an abject failure of imagination about government tyranny.”
I love this statement — “an abject failure of imagination about government tyranny”.
Doesn’t this just perfectly sum up our frustrations with regard to all those who think conservatives are simply “overreaching” in their pursuit of truth re: Benghazi, the IRS, targeted journalists, Fast and Furious, do-nothing gun control bills, alternative energy, etc., etc. [see my former posts on “overreaching].
And our frustrations in regard to all those low-information voters out there who continue to find it impossible to believe that the Obama Administration would do anything that would erode our liberty?
They have “an abject failure of imagination about government tyranny”, and one day we will slip over an edge from which there is no return. But we will be “safe” — safe in the arms of an overprotective government that wants to direct our every move and thought.
The Democrats have taken to using the term “overreaching” to describe the Republicans’ efforts to get to the bottom of the IRS, AP, and Benghazi situations. What I think is that someone needs to throw the following list loudly and repeatedly into their faces.
To my way of seeing things:
Overreaching is when the IRS, motivated by Administration-driven partisanship and rhetoric, targets conservative groups for “special” attention. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when a public employee (e.g., Ms. Lerner of the IRS) proclaims her complete and utter innocence in the matter of IRS targeting of conservative groups and then arrogantly thumbs her nose at a duly constituted congressional probe and proclaims she will answer no questions, taking the 5th instead. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
On the other hand, overreaching is when congressional committees demand higher ethical behavior (e.g., truth) from witnesses that appear before them than these congressmen demand of themselves.
Overreaching is when a huge health care bill that affects every American is rammed down the throats of Americans, who opposed the bill in majority; a bill that the congressmen never even got a chance to read and digest – now seen to cost Americans billions, if not trillions, of dollars, while not even achieving its coverage promises. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the Administration decrees that all birth control (including morning-after pills) must be provided free of charge in all employer insurance plans, thus both formalizing an infringement on freedom of religion and the government’s approval of removal of all constraints on casual sex and personal responsibility. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when there are lies about Benghazi concocted and promulgated for weeks after the terrorist event has occurred, in order to prevent damage to a presidential campaign. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the Administration targets phone records of journalists to serve its own nefarious purposes. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when government starts telling us what size drinks we can buy in the marketplace. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the President of the United States presumes to tell Americans that the market system is “unfair”, when he has little or no experience in the market system — and the American market system has been the greatest engine of general prosperity ever seen on earth. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the President of the United States inflicts unnecessary “pain” on Americans in the name of sequestration, when sequestration does not actually reduce spending by the federal government, and can be implemented with little actual “pain” and inconvenience. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the federal government imposes national education standards that actually lower the standards in some states that have implemented their own high standards, and now must reduce those standards to qualify for federal funds. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the Administration decrees that free speech can be limited on college and university campuses, and that lives can be destroyed based upon a simple charge of sexual harassment or misconduct without proof being necessary – the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when a gun control bill is slammed together in the aftermath of a tragic shooting event, simply for political show, when the particular bill would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the Administration throws billions of taxpayer dollars at financially and logically unsound “green” energy companies, companies often with strong Obama supporters as investors or board members, only to see that taxpayer money go down the drain in bankruptcies. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the federal government engineers auto manufacturers’ bankruptcies, entering into financial business partnerships at the cost of the taxpayers in order that supportive unions won’t suffer too much, instead of letting the normal bankruptcy-and-re-emergent process take care of the problem. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the federal government makes it more economically advantageous for the unambitious among us to be on the taxpayer dole than to be a part of the work force. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the President of the United States stays in constant campaign mode for over 5 years (and counting – with associated costs being charged to the taxpayers who are having to tighten their own belts – millions upon millions of dollars. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the President of the United States makes a college graduation speech in which he re-emphasizes the mindset and continuation of victimhood in the United States. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the President of the United States weighs in on white-on-black crime in America (e.g., the Trayvon Martin case), when it is a fact that black-on-black crime is a far, FAR more serious problem than either of the other two combinations. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the Administration’s Justice Department overlooks direct violation of polling place neutrality by failing to seriously investigate those in the New Black Panther Party who adopted on-site intimidation methods. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when a Democrat-controlled Senate fails to obey the law and pass an annual budget – for three years running. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the Administration not only selectively fails to enforce federal immigration laws, but prevents states from then passing and enforcing their own. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the federal government puts together an “immigration reform” bill that is loaded with “overreaching” garbage, for example the fixing of wages of immigrant workers, and special consideration for foreign ski instructors (both of which are found among dozens of other “overreaching” provisions in the new immigration reform bill. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when politicians blame any specific administration, party, or market segment for The Great Recession when they know that it was loose government policies and failure to execute to existing regulations that caused the major problems. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the government tries to cover up its own contributions to The Great Recession by blaming market forces and piling on new [mostly unneeded] regulations for business, thus significantly slowing down the economic recovery. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
Overreaching is when the President of the United Sates repeatedly lies to the American public about the intentions and beliefs of his political opponents. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should ALL be outraged at this.
You can feel free to suggest your own examples of overreaching. But in my opinion, these are the overreaches, NOT a committee’s attempts to investigate them. Where there is true innocence, there is truly nothing to fear.
I distinctly remember a time when I was fine with paying my federal income taxes. Proud to, in fact. I have paid income tax every year for 45 years, some years a relatively small amount (my military years), and some years huge amounts (by my definition). But it used to be about how blessed and fortunate I have been.
But the pride has entirely gone now. And what is worse, I am at a point in life where I have to actually pay money when April 15th rolls around – withholding does not cover the “tab” at this phase of my life. In fact, over the past several years I have found it galling, disgusting, disturbing, insulting, angering, and downright ridiculous to have to pay money out-of-pocket – to “write a check” – for an additional few thousand dollars (beyond withholding), well knowing that it is going to the most bloated, inefficient, misguided and corrupt organization in the United States – or passing through to millions of people who are on the public dole for no good reason other than they CAN be (and I am NOT talking about the truly needy here).
I believe Andrew Jackson made a comment after the Missouri Compromise of 1821 (?) that he was glad, or hoped, that he would not still be around when the country paid the price for dealing with the slavery issue through such compromises. He happened to be on the wrong side of history (to say nothing, perhaps, of the wrong side of morality), but I understand his sense of foreboding.
The thought does cross my mind to take the Alfred E. Neuman approach to the destabilization and decline of what has possibly been the greatest, most innovative, most prosperous and most generous nation the world has ever seen – “What, me worry?” – since I expect the country will hold together until my passing. At least I hope so.
Can we recover? The only ways I can see a recovery is to 1) regain our moral footing and dedication to founding principles and common sense laws and regulations, 2) eliminate multiculturalism in favor of unity of purpose and culture (i.e., assimilation), 3) prevent the dependent class from achieving majority-voting-block status, and 4) get our financial house in order by constraining the size, reach, and spending of the federal government.
And do I see all these things happening? Hardly. But I am a great believer in miracles.
Afterthought: I find that it is one thing to have money withheld for taxes out of salary, and maybe get some part of it back, and quite another to actually have to pay “extra” out-of-pocket. Maybe what we need is a tax system in which there is MORE of a requirement to pay out-of-pocket — say, a target to withhold only 50% of estimated tax burden — so that ALL Americans (the tax-paying portion of us, anyway) can feel the pride or anger in writing that extra check to those bozos at the end of the year. Think the cumulative outrage might get better performance out of them?
From the book, “Intellectuals and Race”, by Thomas Sowell, 2013
Excerpt: [Bolding is mine; content in brackets [ ] is mine]
“Although economic and social inequalities among racial and ethnic groups have attracted much attention from intellectuals, seldom today has this attention been directed primarily toward how the less economically successful and less socially prestigious groups might improve themselves by availing themselves of the culture of others around them, so as to become more productive and compete more effectively with other groups in the economy. When David Hume urged his fellow eighteenth-century Scots to master the English language, as they did, both he and they were following a pattern very different from the pattern of most minority intellectuals and their respective groups in other countries around the world. The spectacular rise of the Scots in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – eventually surpassing the English in engineering and medicine, for example – was also an exception, rather than the rule. A much more common pattern has been one in which the intelligentsia have demanded an equality of economic outcomes and of social recognition, irrespective of the skills, behavior or performance of the group to which they belong or on whose behalf they spoke. In some countries today, any claim that intergroup differences in outcomes [result from differences in behavior or performance] are dismissed by the intelligentsia as false “perceptions,” “prejudices,” or “stereotypes,” or else are condemned as “blaming the victim.” Seldom are any of these assertions backed up by empirical evidence or logical analysis that would make them anything more than arbitrary assertions that happen to be in vogue among contemporary intellectual elites.”
[End of excerpt]
Most of you know that Thomas Sowell is a black conservative economist (a rare combination) who is unrelenting in his attempt to expose errors in the thinking of liberals when it comes to race relations.
Mona Charen has produced a great column titled “Gullible Nation”, in which she cuts right to the core of the sequestration issue and the incompetence in D.C. Below are the first 5 paragraphs – you can read the entire piece at
http://www.creators.com/opinion/mona-charen/gullible-nation.html
Excerpt:
Responding to the Obama administration’s operatic warnings of catastrophe for Meals on Wheels for the elderly, Head Start, meat inspections, air traffic controllers, and police, fire, and 911 operators if the government reduces the rate of increase of federal spending by 2 percent, radio host Chris Plante offered the following suggestion: “Since this two percent obviously covers all essential government spending, let’s cut the other 98 percent!”
Even if these “draconian cuts” are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year.
Another way to think about it is this: In 2007, the government was 40 percent smaller than it is today. Were poor people sleeping under bridges? Were the elderly starving? Were planes grounded? Was food unsafe to eat?
Here’s another question: Are Americans really this gullible? The president’s doom saying is so absurd that a mature country would hoot him off the stage. As it is, the housebroken media credulously report his obviously partisan scare mongering as fact.
As the sequester has loomed, the president and even many Republicans have argued that these “across the board” spending cuts (they’re actually just reductions in the rate of increase) are “stupid” and “destructive” and so forth. This raises (it doesn’t beg) the question: if cutting spending across the board is so stupid, what does that say about the priorities of the congress and president who passed these spending bills in the first place? If our spending priorities are so out of whack that cutting everything equally is unthinkable, why hasn’t the government adjusted those programs before now?
[End of excerpt]
Beautifully said.
One of John Stossel’s latest, titled “Sequester: Not Even a Cut” revealing, once again, that the so-called “cuts” are pretty much just a decrease in the rate of increase of government spending. Excerpts below, but the full item can be found at
Excerpt:
If you’re reading this, you’ve survived the “sequester” cuts!
That may surprise you, since President Obama likened the sequester to taking a “meat cleaver” to government, causing FBI agents to be furloughed, prosecutors to let criminals escape and medical research to grind to a halt!
The media hyped it, too. The NBC Nightly News said, “The sequester could cripple air travel, force firefighter layoffs — even kick preschoolers out of child care!”
The truth is that the terrifying sequester cuts weren’t even cuts. They were merely a small reduction in government’s planned increase in spending. A very small reduction.
After a decade, the federal government will simply spend about $4.6 trillion a year instead of $4.5 trillion (in 2012 dollars).
And still members of Congress, Republicans included, look for ways to delay the cuts, like spreading them out over 10 years instead of making any now. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked, “If we cannot do this little bit … how are we ever going to balance the budget?”
After a decade, the federal government will simply spend about $4.6 trillion a year instead of $4.5 trillion (in 2012 dollars).
And still members of Congress, Republicans included, look for ways to delay the cuts, like spreading them out over 10 years instead of making any now. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked, “If we cannot do this little bit … how are we ever going to balance the budget?”
[End of excerpt]
I am so ashamed of our elected “leaders” in D.C. that I can barely stand it. And to add to the shame – apparently they themselves have no shame. May God help us.
I still don’t get it, though. Instead of “cuts”, wouldn’t the word (and the action) “freeze” have been a much better way for Republicans to get it across to the American people that we really aren’t cutting anything? And at the same time, we would have lowered the spending level of the government, instead of just slowing the rate of increase?
Just a few gems from Thomas Sowell’s latest “Random Thoughts” column. I’m really glad he takes the time to collect his notes on various sub-topics and feed them out to us. The entire column can be read at http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/random-thoughts-13-02-12.html
Excerpts:
— I can’t get excited by the question of whether Senator Robert Menendez had sex with a prostitute in Central America. It is her word against his — and when it comes to a prostitute’s word against a politician’s word, that is too close to call.
— If an American citizen went off to join Hitler’s army during World War II, would there have been any question that this alone would make it legal to kill him? Why then is there an uproar about killing an American citizen who has joined terrorist organizations that are at war against the United States today?
— One of the talking points in favor of confirming Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense is that he was a wounded combat veteran. How does that qualify anyone to run the whole military establishment? Benedict Arnold was a wounded combat veteran!
— People who are forever ready to charge others with “greed” never apply that word to the government. But, if you think the government is never greedy, check out what the government does under the escheat laws and eminent domain.
End of excerpts.
He certainly has a way of getting thoughts down to simple comparisons.
politicsandreason 