Friday, April 30, 2010

Your Enviro-Fascist story of the day

On a springtime drive through the Central Valley, it's hard not to notice how federal and state governments are hell-bent on destroying the state's top export — almonds — and everything else in the nation's most productive farmland.

Instead of pink blossoms and green shoots along Highway 5 in April, vast spans from Bakersfield to Fresno sit bone-dry. Brown grass, dead orchards and lifeless grapevine skeletons stretch for miles for lack of water. For every fallow field, there's a sign that farmers have placed alongside the highway: "No Water = No Food," "No Water = No Jobs," "Congress Created Dust Bowl."

Locals say it's been like this for two years now, as Congress and bureaucrats cite "drought," "global warming" and "endangered species" to deny water to this $37 billion breadbasket through arbitrary "environmental" quotas.

Environmental quota is the alarming piece.  Global warming has nothing to do with it, and drought is something they've created, and yet they use these terms as weapons for their own ends.  At best this further illustrates that Greens are fanatics.  At worst it's a blatant abuse of power.

Oh and that endangered species in question?

Awesome.  Totally worth the huge economic loss and costing people their livelihood.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Obama Quotes

The quotes below hardly do justice to the amount of lying that has gone on with this administration as often times they use actions instead of words.  I'll touch on those later, but for now take this as a reminder of Obama's far-left curve.

The layout may be a bit awkward, so I apologize for that.  The quote sections are broken up to display where Obama has said one thing and then either backtracked or said completely contradictory statements at a later date.


"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That's the world! On which hope sits!" - Obama, Dreams of My Father

"I don't know -- not having been there and not seeing all the facts -- what role race played in that number one: Any of us would be pretty angry. Number 2: The Cambridge police acted...stupidly." - Obama putting race into something he admittedly knows nothing about

"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." - Obama, Dreams of My Father

Foreign Policy

"Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." - Obama, 2007

"The international community has an obligation, even when it's inconvenient, to act when genocide is occurring." - Obama, 2009


"Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide." - January 19th, 2008.  Obama now refuses to back legislation which would call it genocide because it would impede relations with Turkey.

Domestic Policy

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." - Obama 2008.  Raised taxes include:  Tanning, being uninsured, and on cigarettes.

"I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." - Obama 2008.  Promise broken nine days after taking office

"Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994." - Obama.  Lol

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process." - Obama 2008.  Healthcare negotiations were largely held behind closed doors.


"Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them." - Obama before

"For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." - Obama after


"I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America." - Obama 2007

"We are going to try to bring people together, rather then push them apart." - Obama, August 6, 2009

"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking, I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." - Obama, August 6, 2009

"I want you to go out and talk to your friends, and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them to them whether they're independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their faces." - Obama, September 2008


 "Let me also address an illegitimate concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming that a public horse is somehow a trojan horse for a single-payer system." - Obama, June 15, 2009

"My commitment is to make sure that we have Universal Health Care by the end of my first term of President." - Obama, March 2007

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer, Universal Health Care plan." - Obama, 2003


“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.” - Obama April, 2009. He later went on a date with Michelle that cost the taxpayers $70,000.

"Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." - Obama claiming to be on a committee he is not on.  Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008

"Those" moments

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."

"Just wonderful to be back in Oregon and in the last fifteen months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been to uhh...fifty seven states?" - Obama, 2008

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." - Obama, Memorial Day 2009

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." - Obama on a Tornado that killed 12

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." - Obama trying to win support for a government healthcare option.

"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's.  It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." - Obama in Jordan, 2008

"I had a...uncle who was one of the...who was part of the first troops to go into Auschwitz." - Obama, 2008. Auschwitz was liberated by Soviet troops, not Americans.

Obama sold himself as a moderate, but what we got was a Progressive.  He lies, he manipulates, and he demagogues, but keep all of this in mind when 2012 rolls around.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Lets freak out over anti-Illegal immigration laws!

You wouldn't think it'd be such a hard concept to grasp since the word illegal is actually in the word, but apparently liberals haven't quite figured out that being an illegal immigrant is in fact illegal.  So when Arizona passed a law that made it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant, liberals reacted the way they always do.  With insanity...

I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon.

 Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?” Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

...and stupidity.

Opponents of Arizona's new anti-immigrant law are calling for a boycott of the state's products - including the popular Arizona Iced Tea.

The problem: Arizona Iced Tea is actually brewed in New York.
Online, misguided tea fans vowed to switch to Lipton or Snapple.

"Dear Arizona: If you don't change your immigration policy, I will have to stop drinking your enjoyable brand of iced tea," Twittered Jody Beth in Los Angeles.

"It is the drink of fascists," wrote Travis Nichols in Chicago.

Of course their reactions could hardly stop there. 

So why are the liberals so upset over this law?  As far as I can tell they didn't get their way and now they're throwing a hissy fit over it.  I say that because I can't find anything highly objectionable about this law.  The law basically gives police in the state of Arizona the power to question someone on their immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion to do so.  The fear here is that police will abuse their power and start questioning everyone of Latino descent. 

That's a reasonable concern, but the liberal reaction is totally uncalled for even under normal circumstances, but it gets worse when you look below the surface. Take, for example, the executive order issued by Governor Jan Brewer that authorizes the state police board to establish just what "reasonable suspicion" is, while at the same time declaring that there would be no racial profiling.  Yeah it's possible that the police could violate the law and resort to racial profiling, but with the state clearly defining what a cop can and can't do legally it becomes more of a bad cop problem and not a bad law problem.

Polls on the matter don't help liberals either.  60% of Americans support legislation like the one passed in Arizona, a majority of Latino's in Arizona support the law, and Governor Brewer has seen a significant boost in support since signing the law.

Reasonable people would of at least waited to see how the state police defined reasonable suspicion before voicing their discontent.  Then again reasonable people wouldn't resort to calls of fascism and apartheid over what polls prove is a mainstream line of thinking.

Reasonable people would of also placed the blame squarely where it belongs:  On the Federal government.  Arizona is the gateway to America for illegal immigrants, and as such suffers from drug running, kidnappings, and violent crime.  Some statistics:

  • Border patrol agents in Arizona arrest an average of 900 illegal immigrants a day for a total of 990,000 over the last three years.  Or 45% of the national total.
  • Federal agents seized 1.5 million pounds of marijuana last year
  • Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of America, with roughly one person being kidnapped every day in recent years

It's the Federal government's job to patrol the border and protect it's citizens.  When they failed Arizona was forced to take matters into its own hands.  What's the problem here again?

If you want to see how Mexico is handling the Arizona law I suggest you read Cassy Fiano's post.  Maybe liberals would prefer if we applied Mexican law on illegal immigration to all Mexican illegal immigrants?  Somehow I don't think so.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Remember November

I caught this back on Friday, but wanted to share it with anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

The official site is here if you want to donate or just sign the pledge to remember November.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Insanity on the Right

Having a large network of friends on facebook is interesting.  I've never "networked" before so it was fun meeting new people who had a similar interest in politics.  The vast majority of my friends are good people who post stories, pictures, and anything else they can get their hands on.  We disagree sometimes, but most have the sense to recognize that a little disagreement is healthy.  Every now and then you get something that is just not salvageable.  Usually it's a rare person who can't tolerate any disagreeing with them, but sometimes it's someone who truly believes something flat out insane.

I'm not actually sure how much of this needs or deserves a serious reply.  The vast majority of it so ridiculous that I think it speaks for itself.  The note was long too so I cut out parts.  Most of it is just mindless rhetoric anyways, but here you go:

Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler are one in the same. Both are very dark men who hide their ancestral roots and claim to be Christians, all to gain power and corrupt the free world with their Satanic ways.

I am very afraid of Barack Obama and you should be too. Hitler’s ultimate goal was to commit genocide and Obama supports the endless murder of babies. Let us look at the eerie similarities between these two dark souls.

The start and picture pretty much tell you exactly how this is going to go down:

1. Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler Obscured Their Origin

Obama: Barack Obama is not an American. He’s a Muslim.

Barack Obama and his socialist supporters circumvented the law, so he could inflict Soviet and Indonesian Sharia edict upon our land in preparation for a great war.

Hitler: Adolf Hitler was not a German. He was a genocidal socialist, just like Barack Obama.

Born in Austria, crippled and to a Jewish mother, Hitler grew up in squalor. Obama was also not wealthy in his upbringing.

While Hitler championed the talk of being poor and having to be a self-made man, he hid the fact that he was of Jewish ancestry. He hid the fact that he was a Godless atheist. Again, just like B. Hussein Obama. This is terrifying.

More often then not the Birther and Muslim lines go hand in hand, and sometimes you even get the "He's the anti-Christ!" thrown in there for good measure.  People who do this tend to be the exact people that the media try to claim all conservatives are, down to bringing up race in a manner that makes even me uncomfortable.  Lets continue on though.

Birthers are their own brand of special and there isn't much to say.  Give us proof or just go away.  Stop dragging the entire movement down with you.  We hear about them so much that I don't feel like I have to waste time with them.

The Muslim argument, however, isn't dealt with enough.  I have a simple question for everyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim:  Why?  Because he lived in Indonesia as a child?  By that logic couldn't I argue he's Christian because he spent most of his time in America going to Christian Churches?  If Obama is anything other than what he says he is wouldn't it be Atheist?  That would be the most logical choice for a man who thinks himself an intellectual and is commonly accused of being a socialist or communist.  Even for this particular author that argument would be far more rational and do more to help him draw a line between Hitler and Obama.  Instead he falls back on one of the most ridiculous and childish arguments.

The last argument in point number one is just icing on the cake.  Congratulations on discovering that politicians try to portray themselves as normal people who worked hard to get where they are.  Clearly this proves Obama is Hitler.

Point number two isn't numbered so I had to just assume that this was point number two:

Obama: People follow him blindly without question and his political rallies were held in stadiums.

People like “Obama Girl” make shameful propaganda videos in his name and Obama’s Youth sing chants to worship him and make him unto a Fuhrer.

Obama’s Youth are secretly trained to support genocide of the innocent and taught to hate their Christian American heritage, instilled by their Republican forefathers.

Wait WHAT?  Obama has an organization called the Obama Youth?  And they're being secretly trained to do what?

I've never really understood people like this (with Truthers being in the same boat).  If I had a private army that I had been training to slaughter anyone who disagrees with me you can bet that anyone who tried to blab about it would go "missing".  I certainly wouldn't let someone tell the world on their -facebook-.

Point number three has pictures that are supposed to show Obama and his supporters doing Nazi salutes.

3. Frightened Crowds Heil Pledge of Loyalty

To Obama and Hitler Obama: Barack Obama hates it when people pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; our one nation under God. Obama hates it so much that he publicly refuses to salute our nation’s flag.

As seen in the terrifying image above, Obama wants crowds to acknowledge him with ‘Heil Obama’ as no flag is seen on the podium, only his body. Obama often starts speeches by giving the Heil symbol, which harkens to his social ancestry and desires for our nation.


Well I'm going to assume you don't actually mean a military salute since Obama is a civilian.  But uh...argument debunked?

Oh and yeah I hear Obama screams "HEIL OBAMA!" and raises his arm, which is repeated by the crowd several times before he begins his speech.  I also heard he attacked a 5th grade class that was saying the pledge of allegiance.  Just kinda saw red and started swinging.  He HATES IT when you say the pledge.

4. Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler Wrote A Book about “Their Struggle”
Obama: Obama is well-versed in the application of Machiavellian politics. He understands the true purpose of The Prince but twists it to its most sinister ends: to win over the crowd so he can use them for building a empire of evil, based on false love and deep fear.

Obama’s biography is titled Barack Obama: What He Believes In. The book paints Obama as a sympathetic character; an everyman. A man who believes in values and morality, a man who is from humble beginnings and is right for America.

The book does not give details on how Obama supports the murder of babies and gives terrorists in Palestine $1 billion dollars of US tax money, so the Palestinians can continue to try King Pharaoh’s goal of killing the Children of Israel.

Obama does not want to bomb Iran into the Stone Age for building nuclear technology that could be used against Israel. Obama wants to make Iran an American ally in his great war against moral, God-fearing nations.

You will not find these facts about him in his books, because it is nothing but Machiavellian propaganda.

Hitler: Hitler’s biography is Mein Kampf: My Struggle.

Muslims believe in what’s called Jihad. It literally means ‘my struggle’. A jihad can be anything; a struggle against over-eating, a struggle to be a better mother. A struggle to kill all Americans dead because they hate our freedom.

Hitler’s struggle was tricking people into thinking that he cared about them and the nation of Germany. Even his ‘own’ people were a simple tool for him and his end goal; to make Satan proud by destroying God’s children. After that was done, Hitler would have been satisfied and not cared about anything else.

My friends, Barack Obama has a jihad as well: why did ACORN help him get into office: so he could promote a social health care system that will leave the old uncovered and dieing of the common cold?

Why does Barack Obama support the genocide and scapegoating of all children that live in their mother’s womb? His true story is this: he supports gays and abortion, so therefore is not Christian. And if you are not Christian, you are anti-Christian, anti-America and anti-God.

You are anti-Christ.

And there it is.  From the context he could easily mean that the man is just the opposite of Christ and not actually THE anti-Christ, but that's getting awfully close to the line and you'd have to be rather ignorant to call someone "anti-Christ" and not think everyone is going to take it as THE anti-Christ.

But hey, you know, the crazy is complete.

The rest of argument number four?  Yeah, Obama wrote a book about himself.  Hitler wrote about himself.  Weird coincidence.  Who writes a book about them self?  Certainly not politicians.

5. Veiling Their True Names Under The Fabric of Lies

Obama: Fun fact – Barack Obama’s real name is Barry Soetoro.

Fun fact:  Obama's birth name is Barack Hussein Obama II. 

Another Fun Fact:  No one cares!  I don't care if is real name was Castro Stalin Genghis, it doesn't mean anything.

I'm not totally convinced that the person who posted this isn't a troll since it's easily in the top 10 for the most insane things I've ever read.  Even if it is the comments on the note are overwhelmingly supportive with 16 "likes" and positive comments from a bit under a dozen different people.  Only person actually voices anything other than support, and it's hardly what I'd call disagreeing.

Now I do believe abortion is genocide, I have been known to call Democrats (including Obama) fascists, and when some random protester holds up a sign comparing Obama to Hitler it doesn't particularly bother me.  But that's because I assume it's more of a statement and less that the person actually thinks the two are virtually one and the same.  However some people this have crossed that line.  No one should get a free pass just because they're critical of Obama or wrote in "Republican" or "Conservative" next to their political beliefs, yet to often they do.

The Conservative movement of today has to be both rational and principled.  I remember how the Leftists acted during Bush, and I don't want to be associated with anything remotely close to that insanity.  They got a pass because the media supported them, but we don't have that luxury.  If we want people who are curious about the Conservative, anti-Obama stance we have to present ourselves as people with well thought out beliefs.  Otherwise we only serve to drive away everyone with the sense to spot insanity.

The person who posted this on facebook is called ─îonserVapidia ┼ťaroka.  We have 124 our of roughly 200 networking friends in common.  If you're reading this and you're friends with him I urge to drop him or actually point out how stupid his arguments are.  Just because we're all on the right side of things doesn't mean we can't disagree with one another.  Sometimes just polite disagreements, and other times we have to say "No, we will not let our ideology be associated with someone like you."

Friday, April 23, 2010

Margaret Sanger: American Villain

Margaret Sanger is an interesting character.  In life she called for the sterilization of the poor, the weak, and the "unfit" with a focus on minorities.  Yet today she is a hero for leftists, which makes just about as much sense as Jews idolizing Nazis because they knew how to keep order.  Still, that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from praising her:

"The 20th century reproductive rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race," Clinton had said. She also said that Sanger's work "is not done."

Hey guys it's ok to love a woman who wanted to abuse and violate the people we claim to fight for because she gave us planned parenthood and birth control!

Maybe Hillary Clinton was referring to this when she says Sanger's work isn't done:

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."


"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Or maybe this...

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

When you take a look at the things Sanger has said or done there's virtually nothing redeemable about her.  It's understandable why neo-feminists would find her to be a hero:  She created Planned Parenthood, she believes that the key to "female freedom" lies in sexual freedom, and she views children as some sort of curse.  I'm not a fan of any of those beliefs to begin with, but when you include eugenics and racist tendencies it crosses the line and becomes outright evil.

For those of you who don't know what eugenics is:  It's the belief that the Human race can be purified by deliberately removing the weak or impure elements.  Nazi Germany, for example, was a strong believer in eugenics and justified it's slaughter of homosexuals, Jews, gypsies, Slavs, and others under the pretense of creating a master race.

Sanger was a believer of less extreme version of eugenics and described her views in her 1920 book Woman and the New Race as "nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or those who will become defectives.".  By sterlizing or otherwise preventing these "defectives" from breeding you could solve the problems of poverty, disease, racial tension, and overpopulation.  In other words:  By doing away with those you deem weak you could create the perfect society.

"Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism." - Sanger advocating the use of forced sterilization

Eugenics is a fundamentally anti-American belief.  It essentially creates two classes, with one class being totally and utterly inferior to the other.  Rather than all people being equal because they are all subject to the law, one group of people is ruled by a completely different set of rules.  They are told they are inferior, virtually sub-human, and thus must be controlled for the good of the race.  In its tamest form eugenics encourages these people to not procreate or sterilize themselves voluntarily.  In it more extreme forms it ranges from Sanger's belief that people can be forcefully sterilized, to the Nazi's campaign of extermination.

Sanger's work would lead to the creation of Planned Parenthood, an organization that we all know of today.  This organization was her ideological child, and other founders were just as radical if not more so.   Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, for example, warned of the black and yellow "peril" and was an advocate of eugenics.

The Planned Parenthood of today isn't free of Sanger's influence.  One of Sanger's first clinics was set up in Harlem, an overwhelmingly black area.  They distributed contraceptives and justified their work by pointing out that blacks had a higher rate of unemployment, a higher infant mortality rate, and a higher death rate to tuberculosis.  She would eventually work with black leader W.E.B DuBois (rival to Booker T. Washington if you remember) and develop the "Negro Project" who's goal was specifically target blacks when distributing contraceptives.  Blacks became a prime target for her belief that the socially and economically lower classes were inferior, and had to be prevented from breeding in order to ensure a strong human race.  Through her clinics should could actually put her work into practice.

What started out as one clinic is now hundreds. Today 78% of all Planned Parenthood clinics are set up in minority neighborhoods.  Blacks make up 12% of the population and 35% of all abortions.  They are the only minority on the decline. 
I doubt it's a coincide that woman who said "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." would found an organization that, today, kills a disproportionate amount of black babies.

Margaret Sanger is yet ANOTHER example of what is either liberal hypocrisy, or their ignorance.  To support someone so abhorrent is shocking, but when you claim to protect the very people your idols sought to destroy it becomes dangerous.  I'm not suggesting that Hillary Clinton wants to kill all black or poor people, but I most certainly believe that her, and the neo-feminists like her are friendly to Sanger's radical beliefs.  Eugenics must never, ever, be treated as a serious science again and by glorifying someone like her you leave the door open to her ideas becoming viable once more.

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."

The groundwork is already there, you just have to know what to look for.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Nanny Statism is Fascism a smile

The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.

The government intends to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to adjust the American palate to a less salty diet, according to FDA sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the initiative had not been formally announced.

If the FDA had declared a total ban on salt rather than this gradual restriction, what would  the result be?  Mass protests, businesses refusing to comply, and all but the most radical people screaming fascism at the government right?

So how is this any different?

I don't remember all the details to the story about how to catch a wild pig, but it basically goes something like this:  You start out by putting some food out in the same spot every day so that the pigs gradually get used to eating there.  Then one day you put up just one side of a fence.  Eventually the pigs get used to that.  Then you put up the second, and they get used that to that one too.  Then the third.  And once the pigs are used to eating their food surrounded by three fences you put up the last one and suddenly the pigs are domesticated.

Now think about what you would've said to someone two or three years ago if they proposed letting the government tell each and every restaurant and food producer how much salt they can and cannot put in their food.  Two years ago I would of found the idea so foreign that I would of dismissed it and thought the person asking me it a little crazy for even bringing it up.  This is America after all.  If someone wants to sell me salt and butter on a stick then by all means let them.  I'm the moron for buying it, and he's a genius for getting people to buy it.

Well today it's a reality.  Now I'm not asking for people to get outraged and stay outraged over salt, but I want people to recognize the fence for a fence and not just some new addition to the landscape that means nothing.  Too many people will say "Well salt is bad for you anyways, so what's the big deal?" and simply let it slide.  But once you use that logic you'll be forced to use it again and again until you find yourself domesticated and in a pin.  Maybe tomorrow it's a push to ban trans-fats or make feeding your children certain foods child abuse.  Actually that one has already started:

School lunches have been called many things, but a group of retired military officers is giving them a new label: national security threat
That's not a reference to the mystery meat served up in the cafeteria line either. The retired officers are saying that school lunches have helped make the nation's young people so fat that fewer of them can meet the military's physical fitness standards, and recruitment is in jeopardy.

Please.  And if they have their way what happens?  Kids are still fat and more drastic action is necessary.  Government intervention.

Security is rarely a good excuse for sacrificing liberties.  Yeah, maybe we could live longer, healthier lives if we gave the government the right to regulate what we eat, but do you really want that?  The cost would be a large degree of freedom, and giving the government more power.  Think of the government as a slave that is more powerful than us, but securely chained.  Do you really want to release those chains just because he'll promise to behave?

Do your best to never let the argument boil down to "Well it's not so bad, so who cares if they do it?".  It should boil down to "If its not a big deal, why are they doing it?"

Oh and about that salt being so awful for you:

High-salt diets may not increase the risk of death, contrary to long-held medical beliefs, according to investigators from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

They reached their conclusion after examining dietary intake among a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. The Einstein researchers actually observed a significantly increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with lower sodium diets.

Whoops.  Well lets just ignore that.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Oh Joe!

Joe Biden is like that crazy uncle most of us have.  He says things that are wildly inappropriate, stupid, or both and gets away with it because "That's uncle Joe!".  You don't try to understand why he says the things he says, you just embrace it.

Even if you hate this administration you have to admit that Biden keeps things fun.

Joe trying to win an election

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S." - Joe demonstrating his ability to count

"A man I’m proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States — Barack America!" - Joe introducing his running mate

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." - Joe inspiring confidence during a dip in the polls

"You need to work on your pecs." - Joe to a campaign reporter

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." - Joe trying to convince people to vote for Obama

Joe on race

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man." - Racist Joe

"In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking" - Serious Joe

Joe on the job

“It’s easy being vice president — you don’t have to do anything.” - Honest Joe

''His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she's- wait- your mom's still- your mom's still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.' - Joe to the Irish Prime Minister

"I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico. It's you're in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft." - Joe keeping people calm

Joe having trouble with f**king mics

"An hour late, oh give me a f**king break." - Joe finding out his mic is on

''This is a big f**king deal!'' - Joe forgetting his mic is on during the healthcare signing ceremony

Joe just being Joe

''A successful dump!'' - Joe explaining where he was to reporters outside his home

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, "look, here's what happened." - Joe having some trouble with history.  TVs were still experimental by the time of the stock market crash.

"Uh, uh, Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about." - Joe forgetting that people in wheelchairs can't stand up

Saturday, April 17, 2010

A reminder on the economy

Caught this chart on Hot Air today and thought it should be shared.

The chart pretty much speaks for itself.  Every time the filings drop, Obama trumpets the recovery only for filings to shoot back up again.  Keep this in mind the next time you hear the media or Obama talking about that elusive recovery.

This chart is always my favorite since it clearly shows just how bad Obama had failed.  The original chart without the red is the one Obama used to sell the stimulus.  The White House gave its worst case scenario in the form of the faded blue line, and what would happen if we passed the stimulus in the dark blue line.  The red line is how things actually turned out.  Clearly a group of people who know what they're doing.

The Tea Party: A Tale of Leftist Tolerance

If you were to look at the Tea Party by the numbers you wouldn't see anything particularly shocking for a mainstream conservative group.  That is unless you were a liberal.  In that case Gallup's findings on the Tea Party would be downright shocking to you:

Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That’s the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.

In several other respects, however — their age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.

For the last year the left has hurled insults and accusations at the Tea Party that range from childish to very serious in nature.  Everything from Janeane Garofalo's calling Tea Partiers racists to Anderson Cooper's sexual innuendo field day after playing his first game of Halo 3 online.

Childish jokes are one thing, but any accusation of racism is serious.  In America today there a few worse things you can be labeled.  At least it was that way before the Democrats abused the word and left it nothing more than a shallow insult by using it against a group clearly not racist at all.  Former President Jimmy Carter thought that "an overwhelming portion" of animosity against Obama was racist.  California Representative Maxine Waters came to the conclusion that the media should probe Tea Partiers for racist thoughts.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island declared the Tea Party is filled with racists and birthers that only hate Obama because he's black.  The list could go on to include Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, and many others but the point is that racism became the primary weapon of the Democrat party against conservatives and the Tea Party.

I've pointed out in past posts that Democrats love using the race card since it's such a potent weapon, but I can't think of a time where its been used so often and so carelessly.  When I got over my initial outrage I came to the conclusion that this blatant attempt at demagogue would not harm the Tea Party, but rather cause harm to the Democrats.  I also personally think it harms race relations in America.  Whenever you make it a "us vs them" and make it about race you inevitably do damage and set things back.  Suddenly its "those racists whites tearing down our black president".  Not that Democrats particularly care about race relations and bridging the gap.  That gap is a means to an end for them.

When it comes to tolerance liberals are often portrayed as the ultimate force of tolerance, in contrast to the hateful conservatives.  In reality that tolerance is nothing more then a means to an end, and the Tea Party is another example of how liberal tolerance only extends to those who they agree with.  The argument generally seems to be that everyone who doesn't agree with them has some sort of phobia or mental illness that explains their "irrational hatred", and thus gives liberals the right to demagogue that person or group at will.  Tolerant of everyone except those they perceive to be intolerant is a good way to phrase it.

Even more amazing then the constant and blatant hypocrisy is how well they can lie given how little evidence they have for any given argument.  They claimed (and still do) that the Tea Party is a violent group one step away from committing a wave of hate crimes, and yet the two big incidents of violence in any of the Tea Party events have come from the left.  Ironically the first attack was committed by union thugs who yelled racial slurs while beating a black man.  Did this stop the Democrats from screaming that Tea Partiers were racists?  Of course not.  And the accusations of violence continued even after a conservative had his finger bitten off by a liberal.  At least they're dedicated to their story.

This isn't even touching on a comparison of civility between Tea Partiers and the anti-war, anti-Bush protesters.  That deserves a post of it's own.

As the Tea Party has gained strength Dem. politicians have toned their rhetoric down a notch, and even the media is slowly coming around, but ultimately liberals themselves have not changed.  Spend some time watching comments in a political forum and sure enough there will be a liberal who comes in screaming that any conservative is a Tea Bagging, racist eager to shoot Obama and any other liberal they can get their hands on.  It doesn't take a a psychologist to figure out that the level of hate these people demonstrate isn't an appropriate reaction, and that it must be something deeper than the things the Tea Party has done.  It says more about them than it does about the movement.

I'll wrap this up on a happy note.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Just pilin' it on

Pretty slow day and feeling a bit lazy so instead of actually typing something substantial up I'll just post two short videos that highlight the blindness of blacks in regards to politics.  Enjoy!

There are stupid people on both sides, but this is less about being stupid and more about them voting for a man based on his skin color.  If they said "Obama supports eugenics.  What are your thoughts on that?" you could be sure sheep mode would kick in and they'd eagerly declare their support eugenics.

The first video...I'm not quite sure whats going on there.  I suspect it has something to do with the black belief that all whites are entitled.  As if getting a black president means its time for blacks to ride the gravy train. Where are my reparations anyhow?

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

We can all hope its just incompetence

On July 4th, 1776 America declared independence from Great Britain, and with it their monarchs.  We cast down their kings and queens and became a Republic, a nation ruled by laws and not men.  When we became a sovereign nation we demanded to be treated as equals, not as subjects.  We have no masters, and we rule ourselves.  Such a fundamentally American message became one of the key rules to all US Presidents for over 200 years:  Don't bow.  The American people don't bend their backs to any foreign power, so why should our leader?

Err...ok, so he bowed.  He's new at this whole being a leader thing.  And beside Nixon did the same thing.  He wasn't kissing the floor, but he bowed!  Surely we can overlook this one mistake and cut our new President some sla...

For the love of God, Barry!  We just went over this!  Don't.  Bow.  Look, I'm not bowing right now!  You try it now.

....I...I just...can't...*sigh*...

Today's post is in honor of Obama bowing to his third world leader last night.  The first time he did it conservatives had a lovely time expressing their outrage.  Everyone else was still drunk on the Obama kool-aid so they largely just watched from the sidelines.  But among the conservatives things broke down into two camps (although there were people who went between the two).  The conservative fringe thought that this was proof positive that Obama was a muslim.  Bowing to the leader of the Sunni faith isn't a coincidence right?  Eh well they're fringe for a reason.  All the other rational people thought it was either a sign of his weak ideology or just flat out incompetence.  Between the two incompetence was the preference, although conservatives had been making the argument that he would be a terrible leader since 08 so the "I told you so" points may make it even.  Of course inevitably the bow came with a whole bunch of fun attached to it including a White House denial:

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

What the hell does that even mean?  How does that even excuse bending your spine forward in a gesture that closely resembles bowing?  If you're going to lie to the American public at least -try-

And then, of course, there was the media outrage. 

Harsh, but what more could we expect?  In 1994 the NY Times tore Clinton apart for ALMOST bowing to the Japanese Emperor, so of course Barry had to expect the same treatment!  We're nothing if not consistent.  That's what it takes to have a fair, unbiased media.  Even The One is not above such things.

Eventually the controversy died down until conservatives used it as something to snicker about.  Just a little piece of evidence to remind us of the type of people we had in the White House.

And then Obama went to Japan.

The thing about the Japanese bow is that its -so low-.  In Japan the lower the bow the more respect you're showing to someone.  Oh and weakness.  Lower the bow, the more weakness you're displaying.  Of course such details are below the leader of the free world.  Heck the Emperor of Japan is just a figurehead anyways, I bet plenty of people say "Damn the protocol!" and kiss the ground anyways.

Tch.  Well at least we got the White House spin!

"...But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan – who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnesses his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan."

I had a friend try to argue this point with me.  "Well whats one bow if it gets stuff done?"  How the public  of the nation in question views the representative of your nation has NOTHING to do with trying to get things done diplomatically right?  If we're going to sit down with another nation and engage in diplomacy shouldn't it be done as equals?  It's not even that the Japanese find bowing so completely offensive.  There are correct ways to do a bow and to show respect without conceding weakness.  Its just that nobody told Obama that.

"The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms....The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part."

Hey about just shaking his hand next time?  None of Japan's newspapers will be so embarrassed by a handshake that they'll refuse to publish the picture.  Unlike your bow.

By the time we get to the Chinese bow there's nothing left to say.  Apparently Obama just likes bowing when its completely inappropriate.  If its incompetence then its crossed that line into stupidity.  Seriously, not bowing isn't hard.  In fact I do it pretty much every day.  I'm pretty sure I've gone years without bowing!  The alternative is that he truly believes it's ok to whore out the respect of his both position and that of the United States for the chance of diplomatic gain.

Or that he's a Japanese, muslim, communist.  (I love you fringe <3)

Like the title says:  We can all hope its just incompetence.

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Russian Bear

About 20 years ago the Cold War came to and end, and with it the Russian threat.  After decades of proxy wars, political infighting, and failing communist policies the Russian Bear was left a crippled, shadow of her former self.  Her satellite nations abandoned her, communism fell, and our fight with Russia was over.  The world assumed that, much like the former soviet nations, Russia would accept Western democracy and eventually integrate into Europe. And even if it didn't, what credible threat could this broken nation pose to the most powerful nation the world has ever seen?

20 years later and it seems the Russian Bear has healed up.

In 2009 Kyrgyzstan came under Russian pressure to shut down a vital US air base in the nation that was being used to resupply troops in the landlocked Afghanistan.  A bidding war commenced and initially the Russians won.  President Bakiyev would receive Russian aid money, and in return ordered that the US base be shut down.  However after receiving 20% of the aid money from the Russians Obama offered to triple the rent on the base, and Bakiyev allowed the Americans to stay.

Russia was less then pleased.

Fast forward to April 6th, 2010, only 6 days ago at this time of this post.  Protests against the Kyrgyztan government commenced, and a few days later the protesters had forced the government to flee and the opposition took control of the capital. Today we got this little bit of news:

Less than a month before the violent protests that toppled the government of Kyrgyzstan last week, Russian television stations broadcast scathing reports portraying President Kurmanbek Bakiyev as a repugnant dictator whose family was stealing billions of dollars from this impoverished nation.

The media campaign, along with punishing economic measures adopted by the Kremlin, played a critical role in fanning public anger against Bakiyev and bringing people into the streets for the demonstrations that forced him to flee the capital Wednesday, according to protest leaders, local journalists and analysts.

"Even without Russia, this would have happened sooner or later, but . . . I think the Russian factor was decisive," said Omurbek Tekebayev, a former opposition leader who is now the No. 2 figure in the government.

Keep in mind that the person saying this is now the number two man in the country.  Of course he's going to say the revolution would of happened anyways, he doesn't want to portray his government as Russian puppets, but the mere fact that he admits that Russia had a large enough influence to impact the revolution means that Russia played a huge role in this.  Maybe it was just a coincidence that a man who defied Russia and warmed up to America would soon find Russian backed revolutionaries at his door.  I mean its not like this sort of thing happened before right?

In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia under the excuse of "protecting" two breakaway regions.  The invasion came just as Georgia has been pushing to join NATO, and was in the middle of an effort to strengthen ties to America. Eastern Europe recognized the invasion for what it was, Russia going back its old tricks, and it would certainly seem that way given the timing. 

Both of these events are pretty big.  Invasions are never minor occurrences, and a Russian backed revolution in a nation that holds the last US air base in Central Asia needs to be taken seriously.  But what is equally dangerous is the work Russia has been conducting in one middle eastern nation in particular.

In Iran Russia has worked hard to not only stop the West's attempts to sanction Iran, but has actively worked against us by arming Iran with surface to air missiles.  Surface to air missiles that would be good at, say, stopping a potential air attack against a nuclear facility.  And its not just arms sales.  In fact the Russia has worked closely in helping Iran develop its nuclear program.

Russia also took to saber rattling when it threatened to move aim its nuclear weapons at the West if we dared to build a missile defense shield in Europe.  Don't worry though, Obama agreed to not build the missile defense shield for the princely sum of...nothing.  A move our Eastern European allies were outraged about, to the point of their media claiming we betrayed them.

The US is currently engaged in a campaign to "reset" relations with Russia despite all she's done.  How's that going? Well a picture is worth a thousand words right?

Nah, this relationship is healthy.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Great men of America: Booker Taliaferro Washington

Born April 5th, 1856 as a slave with only one name and one parent, Booker Taliaferro Washington would rise to become an educator, political leader, author, orator, and dominant figure in the black community from the end of the 19th century until his death in 1915.  This is my first profile on an important American.  There are two basic goals with these profiles.  The first is to encourage blacks to embrace American history as part of their own history.  Many figures in "white history" have ties to abolition or civil rights movements and drawing a connection between the two would help counter the view that all whites in American history are evil racists.  The second is to draw a line between conservative values and black history.  I picked Booker T. Washington as my first profile for two reasons.  The first being that his views on race-relations and how the blacks should achieve equality.  The second being that it seems fitting, given who is in office and who is writing this, to start with a half black man.  Now, lets continue on...

Until the age of nine Booker was a slave on the Burrough's farm in Hale's Ford Virginia.  In 1865 he was emancipated, and recalls this event in his book:

As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper -- the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.

After being freed his family left the Burrough's farm and went to West Virginia to be with his step-father.  The experiences Booker had here would prove key to the rest of his life.  His mother, though unable to read or write herself, bought spelling books for Booker and encouraged him to learn.  He would, for the first time, attend school and took on a variety of jobs that included packing salt, working in the coal mine, and even a brief time spent as a hand on a steamboat. 

Later in life Booker would emphasize that the struggles he faced in his early life were not due to racial discrimination, but would portray it as a story of poverty and the rewards of hard work.  His experiences in West Virginia formed the foundation for the belief that a black man could be successful if he worked hard. 

At the age of sixteen Booker left his town in West Virginia to further his education.  He attended the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute in Hampton, Virgnia and later on the Wayland Seminary before returning to Hampton and becoming a teacher there.  Not long after becoming a teacher the president of Hampton recommended Booker be the first principal of the new Tuskegee Institute.

His belief in hard work and self-help were immediately evident at the Institute.  Under his direction the students at the Institute literally built the campus, including growing their own crops and raising their own livestock.  Booker's goal with the Institute was simple:  Train blacks with the skills necessary to go back out into their communities across the South and teach the people there. 

Booker took a common sense approach when it came to achieving equality for blacks.  Rather than gaining civil rights through political agitation, Booker believed that blacks should “concentrate all their energies on industrial education, and accumulation of wealth, and the conciliation of the South.”  To him it was too soon after emancipation to expect too much to be gained, and so he advocated "patience, industry, thrift, usefulness"  as the surest ways to equality.  By attaining economic power blacks could counter the prejudice white belief that blacks were naturally stupid or incompetent, and at the same time lay down a firm foundation for a strong and stable black community.  Ultimately he believed whites would accept blacks fully into society once they proved to be good American citizens.

Opposition to Booker's beliefs came primarily from northern blacks and the NAACP who believed that Booker was nothing more than a tool for white southerners.  W.E.B Du Bois contrasted Booker's plans with his own which called for immediate equal rights, and a classical education rather then the one based on industry as proposed by Booker.  The black community of the world would then be lead by an elite group of men he called the "Talented Tenth".  Notice the difference?  Where Booker promoted a strong, economically stable black community that would integrate with American society, Du Bois promoted a small elite that would rule the race, and effectively draw a sharp contrast between blacks and the rest of America.  In some ways Du Bois got his wish.

Booker was a good example for just how effective his system could be.  He had the ability to socialize with the most powerful politicians and business leaders of the day, and convince them to donate money to black causes.  He advised President Polk and President Theodore Roosevelt on race relations, and became the first black man invited to the White House.  Other achievements include:

  • Authoring 14 books, including his autobiography Up from Slavery which became a bestseller and ultimately lead to his dinner invitation to the White House
  • Secretly donating substantial amounts of money to legal cases that challenged segregation and disfranchisement
  • Founding the Negro Business League in 1900 to help promote his dream of an economically strong black people in America
  • Using donations he received to establish over 5,000 schools and educational resources across the South
  • Being the first black man put on a coin in 1946 when the US minted the Booker T. Washington Memorial half-dollar.  In addition he was also on the US half dollar from 1951-1954
  • In 1940 he became the first black man to be put on a US postage stamp

While Booker T. Washington paved the way for the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s that ultimately lead to the equality of blacks in American society, his dream of an economically strong black community did not come true.  More disheartening is that his dream of a people who saw themselves as Americans, and not a separate entity, also seems to of not come true yet.  Today blacks often times set themselves apart from the rest of America, harboring bitter feelings for injustices done long ago, and feeling like they are owed something by whites today.  Despite that Booker provides an excellent example for how the black community can help itself.  Through self-help and hard work, blacks can shed the victim mentality, create a strong future for themselves, and ultimately see themselves not as African-Americans, but as Americans.

"He lifted the veil of ignorance from his people and pointed the way to progress through education and industry." - The words on his memorial at the Tuskegee Institute

Friday, April 9, 2010

The Naivete of Obama

“Today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” - President Obama, April 5th, 2010

For one moment lets make Obama's dream a reality. Lets imagine a world in which every nation has set aside its nuclear weapons or terminated its nuclear weapon programs. Now imagine yourself the leader of a relatively small nation with a great deal of potential. Imagine that with one weapon you could bring the strongest nations in the world to their knees, and there would be nothing they could do in retaliation. In a single act you could catapult your people to superpower status, and bring about a dominance that could potentially last for a hundred or more years. Would you do it?

Even if you wouldn't you have to admit that there are billions of people who eagerly would, and that's what makes Obama's quote so childish and so incredibly dangerous. Nuclear weapons can't be undone. They happened, and they're a reality that we have to live with. A good analogy would be the story of Pandora and her box. Once the box was opened and its contents were unleashed into this world they couldn't be put back in.

Regardless, Obama is pursuing his dream of a world without nuclear weapons, and it will likely come at the expense of America. His ends are downright insane as is, but the means to that end aren't much better. Charles Krauthammer explains it brilliantly (as always):

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that "includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture," said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.


Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.


Look: Nuclear weapons are scary things. No one wants to see the world end in a nuclear holocaust, but no matter how hard we wish it so we can't wish them away. They're here. They're a reality. The best we can do is continue to use them as a means to prevent wars that would otherwise cost tens of millions of lives, if not more. Deterrence worked against the Soviets, and it works now. This is exactly the kinda ideological, naive view that liberals like to preach about.

My exit question: If we really want to see the threat of nuclear weapons reduced in the long term, wouldn't it make more sense to continue development of missile defense technology?

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Unearned loyalty and false accusations

In 1960 50% of blacks identified themselves as Democrats. In the next four years there was a whirlwind of racial unrest which climaxed with the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the 1964 election 82% of blacks were now Democrats. Fast forward to 2000 in which Al Gore won 90% of the Black vote.   In 2004 John Kerry won 88% of the Black vote.  In 2008 Obama won 95% of the Black vote.  A single act of legislation had bought the loyalty of an entire race.

Democrats quickly learned that along with that loyalty came a powerful new weapon: the race card. Today Republicans and Conservatives are regularly accused of racism.

No, hold on I've got a few more links: Racism, Racism, Raaaaacism!!!!!

To put this into perspective:  In the 2004 election a higher percentage homosexuals voted for Bush then blacks, and that was when gay marriage was one of the biggest issues.  That's not to imply that civil rights isn't a big issue, because it is, but why was it worth almost 50 years of blacks voting Democrat almost universally.  Surely the Republicans opposed this legislation in some big, or otherwise unforgivable way:

Not only did Republicans have a higher percentage of support for the bill, but one of the Senators who lead the charge against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 still serves as a Democrat on the Senate TODAY.  Not only did he oppose the bill, but Senator Byrd was a former member of the KKK.  Its insane to think that the same people who constantly accuse their opposition of racism count a former Klan member not just as their own, but as the highest ranking member of the Senate and third in line to become President after Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

Republicans didn't oppose the Civil Rights Act, but perhaps they did something after the act that earned the animosity of blacks:

  • Nixon decreased the number of black children attending segregated schools in the South from 70% to 18%.
  • Nixon also implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal Affirmative Action program.
  • George H. W. Bush appointed Clarance Thomas to the Supreme Court, making him the second black to be a justice in the court.
  • George H. W Bush also promoted Colin Powell to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest position in the Department of Defense, and making him the first black to hold that position.
  • Ronald Reagan appointed Colin Powell as the first black assistant to the President in National Security Affairs.
  • George W Bush put together the most ethnically diverse cabinet in US history.
  • George W Bush appointed Colin Powell as the first black Secretary of State.  At the time this was the highest position a black had ever reached in the US government.
  • Bush launched the largest medical relief program in the world, which saved over one million African lives and reduced the number of AIDs related deaths in the countries it affected by 10%.  In addition, Bush also increased trade to Africa and played peacemaker in places like Liberia and parts of Sudan.

Clearly these racist Republicans have driven off blacks with their racist policies!  Er...

One of the most commonly use excuses for the black switch to the Democrat party is how Nixon used States Rights and Social Conservative values to reach out to the Southern States in 1968.  The problem with this is that blacks had already abandoned the Republican party in 1964, so this argument isn't really valid.

Looking into the events before the Civil Rights Act also helps solidify the Republican position:

  • The Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, was also the first Republican President.
  • The first black Senator and member of Congress was a Republican.
  • Ulysses S. Grant passed the first civil rights act, the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
  • Teddy Roosevelt welcomed Booker. T Washington to dinner at the White House, causing a great deal of controversy.
  • Eisenhower introduced and then signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960.
  • Eisenhower also enforced the desegregation in the military.
  • When Arkansas refused to desegregate their schools, Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and used them to defend black children.

The fact of the matter is that there really isn't much of a basis for why blacks abandoned the GOP and have remained fanatically loyal to the Democrats.  Yes, racism exists in this nation still, but it's exists only on the far fringe and certainly not within mainstream Republican or Conservative politics, at least no more then it does within Democratic politics.  Teddy Roosevelt has a quote which, while extremely outdated, is fairly accurate for how I feel Republicans have viewed blacks.  Don't focus too much on the non-bold:

"I have not been able to think out any solution of the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent, but of one thing I am sure, and that is that inasmuch as he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away, the only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man, giving him no more and no less that he shows himself worthy to have."

For the time this was pretty radical, and I feel like this is the key separation in how each side approaches race.  A Liberal looks at a black man and sees a poor, beaten down man who needs to be lifted up.  The Conservative sees a man, just like any other, who has the ability to turn himself into anything he wants if he works hard enough for it.  The Liberal judges us based on the past of our ancestors, while the Conservative judges for what WE do with our lives.  Where Conservatives see you as an equal, Liberals see you as a victim that cannot take care of himself.

In my previous post I called blacks tools for the Democrats, and the current day situation with Obama illustrates this perfectly.  The last polls I saw that gave race showed Obama with a upper 80% approval rating with blacks, an approval rating in the 40s among whites, but what has Obama done to earn such an approval rating from blacks?  When Katrina happened Bush was blamed and called a racist despite it not being his fault.  When Joe Wilson said "You lie!" to Obama we were told it was because he was a racist.  But when Obama killed a voucher program that primarily helped poor black students in DC go to better schools, where were the black leaders who are supposed to protect the black community?  And when Obama couldn't find the money (a rare occurrence in his Presidency) to continue the wildly successful anti-AIDS program in Africa, why was the only group complaining the Global AIDS Alliance?  Where was Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and the ACLU?  They'll defend the Communist Truther Van Jones, but not Africans and black school children?

Obama has done nothing for blacks, and yet they lend their support in a most fanatical way.  Yes, a large chunk of that is because he's black, but does anyone else get the feeling that there would of been no outcry from the black community unless he was a Republican?  Blacks today follow a political party and ideology that does not care for them as anything other then a source of votes.  Their leaders care less for the community then they do politics.  The truth is that there is no justifiable reason for them to call racism on the Republican party, but they do so anyways because its political convenient to stir up the black masses against the Conservative opposition.  They crack down on free thought, and they create an environment which says one thing:  "You are oppressed, abused, and are unable to escape the hell that surrounds you.  You must follow us, the Liberal Democrats, in order to find freedom."

They have, in effect, created a modern day form of slavery.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Why "The Race Traitor?"

In case you're wondering about the name of this blog I decided to give a little explanation. There's a particular hatred for Black Conservatives on the Left. The names they use to describe us say it all: Race Traitor, Uncle Tom, Oreo, Pet Monkey, among others. The message is clear "You cannot be both a Conservative and Black." You are forced to pick between your beliefs and your race.

It's an absurd thing, especially when you consider who it comes from. The people who claim to champion tolerance and free thought are the very same ones who become so outraged whenever someone dares to think differently. It is surreal to think that the rewards for freedom and equality are a loss of individuality and a demand to participate in group think. We must become what THEY want us to be.

In return for this loyalty, this loss of individuality, the black community has suffered. For example: 65% of Black children live in homes without Fathers, nearly twice the national average. Instead of promoting things such as faith, hard work, and family values we are told that we are victims, and the key to our survival and uplifting will only come when it is given to us. Basically we are told that we are so damaged that we can no longer pull ourselves up, but rather must be pulled up. What makes this downright insane is that I believe most blacks would inherently be drawn to an ideology which promotes the values listed above. An ideology which says you can be whatever you want, you just have to work for it.

Growing up as a mixed raced child I had the benefit of being able to see things from both sides. I don't pretend that there isn't still racism out there, but neither do I pretend that it's mostly Whites who are racists. Blacks may very well be the biggest racists out there. Their racism manifests itself as a sort of obsession with race that seems to dictate how they interact with everyone and how they see the world as some sort of unfair, oppressive thing. On the opposite end most whites go out of their way to make sure they're not perceived as racists, and for many of them it has become a sort phobia. Neither mentality is healthy, and neither will ever solve the issues that surround race in America.

This blog is called "TheRaceTraitor" because I refuse to buy into the victim mentality fed to me by liberals. I believe that the Black community has been taken advantage of, and is being used as pawns by the Left. Ultimately I believe that Conservative values are good for all of America, including Blacks, and that hypocrisy of the Left ultimately comes down to intellectual slavery.

George Orwell has a quote which I love:

"Patriotism is usually stronger than class hatred, and always stronger than internationalism."

In this you could include racism, and that sums up my feelings toward my fellow Conservatives. To them, I am a fellow American. Nothing less.