There has been tits and tats in the news over the last couple days about who cost McCain the election. The answer to that is very apparent to anyone that is not so consumed with pouting and whining that it is almost absurd.
Palin did not cost McCain the election. Although, hind sight is 20/20, and analysis will say McCain should have done this or that, McCain did not lose the election. The RNP lost the election.
Let me say that again, so you can hear me over your whining.
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL PARTY LOST THE ELECTION!
Yes, I said it was the Republican National Party that cost McCain the election. And the why is so petty and sniveling that it is more like reprimanding a bratty 2 year-old, than any deep, insightful analysis but the experts. For as much as the DNC was run by the extreme left this election, the RNP let the conservative, right-wing, Evangelical minority sabotage this election and it cost them big time. This may be the biggest blunder that the RNP has ever made.
The ultra-conservative, right-wing, Evangelicals were mad about Bush's compassionate conservatism; it was too moderate, too liberal for them. This very loud minority of the party was only going to play this time if they got exactly what they wanted, even to the detriment of the nation as a whole. (So not one member of the extreme right of the party has one damn thing to cry about.) What a shame that this group of "Christians" is so selfish and short sighted and down right mean, that they could not support their party's nomination for President. Looks like they missed a lot of Sunday School classes!!!
McCain would have been great for this country, he could have unified the majority of the population, he could have had the support of players from both sides of the aisle, he could have done the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, no the whiny little babies known as right-wingers wouldn't look at the bigger picture. Still, McCain tried to unite the party and appease you whiny babies by putting a compromise player on his ticket and still you whined and would not be part of the team.
To all the members of the conservative, right-wing, Evangelical minority -- you are the ones that cost McCain the election.
To the Republican National Party, you should NEVER allow such a minor group, no matter how loud they whine, to run your whole game -- you lost the election for McCain.
Enough said on the blame game, now shut up and lets do what we can to prevent as much damage as possible under the Obama Administration!!! (I personally, do not want to see a socialist America and intend to do all that I can to stop it --- what about you, do you have what it takes to man up?)
Here is what the Republican National Party needs to do;
1) stop being ultra conservatives - I don't want or need you in my bedroom or my doctor's office
2) stop name calling -- let others' actions define them
3) put the issues out in the public light -- when you get back in session, make sure you create a transparent congress so that the masses can see what Obama's really about
4) stick to your guns about fiscal conservatism -- more taxes and larger government wont help us
5) leave the pork at home -- let each issue get through on its merits and do not sell out the American people
6) listen to your constituents -- this is still a representative government you are suppose to voice the desires of ALL those that elected you
7) support our troops -- DO NOTHING THAT WILL SELL THEM OUT!!!!!!! ( I will be watching and telling)
8 ) support our veterans -- do not forsake them for a civilian police whatever he is calling his 'Big Brother' machine or for welfare checks
9) remember your place -- you are our first line of defense against becoming socialist
10) get to know your party members -- most of us are not extreme right-wingers
There are citizens that are intelligent and thoughtful, we actually understand the true intent of the founding fathers in penning the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If you have forgotten the words go back and re-read them. But let me point out some very meaningful lines for you here;
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the People -- means ALL of us, not just a select few, remember that for the next election. If Obama doesn't take away that right!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; .... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — "
The safety and happiness applies to ALL citizens of the country, not just the ones that think and believe just like you. It is the right of ALL citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And my happiness can be different than yours. It is also EVERY citizens duty to ensure that government does not arbitrarily remove those rights from a citizen or group of citizens. We are not our brother's keeper; but we are our brother's protector.
Every American needs to remember that as citizens of the greatest nation on earth we have to right to ensure that She remains the greatest nation on earth. It is our duty to protect Her from tyranny, injustices and abuses. It is our responsibility to ensure Her continued democracy. In short it is our country and if we will not fight for Her, who will?
07 November 2008
06 November 2008
The Fairness Doctrine -- means censorship in DNCese
I told you that censorship is so important to me that I would leave the Fairness Doctrine to this blog. Now, since the Fairness Doctrine is not a household term I will give a little back ground on the contents of this piece of legislation. The Fairness Doctrine in its inception was a regulatory act by the FCC that had two basic elements: "It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters."
The spirit of the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure, that due to limited access to airwaves (there are only so many airwaves that technology can access), the information that people received from radio stations included a balance. This Doctrine was conceived in the late 1940's when the radio was a primary source of information for most American families. In the 1940's every home did not contain a TV, cable was not born, and access to the Internet was science fiction. The Doctrine was to insure that the American people had access to varying views in order to make an informed decision about matters of public interest.
Today it is an accepted view that "every home has TV" and most homes have cable/satellite and Internet. With very little effort the American public can easily access more points of view on topic of public interest than ever before. The American public in cases such as legislation and referendums can even actually read the official proposals at the affected government level. There is no shortage of information for the American citizen to access.
The push to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC voluntarily stopped enforcing in 1987, comes almost solely from the left or liberal political body. The argument is that "Hate Radio" the right-wing ranting is taking over the airwaves and that the American public is being misled and misguided. My argument is that radio stations are like any other media companies, they are for profit enterprises that determine what they broadcast by how much money it brings in. If the liberals want more air time then they need to find a dynamic, energized, strong personality push for that person to get their own show and fully support it. Turn it into a money maker that the big boys want to have around.
The proponents of re-instating the Fairness Doctrine have one goal and that is to limit the air time of right-wing hate radio. I am not a fan of nor a listener to any of these mega radio personalities, for the most part I do not agree with them on the issues and I do not think that they always make their case, but I do support their right to voice their opinion and views. I can say the same for the left wing, again I am not a fan of nor do I listen to the likes of Alan Colmes. But again I do support their right to voice their opinions.
I believe that anytime that we, as a nation, utter the word censorship that we are headed in the wrong direction. The one and only time that I agree with and support censorship (and this can only be on a case by case basis, with a clear standard of common sense) is when the sole purpose of the "speech" is to incite violence against a specific group of individuals based on some bias of the orator. Now you may want to go back and read that sentence again.
The SOLE PURPOSE is to INCITE VIOLENCE. Proving that can be a very hard thing to do, in most instances the orator does not have the integrity to admit such hatred. For the most part such individuals are cowards. They do not have the back bone to commit the acts of violence themselves, nor do they have the fortitude to bear the responsibility of their desires fulfilled. They are weak, were probably considered insignificant by family and peers; their only source of power, their words. And this power they ply on less intelligent individuals than themselves. But they still have a right to free speech, up to the point that their sole purpose becomes the incitement of violence on their targeted group of society.
As a whole, our society has forgotten a basic premises of the founding fathers in granting us certain rights. We are entitled to enjoy our rights up to the point of infringing on the rights of others. However, we should also not use the excuse of having our rights infringed on, simply when someone expresses a thought or idea that we find uncomfortable.
I do not believe that it is any networks responsibility to ensure that your child doesn't watch inappropriate shows, that is your job as a parent. I do not believe that it is the librarian's job to make sure that the books in the collection only support your morals, we don't have to all live by your morals; and reading a book with differing ideas doesn't mean that your child will suddenly stop going to church and start dressing Gothic. By the way not going to church doesn't make one Gothic and dressing goth doesn't mean you can't be christian.
I may not agree with your point of view, but I will protect your right to voice it. I may not practice your religion, but I will protect your right to worship. I may not vote the same way that you do, but I will protect your right to vote. I may not live by your moral code, but I will protect your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first step is to speak up against any censorship. Don't think that censoring something is right just because it is not something that you want hear. But rather ask yourself, do I want what I say to be censored, for the very same reasons that I want this censored?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The spirit of the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure, that due to limited access to airwaves (there are only so many airwaves that technology can access), the information that people received from radio stations included a balance. This Doctrine was conceived in the late 1940's when the radio was a primary source of information for most American families. In the 1940's every home did not contain a TV, cable was not born, and access to the Internet was science fiction. The Doctrine was to insure that the American people had access to varying views in order to make an informed decision about matters of public interest.
Today it is an accepted view that "every home has TV" and most homes have cable/satellite and Internet. With very little effort the American public can easily access more points of view on topic of public interest than ever before. The American public in cases such as legislation and referendums can even actually read the official proposals at the affected government level. There is no shortage of information for the American citizen to access.
The push to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC voluntarily stopped enforcing in 1987, comes almost solely from the left or liberal political body. The argument is that "Hate Radio" the right-wing ranting is taking over the airwaves and that the American public is being misled and misguided. My argument is that radio stations are like any other media companies, they are for profit enterprises that determine what they broadcast by how much money it brings in. If the liberals want more air time then they need to find a dynamic, energized, strong personality push for that person to get their own show and fully support it. Turn it into a money maker that the big boys want to have around.
The proponents of re-instating the Fairness Doctrine have one goal and that is to limit the air time of right-wing hate radio. I am not a fan of nor a listener to any of these mega radio personalities, for the most part I do not agree with them on the issues and I do not think that they always make their case, but I do support their right to voice their opinion and views. I can say the same for the left wing, again I am not a fan of nor do I listen to the likes of Alan Colmes. But again I do support their right to voice their opinions.
I believe that anytime that we, as a nation, utter the word censorship that we are headed in the wrong direction. The one and only time that I agree with and support censorship (and this can only be on a case by case basis, with a clear standard of common sense) is when the sole purpose of the "speech" is to incite violence against a specific group of individuals based on some bias of the orator. Now you may want to go back and read that sentence again.
The SOLE PURPOSE is to INCITE VIOLENCE. Proving that can be a very hard thing to do, in most instances the orator does not have the integrity to admit such hatred. For the most part such individuals are cowards. They do not have the back bone to commit the acts of violence themselves, nor do they have the fortitude to bear the responsibility of their desires fulfilled. They are weak, were probably considered insignificant by family and peers; their only source of power, their words. And this power they ply on less intelligent individuals than themselves. But they still have a right to free speech, up to the point that their sole purpose becomes the incitement of violence on their targeted group of society.
As a whole, our society has forgotten a basic premises of the founding fathers in granting us certain rights. We are entitled to enjoy our rights up to the point of infringing on the rights of others. However, we should also not use the excuse of having our rights infringed on, simply when someone expresses a thought or idea that we find uncomfortable.
I do not believe that it is any networks responsibility to ensure that your child doesn't watch inappropriate shows, that is your job as a parent. I do not believe that it is the librarian's job to make sure that the books in the collection only support your morals, we don't have to all live by your morals; and reading a book with differing ideas doesn't mean that your child will suddenly stop going to church and start dressing Gothic. By the way not going to church doesn't make one Gothic and dressing goth doesn't mean you can't be christian.
I may not agree with your point of view, but I will protect your right to voice it. I may not practice your religion, but I will protect your right to worship. I may not vote the same way that you do, but I will protect your right to vote. I may not live by your moral code, but I will protect your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first step is to speak up against any censorship. Don't think that censoring something is right just because it is not something that you want hear. But rather ask yourself, do I want what I say to be censored, for the very same reasons that I want this censored?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
05 November 2008
'They' say history was made last night.......
but what they don't tell is just what history was made. The public, standard line is that history was made, because an African-American man was elected President of the United States and that shows how far we have come in race relations in this country. I say that if we had truly come that far in race relations then no one would be pointing out the color of Obama's skin, however there were a sizable percentage of his supporters that supported him for that one reason. They did not support him because they agree with his policies, they did not support him because his ideology is akin to theirs, they supported him because he shared their skin color.
To elevate someone to the nations highest office based on his skin color is as much a disgrace to the individual as it is to the voters that shrieked their responsibility to vote for the best qualified candidate. That being said, had some of those voters actually done their homework and read his policies and checked his voting record and read his book and listened to the analysis -- there are probably a fair number that still would have voted for him and they could say that they did so on the issues not on his skin color.
The history that was made last night was not that we elected the first African-American to be President of the United States of America, the history is that we elected the first true liberal with socialist ideology and a very left leaning voting record to the highest office in our nation.
If you have looked at Obama's policies and listened to his speeches and looked at his voting record, there is NO doubt several conclusions can be made very clear;
1) Obama aligns himself with very radical individuals.
2) Obama quotes socialist thinkers and supports socialist leaning policies for the government.
3) Obama does not stick to his guns, he changes his message to suit his audience.
4) Obama does not believe that he owes anyone an explanation for anything that he does or says.
5) No one seems to be able to say with any certainty what Obama truly stands for.
Now I believe that everyone is entitle to their own opinion and I also believe that everyone should arrive at their own opinion through thought and insight and the personal gain of knowledge. I do not believe that you should mindlessly follow the masses or jump on the band wagon because it is rolling through town. I also do not believe for a minute that my opinion is the only right opinion, however if you want me to respect you and your opinion then be able to support it with facts not just talk. Words don't really make change it is deeds that truly make change.
I have given my opinions of Obama and I will, for those of you who think the man is beyond reproach, give my reasons for the opinions that I have formed.
Obama spent time visiting different churches in the Chicago area and speaking at length with pastors, before settling on Trinity Church. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright had a reputation of being at least a little militant in the pulpit. Obama attended Trinity Church for about 20 years and claims that he never heard Rev. Wright say anything anti-American in any sermon. And I will for the sake of argument allow that denial to stand. That being accepted then, there are one of two realities that took place over those 20 years; the first that Obama did hear the rhetoric that Rev. Wright was preaching and was not bothered at all by it (remember his wife Michelle was never proud to be an American until her husband was nominated for the Democratic ticket, her own words) or the second, which is that Obama did not listen to or observe what was going on around him when he was attending Trinity Church, which to me is almost the more scary of the two realities. As President of the United States, you have to ALWAYS listen to everything that is said in every meeting that you conduct and you also have to be very aware of what friend and foe alike have said to others as well as what they are not saying to you or the world. Neither truth reassures me that Obama is the best man for the job that he now has.
He has had other radical connections, such as his associations with Bill Ayers, now this association may not be much, but it shows the possibility that there is NO ONE that Obama would not concede to. And that can be perceived by others in the world as the sign of a weak man and therefore a weak nation.
Obama wants to 'spread the wealth', this is a concept of Carl Marx, the father of communism. There are a lot of very nice and idealistic concepts in the annals of socialism and communism, but none of these on paper ideals take into account one inescapable fact -- human nature. Humans by nature are greedy and selfish and if given the opportunity lazy. Giving hand outs will not encourage the less fortunate to move out of poverty; give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for life. You cannot just hand out money to people that are not fiscally responsible and expect them to become financially savvy individuals by the end of the week. There is also the human nature of Pavlov's dogs, which is true for humans as well, if you condition people that if they just sit around and wait that you will come in and solve their problems for them by giving them handouts you are merely training them to sit around and wait on you to come around and solve their problems for them. You are doing them an injustice not a service.
Obama has many 'ideas or thoughts' that contradict each other. When he is talking to the poor and lower middle class, he talks about tax breaks and tax cuts and 'spreading the wealth'. However, when he talks to the upper-middle class and the environmentalists, he is going to bankrupt the coal industry and electricity bills are going to sky-rocket over environmental fines. When he talks to the extreme liberals, he is going to go out and apologize to the world for America being American and he is going to reason with our enemies and through talk we are all going to be one big peaceful happy family. When he is talking to moderates and conservatives, he is not going to let Iran have nuclear weapons, and bin Laden will be brought to justice and he will never remove the military option from the table in dealing with our enemies. (He took 3 days to even say anything about Russia's invasion of Georgia, within that 3 days Russian deployed thousands of troops and was fully entrenched deep into Georgian lands and has yet to remove those troops.)
Some of the polices that Obama has either voted for or states that he supports have some troubling implications if enacted. Obama supports doing away with secret ballot voting for union organizing, which we know will lead to intimidation and retaliation. Obama is for protective tariffs increasing the cost of imports to this country, which result in tariffs being placed on our exports and thus will hurt American business and in turn decrease American jobs. (but take heart, the jobs wont be lost to overseas, they will just be lost all together) Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine, which is very akin to censorship. On the surface, it may not seem like that, but again when you look at how the Doctrine would be implicated it most definitely is censorship. Now I am against censorship on any level except the most extreme and because of that I will leave the Fairness Doctrine alone here and finish it in my next post.
Obama does not seem to think that he truly has to show that he has done the things that he says that he has, he does not seem to care about illegal financial contributions, he doesn't seem to think that he has to disclose his medical records or even his financial records. Most people do not know how ruthless the man can be or even how he won is first race for public office, which he did by having ALL of his opponents disqualified, therefore allowing him to run unopposed.
There is just too much about Obama that I think the voting public did not weigh when they went to the polls and voted. And in the coming weeks and months, I hope that America really makes Obama be true to his word for change and not being a true politician and it should start by Obama coming clean about all the uncertainty and baggage that he is carrying. The American people should demand that Obama be as historic as they are hoping that he will. I just hope that it will be a history that we can survive and recover from.
To elevate someone to the nations highest office based on his skin color is as much a disgrace to the individual as it is to the voters that shrieked their responsibility to vote for the best qualified candidate. That being said, had some of those voters actually done their homework and read his policies and checked his voting record and read his book and listened to the analysis -- there are probably a fair number that still would have voted for him and they could say that they did so on the issues not on his skin color.
The history that was made last night was not that we elected the first African-American to be President of the United States of America, the history is that we elected the first true liberal with socialist ideology and a very left leaning voting record to the highest office in our nation.
If you have looked at Obama's policies and listened to his speeches and looked at his voting record, there is NO doubt several conclusions can be made very clear;
1) Obama aligns himself with very radical individuals.
2) Obama quotes socialist thinkers and supports socialist leaning policies for the government.
3) Obama does not stick to his guns, he changes his message to suit his audience.
4) Obama does not believe that he owes anyone an explanation for anything that he does or says.
5) No one seems to be able to say with any certainty what Obama truly stands for.
Now I believe that everyone is entitle to their own opinion and I also believe that everyone should arrive at their own opinion through thought and insight and the personal gain of knowledge. I do not believe that you should mindlessly follow the masses or jump on the band wagon because it is rolling through town. I also do not believe for a minute that my opinion is the only right opinion, however if you want me to respect you and your opinion then be able to support it with facts not just talk. Words don't really make change it is deeds that truly make change.
I have given my opinions of Obama and I will, for those of you who think the man is beyond reproach, give my reasons for the opinions that I have formed.
Obama spent time visiting different churches in the Chicago area and speaking at length with pastors, before settling on Trinity Church. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright had a reputation of being at least a little militant in the pulpit. Obama attended Trinity Church for about 20 years and claims that he never heard Rev. Wright say anything anti-American in any sermon. And I will for the sake of argument allow that denial to stand. That being accepted then, there are one of two realities that took place over those 20 years; the first that Obama did hear the rhetoric that Rev. Wright was preaching and was not bothered at all by it (remember his wife Michelle was never proud to be an American until her husband was nominated for the Democratic ticket, her own words) or the second, which is that Obama did not listen to or observe what was going on around him when he was attending Trinity Church, which to me is almost the more scary of the two realities. As President of the United States, you have to ALWAYS listen to everything that is said in every meeting that you conduct and you also have to be very aware of what friend and foe alike have said to others as well as what they are not saying to you or the world. Neither truth reassures me that Obama is the best man for the job that he now has.
He has had other radical connections, such as his associations with Bill Ayers, now this association may not be much, but it shows the possibility that there is NO ONE that Obama would not concede to. And that can be perceived by others in the world as the sign of a weak man and therefore a weak nation.
Obama wants to 'spread the wealth', this is a concept of Carl Marx, the father of communism. There are a lot of very nice and idealistic concepts in the annals of socialism and communism, but none of these on paper ideals take into account one inescapable fact -- human nature. Humans by nature are greedy and selfish and if given the opportunity lazy. Giving hand outs will not encourage the less fortunate to move out of poverty; give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for life. You cannot just hand out money to people that are not fiscally responsible and expect them to become financially savvy individuals by the end of the week. There is also the human nature of Pavlov's dogs, which is true for humans as well, if you condition people that if they just sit around and wait that you will come in and solve their problems for them by giving them handouts you are merely training them to sit around and wait on you to come around and solve their problems for them. You are doing them an injustice not a service.
Obama has many 'ideas or thoughts' that contradict each other. When he is talking to the poor and lower middle class, he talks about tax breaks and tax cuts and 'spreading the wealth'. However, when he talks to the upper-middle class and the environmentalists, he is going to bankrupt the coal industry and electricity bills are going to sky-rocket over environmental fines. When he talks to the extreme liberals, he is going to go out and apologize to the world for America being American and he is going to reason with our enemies and through talk we are all going to be one big peaceful happy family. When he is talking to moderates and conservatives, he is not going to let Iran have nuclear weapons, and bin Laden will be brought to justice and he will never remove the military option from the table in dealing with our enemies. (He took 3 days to even say anything about Russia's invasion of Georgia, within that 3 days Russian deployed thousands of troops and was fully entrenched deep into Georgian lands and has yet to remove those troops.)
Some of the polices that Obama has either voted for or states that he supports have some troubling implications if enacted. Obama supports doing away with secret ballot voting for union organizing, which we know will lead to intimidation and retaliation. Obama is for protective tariffs increasing the cost of imports to this country, which result in tariffs being placed on our exports and thus will hurt American business and in turn decrease American jobs. (but take heart, the jobs wont be lost to overseas, they will just be lost all together) Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine, which is very akin to censorship. On the surface, it may not seem like that, but again when you look at how the Doctrine would be implicated it most definitely is censorship. Now I am against censorship on any level except the most extreme and because of that I will leave the Fairness Doctrine alone here and finish it in my next post.
Obama does not seem to think that he truly has to show that he has done the things that he says that he has, he does not seem to care about illegal financial contributions, he doesn't seem to think that he has to disclose his medical records or even his financial records. Most people do not know how ruthless the man can be or even how he won is first race for public office, which he did by having ALL of his opponents disqualified, therefore allowing him to run unopposed.
There is just too much about Obama that I think the voting public did not weigh when they went to the polls and voted. And in the coming weeks and months, I hope that America really makes Obama be true to his word for change and not being a true politician and it should start by Obama coming clean about all the uncertainty and baggage that he is carrying. The American people should demand that Obama be as historic as they are hoping that he will. I just hope that it will be a history that we can survive and recover from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)