Thomas Paine
Friday, November 13, 2009
Tomorrow: Goldman Sachs part 2
I cannot wait to publish tomorrow's post about the Great Wall Street Devil. Stay tuned.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A window on Van Jones' lunacy opened for me today
Ever since seeing the Van Jones video wherein he states "the white polluters and white environmentalists are basically steering pollution into the people of color's communities," I have wondered exactly what formed the basis of this ridiculously argument. Then, today, I ran into an article from October 5, 2009, in The Huffington Post by Billy Parish and Rinku Sen called Young, Green, and Out of Work. The following is a portion of the article that caught my eye:
"The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living. The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons. First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods. That's not accidental. It is a predictable result of persistent segregation, which strips communities of color of their power, facilitating the discriminatory placement of toxic incinerators, power plants, factories, and other big polluters in their communities.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us."
My first reaction: wow, there are actually people who believe this drivel? Then, I though, yeah, I can see the left trying to indoctrinate naive inner city youth into actually believing this. Let's look at their allegations:
Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
First of all, even if it were the right thing to do, how long would it take to convert our system of energy to wind and solar alternatives? Decades, maybe? I wonder if unemployed minority youth have that much time. Secondly, I am sure the left would love to massively fund anything, but why is that the only thing that can create a full-employment economy? Why not create all kinds of jobs that anyone can apply for? Thirdly, the use of the term "full-employment economy" shows just how naive these people are. That is Utopia-Speak. There will never be a full-employment economy because there is always going to be someone that is too hurt, too old, too sick, too tired, or too lazy to work - yes, even in a completely communist society.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living.
Do these people get paid for stating the obvious?
The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
Just like those people who are dying in the streets because they have been denied healthcare, I would like to see those that are suffering because of the environment. But they are still teasing me with that end poverty and alleviate environmental suffering = racial and economic equity syllogism. We will still have to wait for our answer just a little longer.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons.
This is right out of Van Jones' playbook. This is the creation of coalitions of power, as our President once said. Now, how it all comes together...
First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods.
I researched the issue of the disparate impact of poor economies on minorities and it is true, at least with regards to employment. I also read a 1992 EPA Environmental Equity Report that states that members of minority populations have “disproportionately greater ‘observed and potential exposure’ to environmental pollutants,” and this disproportionality could not be explained by income alone."
So there is something there, right? But wait just a second.
The primary focus of the environmental justice movement has been on the disparate burdening of minority communities by the initial siting of industrial facilities. Where do they build industrial facilities? In most big industrial cities, that is downtown, usually next to a river. Where do most minorities live in those cities: yep, downtown. So, is it the chicken or the egg? Were minority communities targeted as locations for the facilities or did minority communities grow up around the facilities? After all, everyone likes to live closer to work. It would require an enormous amount of research to answer that question and I cannot find any data. However, I tend to think that minorities moved where they could be closer to work. Historically, minorities have migrated to job centers, first, with the blacks moving from the South to the industrial cities of the north like New York, Chicago, and Detroit. Later, Hispanics have migrated from states along the border to those states with agricultural-based economies. Hence, there has been large movement of Hispanics into Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, but also migration to the traditional big cities where they can expect to find an abundance of work.
Regardless of the real reason, I don't see where the whole environmental issue ties into poverty. In fact, the 1992 EPA report I reference notes that the disparities aren't necessarily poverty-based, but racially based. If evil white polluters are targeting minorities just for being minorities, then it defeats the argument that Parish and Sen are making that, you work some social justice and get the money into the hands of the minorities, and the pollution will end because minorities will then have the clout to stave off the white pollution.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us.
Wow. Somebody has been putting wacky weed in their hookahs. White flight occurred because of crime in the inner cities. Sure, maybe some whities were running away from the colored folk, but, come on, look at the crime statistics. I guess white people's parents and grandparents were racist for wanting to get away from crime. Here is my question: what if all the white people had stayed? I guess we would all be living in Empire State Building-sized skyscrapers because that is what it would take to house everyone in the city. I also guess that being able to own your own house, you know, something other than an apartment or a brownstone, where you could actually have a yard for your kids to play in, with a little privacy, didn't show up as an alternative possibility to these guys.
Man, it really is whitie's fault isn't it. Gee, I wonder if they could live with the white flight if all of the whites worked from their homes so no rush hour traffic, carbon emissions, etc.? Whitie is the only one that drives to work, right?
And whitie owns all of the farms, too, and spits in the collective eye of his Hispanic farm workers. Hello! Stereotypes! Go look in the Rio Grande Valley and tell me who owns the farms there. I guess whites own most of the farms in Kansas and Nebraska, but that's because most of the minorities live in the cities. Moreover, the type of people who work those farms are migrant workers, many of whom are illegals. Of course they are not going to buy their own land and change the structural farm's "hierarchy." (I can hear Van Jones screaming: Give them the land! Give them the respect!").
As for the unionization issue, believe me, unions want as many immigrant employees as they can. Why? They just want their dues. But they don't want them to change that structural hierarchy because, if the minority workers buy the company, then why should they pay dues? So, in that way, unions, especially farmworkers and service employees' unions, keep the brothers down. They don't want to lose their financial base.
Any of you are welcome to prove me wrong.
"The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living. The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons. First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods. That's not accidental. It is a predictable result of persistent segregation, which strips communities of color of their power, facilitating the discriminatory placement of toxic incinerators, power plants, factories, and other big polluters in their communities.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us."
My first reaction: wow, there are actually people who believe this drivel? Then, I though, yeah, I can see the left trying to indoctrinate naive inner city youth into actually believing this. Let's look at their allegations:
Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
First of all, even if it were the right thing to do, how long would it take to convert our system of energy to wind and solar alternatives? Decades, maybe? I wonder if unemployed minority youth have that much time. Secondly, I am sure the left would love to massively fund anything, but why is that the only thing that can create a full-employment economy? Why not create all kinds of jobs that anyone can apply for? Thirdly, the use of the term "full-employment economy" shows just how naive these people are. That is Utopia-Speak. There will never be a full-employment economy because there is always going to be someone that is too hurt, too old, too sick, too tired, or too lazy to work - yes, even in a completely communist society.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living.
Do these people get paid for stating the obvious?
The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
Just like those people who are dying in the streets because they have been denied healthcare, I would like to see those that are suffering because of the environment. But they are still teasing me with that end poverty and alleviate environmental suffering = racial and economic equity syllogism. We will still have to wait for our answer just a little longer.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons.
This is right out of Van Jones' playbook. This is the creation of coalitions of power, as our President once said. Now, how it all comes together...
First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods.
I researched the issue of the disparate impact of poor economies on minorities and it is true, at least with regards to employment. I also read a 1992 EPA Environmental Equity Report that states that members of minority populations have “disproportionately greater ‘observed and potential exposure’ to environmental pollutants,” and this disproportionality could not be explained by income alone."
So there is something there, right? But wait just a second.
The primary focus of the environmental justice movement has been on the disparate burdening of minority communities by the initial siting of industrial facilities. Where do they build industrial facilities? In most big industrial cities, that is downtown, usually next to a river. Where do most minorities live in those cities: yep, downtown. So, is it the chicken or the egg? Were minority communities targeted as locations for the facilities or did minority communities grow up around the facilities? After all, everyone likes to live closer to work. It would require an enormous amount of research to answer that question and I cannot find any data. However, I tend to think that minorities moved where they could be closer to work. Historically, minorities have migrated to job centers, first, with the blacks moving from the South to the industrial cities of the north like New York, Chicago, and Detroit. Later, Hispanics have migrated from states along the border to those states with agricultural-based economies. Hence, there has been large movement of Hispanics into Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, but also migration to the traditional big cities where they can expect to find an abundance of work.
Regardless of the real reason, I don't see where the whole environmental issue ties into poverty. In fact, the 1992 EPA report I reference notes that the disparities aren't necessarily poverty-based, but racially based. If evil white polluters are targeting minorities just for being minorities, then it defeats the argument that Parish and Sen are making that, you work some social justice and get the money into the hands of the minorities, and the pollution will end because minorities will then have the clout to stave off the white pollution.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us.
Wow. Somebody has been putting wacky weed in their hookahs. White flight occurred because of crime in the inner cities. Sure, maybe some whities were running away from the colored folk, but, come on, look at the crime statistics. I guess white people's parents and grandparents were racist for wanting to get away from crime. Here is my question: what if all the white people had stayed? I guess we would all be living in Empire State Building-sized skyscrapers because that is what it would take to house everyone in the city. I also guess that being able to own your own house, you know, something other than an apartment or a brownstone, where you could actually have a yard for your kids to play in, with a little privacy, didn't show up as an alternative possibility to these guys.
Man, it really is whitie's fault isn't it. Gee, I wonder if they could live with the white flight if all of the whites worked from their homes so no rush hour traffic, carbon emissions, etc.? Whitie is the only one that drives to work, right?
And whitie owns all of the farms, too, and spits in the collective eye of his Hispanic farm workers. Hello! Stereotypes! Go look in the Rio Grande Valley and tell me who owns the farms there. I guess whites own most of the farms in Kansas and Nebraska, but that's because most of the minorities live in the cities. Moreover, the type of people who work those farms are migrant workers, many of whom are illegals. Of course they are not going to buy their own land and change the structural farm's "hierarchy." (I can hear Van Jones screaming: Give them the land! Give them the respect!").
As for the unionization issue, believe me, unions want as many immigrant employees as they can. Why? They just want their dues. But they don't want them to change that structural hierarchy because, if the minority workers buy the company, then why should they pay dues? So, in that way, unions, especially farmworkers and service employees' unions, keep the brothers down. They don't want to lose their financial base.
Any of you are welcome to prove me wrong.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
It's not just ACORN and SEIU
The government is not just in bed with community activists and labor unions. Their new partner in crime: Wall Street. How is that possible? Isn't the administration publicly lambasting one Wall Street exec after another? Thomas Paine, haven't you been arguing that Obama's sole purpose for existence is to redistribute the wealth? Well, yes, but you need to understand what is and has been going on behind the political scene.
Remember Henry Paulson? Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Bush’s Secretary of Treasurer. As a result of this insider connection, the firm benefited when Paulson elected not to save rival Lehman Brothers from collapse, and when he organized a massive rescue of AIG while in constant telephone contact with Goldman chief Blankfein. With the Federal Reserve Board's blessing, AIG later used $12.9 billion in taxpayers' dollars to pay off every penny it owed Goldman. The result: $6 billion in the pockets of Goldman Sachs.
These decisions preserved billions of dollars in value for Goldman's executives and shareholders. For example, Blankfein held 1.6 million shares in the company in September 2008, and he could have lost more than $150 million if his firm had gone bankrupt.
"Okay," you say. "It isn't surprising that Goldman Sachs was in bed with the Bush administration, but President Obama's different." Really?
Goldman Sachs was second only to the University of California among Obama's top donors. While the organization itself did not donate the money, such donations were made either through employees, owners, the immediate families of such members and/or through the organization’s PAC. During the 2008 campaign, those at Goldman Sachs donated $955,473 to the Obama campaign
In addition, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner named Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, as a top aide. Last December, reports Mr. Geithner favored Goldman Sachs surfaced when the New York Times Editorial Board questioned the motivation of then New York Federal Reserve President Geithner’s decision to let Lehman Brothers fail. Two days after that decision, he advocated for the bailout of AIG and its counterparties.
Add to the mix a September meeting Geithner arranged to discuss the AIG bailout. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street leader at the meeting. At the time, Goldman Sachs was AIG’s largest trading partner.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama had strong connections with Goldman Sachs, as he was invited to a private Goldman Sachs dinner in May 2007. When it came time to name a vice presidential running mate, Mr. Obama turned to Goldman Sachs Board Member James Johnson. Mr. Johnson was forced to vacate the post due in part to this controversy.
Obama also appointed William Dudley, a partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs as President of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve (the chairman of the Board of Directors, Denis Hughes is the current president of the New York State AFL-CIO - go figure). Obama also traveled to New Jersey and stumped five times for Jon Corzine's campaign for governor. Corzine is the former Chairman and Co-CEO of...you guessed it!...Goldman Sachs.
What does this all mean? Together with Big Labor, Goldman Sachs is the single most important political player right now. While the Administration demonizes certain Wall Street execs (read: anyone at AIG), no one has directed any criticism towards Goldman Sachs. They do not oppose the government's threats to dramatically increase regulation of the finance industry because the fix is in: they have Obama and Geithner in their pocket and a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist in the SEC's enforcement division. They probably think they are pretty untouchable right now. Their only task right now is not to earn returns for their clients, it is to curry favor with the administration so that they remain unscathed and, as their competitors fall into disfavor with the government, they will enjoy all the protection that a government-created monopoly can provide.
They need to be taken down, brick by brick. You liberals out there: I don't care if Obama is your guy - you can't possibly approve of this corruption. Get these guys the hell out of government - NOW. Write your Congressman. Tell her or him that, if they accept one dollar of money from anybody from Goldman Sachs, you will vote for their opponent. Demand turnover at the highest levels of the SEC. Tell your friends about this BECAUSE NO ONE IN THE NEWS IS COVERING IT.
Remember Henry Paulson? Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Bush’s Secretary of Treasurer. As a result of this insider connection, the firm benefited when Paulson elected not to save rival Lehman Brothers from collapse, and when he organized a massive rescue of AIG while in constant telephone contact with Goldman chief Blankfein. With the Federal Reserve Board's blessing, AIG later used $12.9 billion in taxpayers' dollars to pay off every penny it owed Goldman. The result: $6 billion in the pockets of Goldman Sachs.
These decisions preserved billions of dollars in value for Goldman's executives and shareholders. For example, Blankfein held 1.6 million shares in the company in September 2008, and he could have lost more than $150 million if his firm had gone bankrupt.
"Okay," you say. "It isn't surprising that Goldman Sachs was in bed with the Bush administration, but President Obama's different." Really?
Goldman Sachs was second only to the University of California among Obama's top donors. While the organization itself did not donate the money, such donations were made either through employees, owners, the immediate families of such members and/or through the organization’s PAC. During the 2008 campaign, those at Goldman Sachs donated $955,473 to the Obama campaign
In addition, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner named Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, as a top aide. Last December, reports Mr. Geithner favored Goldman Sachs surfaced when the New York Times Editorial Board questioned the motivation of then New York Federal Reserve President Geithner’s decision to let Lehman Brothers fail. Two days after that decision, he advocated for the bailout of AIG and its counterparties.
Add to the mix a September meeting Geithner arranged to discuss the AIG bailout. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street leader at the meeting. At the time, Goldman Sachs was AIG’s largest trading partner.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama had strong connections with Goldman Sachs, as he was invited to a private Goldman Sachs dinner in May 2007. When it came time to name a vice presidential running mate, Mr. Obama turned to Goldman Sachs Board Member James Johnson. Mr. Johnson was forced to vacate the post due in part to this controversy.
Obama also appointed William Dudley, a partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs as President of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve (the chairman of the Board of Directors, Denis Hughes is the current president of the New York State AFL-CIO - go figure). Obama also traveled to New Jersey and stumped five times for Jon Corzine's campaign for governor. Corzine is the former Chairman and Co-CEO of...you guessed it!...Goldman Sachs.
What does this all mean? Together with Big Labor, Goldman Sachs is the single most important political player right now. While the Administration demonizes certain Wall Street execs (read: anyone at AIG), no one has directed any criticism towards Goldman Sachs. They do not oppose the government's threats to dramatically increase regulation of the finance industry because the fix is in: they have Obama and Geithner in their pocket and a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist in the SEC's enforcement division. They probably think they are pretty untouchable right now. Their only task right now is not to earn returns for their clients, it is to curry favor with the administration so that they remain unscathed and, as their competitors fall into disfavor with the government, they will enjoy all the protection that a government-created monopoly can provide.
They need to be taken down, brick by brick. You liberals out there: I don't care if Obama is your guy - you can't possibly approve of this corruption. Get these guys the hell out of government - NOW. Write your Congressman. Tell her or him that, if they accept one dollar of money from anybody from Goldman Sachs, you will vote for their opponent. Demand turnover at the highest levels of the SEC. Tell your friends about this BECAUSE NO ONE IN THE NEWS IS COVERING IT.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Ways in which the government can cut spending
I found this great link to a pdf document prepared by the Heritage Foundation. Yeah, I know - they are a conservative think tank. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but I know that, to any liberals out there, it pretty much means that they are a bunch of morons. But even you liberals cannot argue with the last two pages aptly titled: Nowhere to Cut? Those pages highlight about a trillion dollars of government waste that can be eliminated. Check it out.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
You can't make this stuff up
The following is a pic from The Decemberists, who was the group that gave a free 45 minute concert at a May 2008 Portland, Oregon rally in support of Obama:
The Decemberists are named after the Decemberist Revolution, an 1825 uprising in Russia which their lead singer labels an attempted Communist revolution. The band often opens their shows with the Soviet national anthem.
The Decemberists are named after the Decemberist Revolution, an 1825 uprising in Russia which their lead singer labels an attempted Communist revolution. The band often opens their shows with the Soviet national anthem.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What is happening to the dollar and why?
I read this article on Politico.com that references the Drudge Report's recent streak of articles about the weakening of the dollar. The flood of cash in the market together with out-of-control deficit spending is seriously devaluing our currency. What is the White House or Congress doing about it? Well, in short, nothing. A new stimulus package is being touted. Health care reform is being sold as deficit-neutral, but studies show that is not the case and even the Congressional Budget Office has admitted that its figures did not consider certain factors that would change their estimates considerably. The Federal Reserve Bank has done nothing to tighten cash flow.
Many experts believe that the Obama Administration actually wants to devalue the dollar? Why in the world would they want to do that? I found the following explanation on www.senseoncents.com:
"Going back to the G20 in London last Spring, the Obama administration has attempted to curry political favor with emerging economies, especially the BRIC nations, by ceding dollar sovereigncy as the preeminent international reserve currency in return for support of global economic stimulus programs. Why does Washington believe a weak currency serves our economic interests? A weak currency generates and supports the following:
1. Promotes inflation as imports decline. Washington would like some inflation, given the massive deflationary pressures presented by falling wages and declines in the value of commercial and residential real estate.
2. Promotes exports for corporations with a multi-national presence.
3. Supports labor by making it more attractive for companies to keep jobs here as opposed to opening factories or sending work overseas."
If we give the President the benefit of the doubt, then his plan is a potentially extremely costly gamble. Maybe it works out, but history is against it. I have read archived articles from Time Magazine that were written in 1971 where the author is promoting devaluing the dollar to decrease the trade deficit, for example. This theory was played out devastatingly during the years of the Carter administration.
I have learned that, with this administration, there are always multiple layers of agendas for everything they do or say. There is always the public reason which is what the President says he is attempting to accomplish. Then, there is the "real" reason - the agenda that the network news or CNN commentators "uncover." Then, there is the actual reason why he is doing something - the reason that you will only find on the Glenn Beck Show, Breitbart TV, or some other more inquisitive source of information.
So let's look at the reasons given on senseoncents.com, line by line:
1. Reverse the decrease in wages and real estate values.
Let's take this on its face value. Why would we want to artificially bump up real estate prices? Isn't that one of the reasons why we are in the current financial crisis? With regards to wages, sure, we would like to keep wages high, but it has to be done naturally. What good is it to keep wages high if there are no jobs? Why not focus on creating jobs and then let the demand for labor increase wages.
The second-level agenda, CNN will eventually tell you, is that artificially inflating wages will appease Obama's union support structure by getting their members higher pay.
The third-level agenda is that Valerie Jarrett and many of Obama's cronies have a lot of their money tied up in real estate, especially Jarrett the Slumlord. Anybody remember Tony Rezko?
2. Promotes exports for corporations with a multi-national presence.
We need to reduce the trade deficit. I have been saying for years that our economy is too service-based. A strong manufacturing-based economy creates value, and jobs, at all stages of the process: research and development, design, manufacturing, wholesale sales and marketing, retail sales and marketing, resales, etc.
Level 2: a greater demand for US exports means more jobs in the manufacturing sector which means more jobs go to union workers.
Level 3: GE and US car companies benefit extraordinarily which makes Obama a candidate for CEO of the year and creates even more jobs for union workers (and for Chrysler workers this means that their stock in the company - the stock the administration gave them - increases in value).
3. Supports labor by making it more attractive for companies to keep jobs here as opposed to opening factories or sending work overseas."
I think the first two words say it all. Hey, what do know? We finally see some transparency.
Now, at the risk of branding myself a complete conspiracy theorist, let me tell you about a 4th level agenda. I am reading a book called Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank. The book, which was written in 1959, tells a tale of life in a small Florida town after a nuclear holocaust. One of the minor characters, Edgar Quissenberry, is the head of the local bank. Once the nukes start falling and the major financial mechanisms of the country and, indeed, of the world have been completely destroyed, Edgar realizes that all of the wealth he has accumulated - all of the cash, stocks, bonds, everything - is worth absolutely nothing. He laments: "How could life go on if dollars were worthless? How could anybody live without dollars, or credit, or both?" Frank was a Democrat and perhaps a little left-leaning, so this may have been a jab at capitalism, but what puts shivers down my spine is found on the next page (p. 122 in the HarperPerennial version if you want to check it out):
"He thought of all the notes outstanding that now would never be paid, and how his debtors must be chuckling. He scorned the improvident, and now the improvident would be just as good as the careful, the sound, the thrifty."
Quissenberry then puts a revolver to his temple and blows his brains out.
My friends, that is the redistribution of wealth. Once the currency became worthless, the "improvident," those who have according to Webster's online are "thoughtless, careless, imprudent, heedless, shiftless, thriftless, unthrifty, wasteful, or prodigal," were the equals of the wealthy, who had planned ahead, spent their money wisely, and saved for the future. I am reminded again of that lady saying that now she doesn't have to worry about her mortgage and Obama is going to make her car payment.
Now doesn't that sound like someone who "just wants to spread the wealth around" would want to do?
Many experts believe that the Obama Administration actually wants to devalue the dollar? Why in the world would they want to do that? I found the following explanation on www.senseoncents.com:
"Going back to the G20 in London last Spring, the Obama administration has attempted to curry political favor with emerging economies, especially the BRIC nations, by ceding dollar sovereigncy as the preeminent international reserve currency in return for support of global economic stimulus programs. Why does Washington believe a weak currency serves our economic interests? A weak currency generates and supports the following:
1. Promotes inflation as imports decline. Washington would like some inflation, given the massive deflationary pressures presented by falling wages and declines in the value of commercial and residential real estate.
2. Promotes exports for corporations with a multi-national presence.
3. Supports labor by making it more attractive for companies to keep jobs here as opposed to opening factories or sending work overseas."
If we give the President the benefit of the doubt, then his plan is a potentially extremely costly gamble. Maybe it works out, but history is against it. I have read archived articles from Time Magazine that were written in 1971 where the author is promoting devaluing the dollar to decrease the trade deficit, for example. This theory was played out devastatingly during the years of the Carter administration.
I have learned that, with this administration, there are always multiple layers of agendas for everything they do or say. There is always the public reason which is what the President says he is attempting to accomplish. Then, there is the "real" reason - the agenda that the network news or CNN commentators "uncover." Then, there is the actual reason why he is doing something - the reason that you will only find on the Glenn Beck Show, Breitbart TV, or some other more inquisitive source of information.
So let's look at the reasons given on senseoncents.com, line by line:
1. Reverse the decrease in wages and real estate values.
Let's take this on its face value. Why would we want to artificially bump up real estate prices? Isn't that one of the reasons why we are in the current financial crisis? With regards to wages, sure, we would like to keep wages high, but it has to be done naturally. What good is it to keep wages high if there are no jobs? Why not focus on creating jobs and then let the demand for labor increase wages.
The second-level agenda, CNN will eventually tell you, is that artificially inflating wages will appease Obama's union support structure by getting their members higher pay.
The third-level agenda is that Valerie Jarrett and many of Obama's cronies have a lot of their money tied up in real estate, especially Jarrett the Slumlord. Anybody remember Tony Rezko?
2. Promotes exports for corporations with a multi-national presence.
We need to reduce the trade deficit. I have been saying for years that our economy is too service-based. A strong manufacturing-based economy creates value, and jobs, at all stages of the process: research and development, design, manufacturing, wholesale sales and marketing, retail sales and marketing, resales, etc.
Level 2: a greater demand for US exports means more jobs in the manufacturing sector which means more jobs go to union workers.
Level 3: GE and US car companies benefit extraordinarily which makes Obama a candidate for CEO of the year and creates even more jobs for union workers (and for Chrysler workers this means that their stock in the company - the stock the administration gave them - increases in value).
3. Supports labor by making it more attractive for companies to keep jobs here as opposed to opening factories or sending work overseas."
I think the first two words say it all. Hey, what do know? We finally see some transparency.
Now, at the risk of branding myself a complete conspiracy theorist, let me tell you about a 4th level agenda. I am reading a book called Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank. The book, which was written in 1959, tells a tale of life in a small Florida town after a nuclear holocaust. One of the minor characters, Edgar Quissenberry, is the head of the local bank. Once the nukes start falling and the major financial mechanisms of the country and, indeed, of the world have been completely destroyed, Edgar realizes that all of the wealth he has accumulated - all of the cash, stocks, bonds, everything - is worth absolutely nothing. He laments: "How could life go on if dollars were worthless? How could anybody live without dollars, or credit, or both?" Frank was a Democrat and perhaps a little left-leaning, so this may have been a jab at capitalism, but what puts shivers down my spine is found on the next page (p. 122 in the HarperPerennial version if you want to check it out):
"He thought of all the notes outstanding that now would never be paid, and how his debtors must be chuckling. He scorned the improvident, and now the improvident would be just as good as the careful, the sound, the thrifty."
Quissenberry then puts a revolver to his temple and blows his brains out.
My friends, that is the redistribution of wealth. Once the currency became worthless, the "improvident," those who have according to Webster's online are "thoughtless, careless, imprudent, heedless, shiftless, thriftless, unthrifty, wasteful, or prodigal," were the equals of the wealthy, who had planned ahead, spent their money wisely, and saved for the future. I am reminded again of that lady saying that now she doesn't have to worry about her mortgage and Obama is going to make her car payment.
Now doesn't that sound like someone who "just wants to spread the wealth around" would want to do?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
World Climate Control = Redistribution of Wealth
Is the world suffering from global warming? Is the gradual increase of the Earth's average temperature a threat to cause famine, pestilence, drastic weather events, an increase in the ocean's levels, and a host of other catastrophes? I don't know and I don't think you do either. The reason I believe that is that the scientists are not being scientists. If they were using the principles of science such as repeated testing and deductive reasoning, then we would probably know. Instead, I believe that scientists are being paid or, at least, pressured by external forces to reach certain results. For example, my last post contained an article by Richard Lindzen. Mr. Lindzen worked as a consultant for OPEC which, clearly, does not support the theory of global warming because the goal of reducing CO2 emissions would require a conversion from traditional petroleum based fuels to alternative "cleaner" fuels. So is his research result-oriented? Is he a shill for the oil companies? I don't know. Is Al Gore a hypocrite because he flies across the globe on a diesel-using jet and lives in an old mansion where he runs up monthly electric bills in the tens of thousands of dollars? Should we question his arguments when he owns considerable interest in and/or serves as an officer of companies that are in the business of green technology? Who should you believe?
One of the major problems with this issue is that both sides keep referring to consensus as if the question of how the earth works and whether or not we are damaging the environment can be based on a majority vote. You would think that there would be generally acceptable methods of testing and acquiring data that everyone could agree upon and that scientists - all scientists - could conduct exhaustive testing and come up with an answer. At the same time, these scientists would follow the scientific method: they take a hypothesis such as "human-generated carbon dioxide admissions contribute to the greenhouse effect which increases the global temperature" and, then, they would use every possible test to try to prove that hypothesis wrong. Once they have exhausted ALL possibilities that they can originate, and the data reflects a certain result, then we would know whether or not that was true. Instead, you have one side referring to one particular authority, document, study, or set of records to support one position, and then the other side does the exact same thing. Don't support it - TRY TO PROVE IT WRONG! That is the only way that we can know for sure.
That being said, and after admitting that I do not know the answer, I do not agree that we need to take drastic action to combat global climate change. The reason why we shouldn't is because WE CANNOT TRUST THOSE WHO ARE URGING US TO DO SO. Here's why:
Progressives come in all shapes and sizes, but, whatever form they take, they feed on crises and take advantage of them to take control and acquire power. If you and I, the nation, or the world believe that we are in an emergency situation, then we are much more willing to let the government act decisively, dramatically, extraordinarily, and unconstitutionally, in an illegal and unprecedented fashion even, because we are in a panicked state. We desperately want to feel that security again. This mindset allowed FDR to put Japanese-Americans in detention camps and seize private citizen's gold during World War II. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson had Committee on Public Information propaganda machine and the American Protective League, which was a group of civilians charged by the government with spying on their neighbors and weeding out or ratting out any dissent among the general populace. Sounds like the Gestapo, does it not? And Congress and the American People let them do it because there was a war going on, the Hun was out there ready to steal our babies, and once we had the hell sufficiently scared out of us, we willingly sacrificed our freedom and our constitutional rights just to have that feeling taken away.
The Obama Administration is full of crisis buzzards. After all, as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, stated: "We will not let a good crisis go to waste." So we have the financial crisis (the banks are too large to fail, so we have to bail them out), the financial crisis part 2 (we have to push a $787 billion stimulus package through Congress without anyone reading the bill, the majority of which will not result in any spending until 2013 [oh, but we've gotta have it NOW!] that hasn't created any jobs except among unionized teachers and construction workers and contains a ridiculous amount of pork - I call it the Obama Campaign Financing Repayment Package), the automobile industry crisis (the car companies are too big to fail, so the government has to purchase a huge amount of their stock, fire their CEO, tell them what cars they can and cannot build, and give a huge portion of their stock to their unionized workers), the climate crisis (we have to ramrod cap and trade legislation through Congress before the bill can be properly debated because the world is dying and our new green economy will create jobs [I guess at the expense of non-green energy-related jobs] even though it will dramatically increase household energy costs at a time when so many are losing their jobs and businesses are closing), the health insurance crisis (people are, apparently, dying in the streets because they can't get health care, we have to have a government option because there isn't enough competition in the health care industry [so now we have a "competitor" who regulates the other guys and will tax them, yet cannot run its own health care systems, and now is going to tell them what to do] which, by the way, is going to cost taxpayers more money in health care costs [at a time of economic recession]), the swine flu crisis (get your children vaccinated NOW or THEY WILL DIE!), and a few other less significant crises. The Administration and their affiliated non-governmental (or some would say quasi-governmental) support groups (aka special interest groups) are chocked full of progressives and it shows.
Now, let's translate the progressive addiction to crisis to the global or international levels. The UN is also full of progressives (and communists and socialists for that matter). They are generally American-haters. Why do they hate us? Well, George Bush, of course. Ok, not really. They hate us because we have always been the rich bully on the block. We have the highest standards of living based on just about every accepted measure. We have the strongest military on the planet. And, until Obama came into office, we pretty much have not ever put up with crap. In short, they are jealous and see us as the source of evil: we and our European capitalist predecessors are the progenitors of all of the social injustice in the world and we must be stopped.
Up to this point, even when Jimmy Carter was in office, they could not do anything about it. Now, we have in the office a President who is a citizen of the world. He may not hate America, per se, but he hates our white history. He sees our culture as racist and replete with greedy, shameless capitalists. He hates our bourgeois middle class and our intolerant religions. He desperately wants the approval of the world and wants to return our country to its previous international standing - translation: we need to appease our enemies, apologize for doing what we thought we had to do, and agree to whatever radical position the international community adheres to in any given moment.
The global climate change crisis propaganda machine and the anti-American forces of the world have found their ultimate tool in Barack Hussein Obama and they are getting ready to unleash the perfect storm. We cannot trust this administration to do the right thing and we cannot allow the international progressives, embodied in the UN, to impose any system of control upon us and have access to our tax dollars. In my next post I will tell you why. I will also show how the whole idea of climate change and the push to take drastic action now has nothing to do with the environment itself, but, rather, the international redistribution of wealth and the permanent elimination of the USA as a global power.
One of the major problems with this issue is that both sides keep referring to consensus as if the question of how the earth works and whether or not we are damaging the environment can be based on a majority vote. You would think that there would be generally acceptable methods of testing and acquiring data that everyone could agree upon and that scientists - all scientists - could conduct exhaustive testing and come up with an answer. At the same time, these scientists would follow the scientific method: they take a hypothesis such as "human-generated carbon dioxide admissions contribute to the greenhouse effect which increases the global temperature" and, then, they would use every possible test to try to prove that hypothesis wrong. Once they have exhausted ALL possibilities that they can originate, and the data reflects a certain result, then we would know whether or not that was true. Instead, you have one side referring to one particular authority, document, study, or set of records to support one position, and then the other side does the exact same thing. Don't support it - TRY TO PROVE IT WRONG! That is the only way that we can know for sure.
That being said, and after admitting that I do not know the answer, I do not agree that we need to take drastic action to combat global climate change. The reason why we shouldn't is because WE CANNOT TRUST THOSE WHO ARE URGING US TO DO SO. Here's why:
Progressives come in all shapes and sizes, but, whatever form they take, they feed on crises and take advantage of them to take control and acquire power. If you and I, the nation, or the world believe that we are in an emergency situation, then we are much more willing to let the government act decisively, dramatically, extraordinarily, and unconstitutionally, in an illegal and unprecedented fashion even, because we are in a panicked state. We desperately want to feel that security again. This mindset allowed FDR to put Japanese-Americans in detention camps and seize private citizen's gold during World War II. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson had Committee on Public Information propaganda machine and the American Protective League, which was a group of civilians charged by the government with spying on their neighbors and weeding out or ratting out any dissent among the general populace. Sounds like the Gestapo, does it not? And Congress and the American People let them do it because there was a war going on, the Hun was out there ready to steal our babies, and once we had the hell sufficiently scared out of us, we willingly sacrificed our freedom and our constitutional rights just to have that feeling taken away.
The Obama Administration is full of crisis buzzards. After all, as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, stated: "We will not let a good crisis go to waste." So we have the financial crisis (the banks are too large to fail, so we have to bail them out), the financial crisis part 2 (we have to push a $787 billion stimulus package through Congress without anyone reading the bill, the majority of which will not result in any spending until 2013 [oh, but we've gotta have it NOW!] that hasn't created any jobs except among unionized teachers and construction workers and contains a ridiculous amount of pork - I call it the Obama Campaign Financing Repayment Package), the automobile industry crisis (the car companies are too big to fail, so the government has to purchase a huge amount of their stock, fire their CEO, tell them what cars they can and cannot build, and give a huge portion of their stock to their unionized workers), the climate crisis (we have to ramrod cap and trade legislation through Congress before the bill can be properly debated because the world is dying and our new green economy will create jobs [I guess at the expense of non-green energy-related jobs] even though it will dramatically increase household energy costs at a time when so many are losing their jobs and businesses are closing), the health insurance crisis (people are, apparently, dying in the streets because they can't get health care, we have to have a government option because there isn't enough competition in the health care industry [so now we have a "competitor" who regulates the other guys and will tax them, yet cannot run its own health care systems, and now is going to tell them what to do] which, by the way, is going to cost taxpayers more money in health care costs [at a time of economic recession]), the swine flu crisis (get your children vaccinated NOW or THEY WILL DIE!), and a few other less significant crises. The Administration and their affiliated non-governmental (or some would say quasi-governmental) support groups (aka special interest groups) are chocked full of progressives and it shows.
Now, let's translate the progressive addiction to crisis to the global or international levels. The UN is also full of progressives (and communists and socialists for that matter). They are generally American-haters. Why do they hate us? Well, George Bush, of course. Ok, not really. They hate us because we have always been the rich bully on the block. We have the highest standards of living based on just about every accepted measure. We have the strongest military on the planet. And, until Obama came into office, we pretty much have not ever put up with crap. In short, they are jealous and see us as the source of evil: we and our European capitalist predecessors are the progenitors of all of the social injustice in the world and we must be stopped.
Up to this point, even when Jimmy Carter was in office, they could not do anything about it. Now, we have in the office a President who is a citizen of the world. He may not hate America, per se, but he hates our white history. He sees our culture as racist and replete with greedy, shameless capitalists. He hates our bourgeois middle class and our intolerant religions. He desperately wants the approval of the world and wants to return our country to its previous international standing - translation: we need to appease our enemies, apologize for doing what we thought we had to do, and agree to whatever radical position the international community adheres to in any given moment.
The global climate change crisis propaganda machine and the anti-American forces of the world have found their ultimate tool in Barack Hussein Obama and they are getting ready to unleash the perfect storm. We cannot trust this administration to do the right thing and we cannot allow the international progressives, embodied in the UN, to impose any system of control upon us and have access to our tax dollars. In my next post I will tell you why. I will also show how the whole idea of climate change and the push to take drastic action now has nothing to do with the environment itself, but, rather, the international redistribution of wealth and the permanent elimination of the USA as a global power.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Richard Lindzen, Climate of Fear
Here is a very interesting op ed piece that MIT Professor and climate expert Richard Lindzen wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
Climate of FearGlobal-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
by RICHARD LINDZEN Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 A.M. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Friday, October 16, 2009
A new beginning...
Sometime in between football games this weekend, tune in to MSNBC. Watch Rachel Maddow or any show that still allows Keith Olbermann on it. Then, flip over to a rerun of the Glenn Beck show. You won't help but ask yourself: how can two news programs talk about the same topics from such diametrically opposed viewpoints? How can you tell who is telling you the truth? You may not feel as frustrated as I do about the current political milieu, BUT I HOPE YOU DO. These are strange and exciting times. When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I was very interested in politics and worked for George H.W. Bush's campaign and the campaigns of several Texas and U.S. Congressmen. Then, I went to law school, started working a real job, started a family, and had other things to do with my time. At some point during the last President's administration, I began to sense that something was wrong with our country and not just with the Bush administration. I was reminded of a poem by William Butler Yeats, my favorite poet. It is called The Second Coming and here is a portion of it:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Doesn't that sound a lot like what is happening now?
Then, something happened that brought me out of my complacency with regards to politics: the American people elected Barack Hussein Obama as President. I will admit that I admired the man's charisma, speaking ability, and that certain je non sais quoi (sp?) that he had. But, I knew something was wrong when I saw just about EVERYONE, viewing him as if he were the Messiah. The reactions to the guy were mind-boggling: remember the video of the lady who said that she didn't have to worry about her mortgage and that Barack was going to make her car payment? What????
Since the election, I have read a considerable amount of literature and materials on fascism, socialism, progressivism, and the background of those in the Obama White House and it is frightening.
This blog is about opinions, both my own, and those of the people who follow it. If you are an Obama supporter, you are more than welcome to participate. No one will be persecuted, excluded, or personally attacked because of their participation on this blog. I can say that because I have the power to control it (MUAAHAHAAAA!). Plus, I don't want a bunch of Glenn Beck clones spouting off stuff already know. So, challenge me...
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Doesn't that sound a lot like what is happening now?
Then, something happened that brought me out of my complacency with regards to politics: the American people elected Barack Hussein Obama as President. I will admit that I admired the man's charisma, speaking ability, and that certain je non sais quoi (sp?) that he had. But, I knew something was wrong when I saw just about EVERYONE, viewing him as if he were the Messiah. The reactions to the guy were mind-boggling: remember the video of the lady who said that she didn't have to worry about her mortgage and that Barack was going to make her car payment? What????
Since the election, I have read a considerable amount of literature and materials on fascism, socialism, progressivism, and the background of those in the Obama White House and it is frightening.
This blog is about opinions, both my own, and those of the people who follow it. If you are an Obama supporter, you are more than welcome to participate. No one will be persecuted, excluded, or personally attacked because of their participation on this blog. I can say that because I have the power to control it (MUAAHAHAAAA!). Plus, I don't want a bunch of Glenn Beck clones spouting off stuff already know. So, challenge me...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)