only acceptable tolerance

I have posted before about how the side that constantly preaches that we should all be more tolerant (the left) is, in fact, extremely intolerant of differing viewpoints. Their version of tolerance is only acceptable as long as everyone agrees with their opinions.

This became very obvious when the "leadership" started discussing instituting the "fair doctrine" rules. What bothered them is that liberal talk shows mostly failed, while conservative talk shows flourished.

Then there was the case of the commentator (Juan Williams) who was on both NPR (public funding involved) and Fox. He stated an opinion on a Fox show and was fired from NPR. He has given opinions on his NPR show that some executives at Fox Network likely didn't agree with, but, unlike the liberal left, Fox must have felt he actually had a right to say what he thought. Imagine that.

I am only familiar with the Mallard Fillmore comic strip. I don't think I have ever seen or heard its author, but apparently he too ran afowl (pun intended) of a left-leaning boss. I sincerely hope he can continue the strip. After all, Doonesbury has been running for years, but I guess it's okay since it leans in the correct direction.

Election Day!

With increasing concern about the upcoming election results, the liberal Democrats have tried some of the very tactics they have for years accused the Right of using: paranoia, conspiracies, big corporation influence, etc. When these ideas haven't worked, Charles Krauthammer has noticed a new theory.

Faced with the fact that the electorate has not been excited about his more regulated, socially engineered, humane society, President Obama is befuddled.

President Obama does not want to understand that this country does not skew to the far left--it never has. Many of the European countries that Obama would like to emulate are in danger of collapse. What makes him think that the very same thing could not happen here?

Beyond the President's obvious lack of understanding, is his blatant (and frequent) disregard for honesty or integrity. In a more recent piece, Mr. Krauthammer exposes the President's true nature.

Mr. Krauthammer, I'm with you.

What can I say?

Elections are important!

I think the upcoming election is vitally important. I doubt that our founding fathers ever envisioned career politicians. The author of a novel I read explained it so well and I thought I had marked and saved the place. Unfortunately, I'm not very proficient with my newest Kindle yet. As I remember, his premise was that the country's ideal leaders were statesmen, temporary volunteers doing their duty as needed by the public--and only as needed.

I have also noticed lately the truth of this comic. Many of the liberal candidates are avoiding that title, as well as the credit for the extremely unpopular bills they have helped pass. What is truly frightening is that so many will say whatever they need to in order to get elected, then disregard their campaign promises. I guess if the President can get away with it.....

Unjust laws affect us all?

One of those causes that doesn't have a political "side." Groups which are normally on opposite sides of the table are working together. Their battle is a bit frightening to read about.

Morning Bell: Fighting Back Against Arbitrary Government Rule | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites

The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites

9-11

Charles Krauthammer:

Morning Bell: Liberalism is Failing | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Morning Bell: Liberalism is Failing | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Church and State

An odd connection just came to me. The Constitution of the United States states that the government should stay out of religion: the separation of church and state. It actually was written to keep government from forcing its citizens into any certain belief--one of the reasons the pilgrims left their homes to come here.

The intent of this amendment has been warped by government--mostly liberal and the ACLU--to oppose any and all religion. We have heard about the lawsuits to prevent nativity scenes on public property, the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings, and even the term, Merry Christmas. Locally, a district court just ruled on a lawsuit brought by a group of atheists from Texas. Apparently, the white crosses along side Utah roads showing where Highway Patrol troopers died, show a preference for Christianity. It is ludicrous enough to be almost funny. What other kind of a monument would signify that someone had died? Some atheist speeding along the highway would be worried that he wouldn't be treated fairly because troopers' families paid for memorial reminders?

Then, there is the media brouhaha about the building of a mosque close to ground zero. Much of the liberal left have been calling for tolerance, fairness, religious freedom. Don't they get the hypocrisy? Where are the atheists now? What if a place built for the religion that led to the deaths on 9-11 offends the people who pass it? Not the same thing? Why not? Does it depend on who is offended?

Finally, Islam has NO separation of church and state. It seems strange that the same leaders who make such a huge deal out of ours, don't seem to be concerned about that.

Apologies all around

I just saw a news blurb that Tiger Woods had his worst round of golf....in a long time. It made me remember his odd news conference where he apologized for his past poor behavior. Thomas Sowell put it in better words than I can:

He calls the tendency for public apologies "mushy thinking," and I think he has a very valid point. I agree that it comes with the loss of personal responsibility. What Tiger did was the fault of his fame, his money, his popularity, the conditions surrounding him, blah blah. If that were true, then wouldn't everyone who watches golf or spent money on anything that added to his wallet be responsible? Golf lovers everywhere were the cause of his demise? Hardly.

I contend that it was Tiger's own arrogance and narcissism that led to his troubles. I certainly didn't suffer anything and did not need to be apologized to.

The problem is bigger than Tiger Woods or the governor of South Carolina or whoever. The idea that society or our surroundings cause our misbehavior, or is responsible for our crimes, tries to diminish the notions of self-control and responsibility. Again, I defer to the words of Thomas Sowell:

Until next time, I'm sorry that my political attitude is one of choices and consequences, and it might not fit with your ideas about the evils of a "society." Wait, no I'm not sorry at all.

The Mallard Fillmore comic had another take on the same idea:

Morning Bell: Surviving the Obama Assault on the Rule of Law | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Morning Bell: Surviving the Obama Assault on the Rule of Law | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Go Arizona!

Are you as tired of the Arizona bashing as I am? The state is having some real problems caused by people willfully breaking the laws, and being vilified for trying to find a solution.

In an article written by George Will of the Washington Post Writer's Group:

I admit to having been pulled over by police. Was I required to show my identification? Yes, I was. Did I think it was fascist or--gulp--racist? No.

I am very, very tired of the liberal left trying to find hate, intolerance, hostility, and--sigh--racism everywhere. Their entire agenda seems to be to find fault with this country and inflame discontent. They seem happy only if they can find problems under every rock.

Arizona's troubles with illegal immigration is seen as unimportant in the hallowed halls of DC. After all, Washington doesn't have scores of people sneaking across their borders in the dead of night, leaving trails of trash and destruction. If they did, you can bet something would be done.

Part of the desert between Mexico and Tucson, Arizona. Nice huh?

Value Added Tax?

Nearly two months ago, Charles Krauthammer wrote an editorial predicting that President Obama's administration would try to enact a Value Added Tax as a way of getting more money to fund expanded government.
What to do, what to do?

President Ronald Reagan's philosophy was to starve the government, thereby forcing it to shrink. President Obama's is the exact opposite. Enlarge government, then find ways to feed it through taxes. The VAT is the desired revenue stream. As a replacement for income tax, it's not a bad idea. However, to feed the liberals policies, it would be on top of income tax.

He suggests that we get ready to pay it, or start fighting against it. I vote for the latter!

More Inconvenient Obamacare Truths | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

More Inconvenient Obamacare Truths | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Not so funny funnies.

Isn't it interesting how the perspective from the highest levels of government (with help from most of the media) seems so skewed? This comic writer feels it just as I do....but he is much more artistically talented.
All you have to do is listen to Nancy Pelosi from time to time. I've heard her say we needed to pass the "health care bill" in order to know what it said. Obviously, she knows best; who are we to question?

Morning Bell: The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Morning Bell: The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Media Bias, oh yeah.

It is illuminating to pay attention to the differences in the way the general, mainstream media treats President Obama compared to its treatment of President Bush. Every time President Bush made a verbal slip (like everyone does) the major newspapers and television networks made fun, derided, and generally fileted him. Not so President Obama.

The differences, naturally, apply to the rest of us. Those who seem to be in agreement with this administration and supportive of its fiscal policies--or lack thereof--are off limits for taunting or deprecation. On the other hand, those who raise questions, voice concerns or displeasure, or seem to lack the appropriate awe at the liberals' greatness have targets on their foreheads.

One more for today. See if you don't find the truth in this too.

Morning Bell: How the Left Really Plans to Pay for Obamacare | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Morning Bell: How the Left Really Plans to Pay for Obamacare | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

You Tube Video

Constitution at risk.

This is so in line with what George Will said about President Obama and the liberal leadership. I had to post it. Not that anyone is actually reading this blog, but I feel that I'm passing along conservative messages anyway. Who knows?

By Hook or by Crook...

I continue to be astonished by the arrogance and deception of President Obama and the liberal leadership. The "health care" bill (and I used the description only to make a point, because that is not really what it is), would have failed in the Senate except for a few legislators who allowed themselves to be bribed--bought.

The House bill could not pass so Speaker Pelosi fell back on tricks, sleight-of-hand, and parliamentary chicanery to "deem" the Senate bill passed, and used a reconciliation tactic that has never been used for such an enormous government program. At the heart of this under-handed dealing is, as George F. Will puts it, a liberal desperation.

"Liberals are deeply disappointed with the public, which fails to fathom the excellence of their agenda. But their real complaint is with the government's structure. Liberals have met their enemy, and he is the diminutive 'father of the Constitution,' James Madison."

President Obama would very much like to change the Constitution, giving government far more power and control.

As Thomas Sowell stated:

Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one. The succession of wholly arbitrary deadlines for rushing this massive legislation through, before anyone has time to read it all, serves no other purpose than to keep its specifics from being scrutinized--or even recognized--before it becomes a fait accompli and the "law of the land."

Nancy Pelosi

I was amazed to actually hear Nancy Pelosi say how wonderful it would be to have an economy in which someone could write or paint or take pictures without worrying about a day job to have health insurance.

Okay, let's all quit working and indulge in our hobbies of choice. When we need some medical assistance then......ah......opps, who will cover the cost?

Doctors attend school for at least 8 years, are basically slave labor at hospitals (way over-worked and under-paid) for residencies of an additional 2 to 6 years, and after this 10 to 15 year time-span and thousands of dollars of debt, they will be happy to take care of us for free? Hospitals do not need to charge for their services? Nurses, assistants, technicians, record keepers, pharmacies, clerks all exist so you can write your novel? It is ludicrous, yet I heard the words come out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth.

Dose of Reality from Sonja Schmidt

Politicians no longer serve the people.

Another excellent piece in the paper today by Walter Williams. Rather than just copy the entire thing, I'll give the url so you can read it yourself: Deseret News article

Mysteries of Liberal Thought

I am often in awe of people who know just the right words to effectively state their beliefs. It is so frustrating to try to explain something and not have the words you want on your tongue. I suppose that is the benefit of writing; one can spend a little time trying to get the explanations clear and understandable.

When I try to comprehend the liberal mind set, I am befuddled by their reasoning. Why do they have such little respect for individual responsibility? Why do they want people depending on government for so much? Why do they think they are entitled to take money from those of us who worked for it and give it to those who didn't (taking a percentage for government along the way)?

Fortunately, there are very articulate writers who say things so well. Writers who understand the strange thought processes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodds, Rangel (who didn't even know who paid for his trips to the Caribbean--he claims).

Thomas Sowell explains:

A couple of good examples he explores:

Liberal intelligensia would also like us to believe that wealthy people somehow got that way accidentally, while also preventing others from doing the same. That is ridiculous.

Taxes are always good, according to the far left, and there is never enough (not that they are dedicated about paying their own). But what companies pay employees, by mutual agreement, should be of no concern to the government. As soon as government sets rules for how much money we are allowed to earn, we are doomed. Our so-called public servants become our masters.

We're just too darn dumb to understand.

I find it truly frightening that people who are in positions of "public service" actually don't care much about serving constituents. This last year has been astonishing because of the persistence of the few to force debt, restrictions, and control onto people they are purporting to represent.

It is all because they are so much better and smarter than the rest of us.

Charles Krauthaammer puts it:

Everyone except the elite, all-knowing, ever-wise liberal leaders is dim and emotionally immature, and those leaders just don't understand why we're not thrilled about their enlightened view of how our lives can be. Guess what, we want some control over our lives, our choices, and--heaven forbid--the money we rightfully earn.

Global Warming??

I saw an article in the newspaper a day or so ago about our little disowned planet, Pluto. The article was about how its climate was changing. Whoa! There aren't any people there to drive SUVs or heat houses. How can that be? Surely humans are the universal planet destroyers. What did we do to poor Pluto? What atmosphere it had seems to be drifting away. Was that our use of spray deodorant, our pastures of dairy cows, or our careless disposal of plastic?

I think we need to be careful and thoughtful, recognizing that we want humankind to have a home in years to come. However, the furor over global warming has resulted in vested interests that groups are not going to give up easily--regardless of their true merit. That belief made Al Gore a billionaire. Why would he want that to change? Automobile companies have invested huge amounts in development of "greener" cars. They would be foolish to backtrack now, even if they recognize the science is flawed.

Walter E. Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, shared the following:

People are becoming disillusioned..

I think people are beginning to see that most (perhaps all) politicians are greatly affected by their induction into the halls of power. President Obama, more than anyone I can think of, has ignored the very promises he made during the campaign. He talked of transparency in congressional discussions, of putting an end to earmarks, of fiscal responsibility, of removing the influence of political lobbyists, and of keeping the unemployment rate below 8%. On these issues, he's batting zero.

The "we know better than anyone else" attitude seems to be catching, particularly in this administration. We might feel better about some of the decisions regarding Social Security, health care, or taxes and IRAs, if we were all in the same boat. However, the leaders of these "reforms" don't pay into Social Security (salaries forever), have their own life-time cadillac health insurance, and use their positions to accumulate wealth (and, apparently, avoid paying taxes).

Unbelievable Arrogance

The arrogance of the Washington leadership is astonishing. That they would push forward with an enormous bill--that most congressmen have not had a chance to read--in spite of the concerns of the American people, shows an utter contempt for constituents.

Thomas Sowell, from the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, is also amazed.

"In short, this is not about improving the health of the American people. It is about passing something--anything--to keep the Obama administration from ending up with egg on its face by being unable to pass a bill, after so much hype and hoopla."

As he continues: "The only rational explanation for such haste to pass a bill that will be slow to go into effect is to prevent the public from knowing what is in this massive legislation..."

This is not about health. It is about ego. The appointment of so "czars" to get around the system for approving cabinet members is another indication that this president, and his cronies, totally disregard the basic rules and values of this society--all to impose the will of a few arrogant elitists.

Just what I was talking about

This was in my paper, just the day after my post. I guess others have noticed the deception too.

Tired of being lied to?

I wonder how many who voted for President Obama are getting tired of the lies. I'm hopeful that there are reasonable people out there who have figured out that they fell for a line, just as they were supposed to.

The health care debate is an excellent example. During the campaign, Barack Obama said on multiple occasions that all discussions of health care (among other things) would be held in the open. I heard him say that debates would be broadcast on C-Span and/or streamed on the Net.

Transparency was an important part of his belief about how government should work.

Well, it was all pretend. Speaker Pelosi even chuckled when asked about it: Oh that was the campaign. Now all health care bill discussions are conducted in very private rooms, by only the most liberal members of the Democrat party. It is about power, control, and taxes, and they don't want people to realize what's going on.

I guess this ties in with my other blog; people are pretty gullible. It is a bit frightening.

Sick of political correctness!

I just hate to think what I'm going to have to go through the next time I want to fly to visit the grandkids. Can someone please forget this politically correct nonsense and do some decent profiling? How many elderly couples or young families have to pay because some man was permitted to buy a plane ticket with cash, pass through security, and get on an airplane to fly to the US without luggage? Nobody thought that was the least bit odd? Or, did no one dare say anything for fear of being.....impolite? intolerant? racist?

Even worse is the fact that he was on a watch list, his father had tried--more than once--to alert authorities, and it was known that he had been speaking with a radical cleric. Yoo Hoo!

Charles Krauthammer, from the Washington Post Writer's Group, identifies a real problem within the current United States administration:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Barack Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterter­rorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama ban­ishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

If it weren't for a faulty detonator and some passengers, more than 300 people would likely be dead. And Obama's administration is calling this man a "suspect" and sent him to a jail where he quickly lawyered up and stopped talking.

Mr. Krauthammer goes on to say:

This absurdity renders hollow Obama’s declaration that “we will not rest until we find all who were involved.” Once we’ve given Abdul­mutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is just nuts. I'm going to carry on some more tomorrow.