"The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal." ~ Mark Twain
The Democrat attack machine, otherwise known as the National Media, have begun their attack on another Republican Presidential candidate. This time, it's Herman Cain.
It was, of course, inevitable.
Anytime a Republican hopeful begins to pull away from the pack, the attack machine goes into full attack mode.
In my humble opinion, it is simply more evidence that the Democrats have so little faith in their own candidates ability to win an election on their own merits that they have to resort to shameful, underhanded, despicable tactics.
I might add, also, that this is the way Obama got his opponent to drop out of the campaign when he was running for Illinois State Senate. By attacking the man's moral character.
I knew this would happen.
As Cain's spokesman said, so far, these allegations are "thinly sourced", however, Cain and his campaign are not denying that charges of sexual harassment were brought against him.
On page three of the Politico report, some insight into the details of the allegations is mentioned. One of the women who made these as yet unsubstantiated allegations was fired shortly before she made the accusation, which, simply because of that fact, makes her allegation extremely suspect.
It is important for us to remember that Herman Cain was never officially charged with any kind of sexual harassment, and that all the Democrat attack machine has to back up their allegation is the word of two possibly bitter, vindictive, former employees of the National Restaurant Association.
It is basic human nature to wish for retribution against bosses who terminate employees. I myself have been fired a few times, and I can remember entertaining thoughts of revenge against my former employer. It is, therefore, no leap of logic to reach the conclusion that sour grapes may have motivated these women to make these charges, if indeed, charges were even brought.
As a Manager, I was once accused of sexual discrimination by a disgruntled former employee, an allegation that was ultimately proven false.
I know how vindictive some people can be firsthand.
One has to read all the way to page four to see any support being voiced for Cain by people who worked with him.
I don't know if these allegations have any merit to them or not. It's still early. We will have the opportunity to observe follow up stories in the next several weeks, and I'm sure more facts will eventually emerge.
Will they vindicate or destroy Herman Cain?
Who knows?
But I will tell you one thing:
True or not, his candidacy has been irreparably damaged.
Update:
Herman Cain responds. I like the way he answers direct questions directly. Politicians would do well to emulate his style.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Imagine
"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man." ~ Bertrand Russell
Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.
Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.
Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.
I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.
Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.
Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.
No proof is required.
Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.
This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.
Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.
Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.
My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.
So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:
Hey, we're eligible. I promise!
Imagine I'm an illegal alien, and imagine I have been following the "illegal immigration debate" and I want full amnesty for my 1,000 or so brothers, sisters, mothers, mothers-in-law, fathers, fathers-in-law, uncles, aunts, cousins, and my friends and their friends so they can enter this country and take advantage of all those free hand-outs that the legal U.S. Citizens pay for with their taxes extracted from their hard earned money.
And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.
So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.
Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?
It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.
All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.
Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?
Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.
Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.
Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.
I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.
Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.
Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.
No proof is required.
Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.
This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.
Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.
Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.
My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.
So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:
Hey, we're eligible. I promise!And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.
So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.
Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?
It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.
All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.
Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Of Poverty And Class Envy
"It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed." ~ Kin Hubbard
I haven't posted anything for a while. I've been on vacation for the last week with a couple of regular days off sandwiched between two half days, so it isn't as if I haven't had time to blog. I have no excuse. So, I guess it's time I wrote something.
The problem is, I don't have any fresh ideas. I don't like to write the same thoughts everyone else does. Anyone can do that, and just about everyone can write more eloquently than I, so it seems rather pointless to me to simply repeat what has already been said.
As I have often said, I prefer to offer a unique point of view. If I can't, I don't write anything.
So perhaps that explains my lack of attention to my blog, although my computer didn't forget my password. Other than that, as I said, I have no excuse.
I still don't have a subject for today's post. I guess I'll just wing it, and write whatever comes to mind.
I'll start off with some facts about me.
I doubt that either of my regular readers know this, but I am not a rich man. In fact, I am poor.
Rich and poor, of course, are relative terms. What is wealthy to me may in fact, be poor to others.
Roseanne Barr (who recently said she thinks anyone who is worth over 100 million should be re-educated or beheaded) is worth 80 million. Apparently, to her, 100 million is considered rich and 80 million is considered middle class or lower.
I read somewhere that she recently inked a contract for her own television show. I wonder -- if she earns more than 20 million more than she has now, will she behead herself?
One can only hope, I guess.
To me, $100,000.00 is wealthy. To Bill Gates, it is pocket change. As I said. Relative.
Since wealth is a relative term, allow me to define what "poor" means to me.
I recently got my annual forty cent per hour raise. At 40 hours a week (which I rarely get because my company cuts my hours to keep their profits up), and no unpaid time off due to illness etc, my recent raise takes my annual income to over $20,000, but just barely over.
I have no other income. My wife has too many medical problems to work. We exist solely on my income. My work tires me out too much for me to work another job part time. I am close to retirement age now, but, at this point, I don't see how I will ever be able to retire.
Be that as it may, It could be worse. I am grateful just to have a job at all.
I lay awake at nights worrying about how I am going to make even the most basic payments on my bills. If I suddenly disappear off the internet it (probably) won't be because I died (knock wood). It will be because I couldn't pay my cable bill and got it cut off. That could well happen any day now.
We use fuel oil for heat and hot water in this house. The fuel oil company will not even show up to pump more fuel oil into our tank if we can't pay for at least 150 gallons. At today's prices, that's about $600.00. We don't have it. Not even close. In fact, just to have enough fuel to heat our water, I've been pouring diesel fuel (Fuel oil and diesel fuel are the same thing) into our tank every two weeks. If I splurge, I can buy as much as 10 gallons diesel fuel at a time. That's about 40 dollars worth. I can't really afford that much, but we need hot water.
I don't know what we're going to do when it gets cold this year.
If I lose my job, unlike others who lose jobs, we have no emergency funds on which to rely. We would be completely destitute within two weeks, possibly even within one week. We have no savings. I recently had to withdraw my 401K money to pay a down payment on a badly needed used car. It's gone now.
Please understand, I'm not looking for sympathy. I am simply describing what being poor means to me, and how it compares with others who say they are poor. I do not feel I deserve sympathy.
I have made my own bed. It is my responsibility to sleep in it.
So my readers will understand when I have absolutely no sympathy for those whiny bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters who are currently making fools of themselves protesting Wall Street bankers. I will ceaselessly attack them for being duplicitous and hypocritical.
Have you seen pictures of these idiots?
They are camping (incidentally, where do these poor unfortunates get the money to buy tents and sleeping bags? I can't afford them) on Wall street, and various other streets in various other cities across America, bleating about how unfair it is that the wealthy have more money than they do.
Well, wah, wah, wah.
Who said life was fair?
They also recruit other miscreants, derelicts, and ne'er-do-wells to join in their cause by texting them on their Apple iPhones, iPads, and various Android devices. All of these devices aren't donated to them, I assure you. Someone pays for them, and it's not simply a one time charge, either. They have to lock themselves into a two year contract, paying a minimum of $80.00 a month (excluding FCC fees and licenses and taxes) simply for the use of those devices. Where do they get the funds for those expenses? I pay $30.00 a month for my cheap little pre-paid flip phone. I can't afford those fancy cell phones.
Ironically, I sell cell phone contracts for a living, if you can call it a living.
They wear designer clothes. They dress in the height of fashion. Being fashionable takes money.
Last week, my wife wanted to buy me two pair of pants at Walmart to wear, so I wouldn't look so seedy on the job. I accepted one pair, not both. Just can't afford more. I really can't afford one pair, truth be told. But, since it's been over two years (yes, I said two years) since I've had a new pair of pants, I allowed myself this one luxury.
I've noticed the Occupy Wall Street protesters seem to have the time and the money that it costs to drive their new Prius's into the city (some from other states) so they can march past George Soro's apartment building to do their protesting in front of greedy Republican Billionaire's houses.
On my recent vacation, I wanted to drive up to Pennsylvania, making a quick stop at Gettysburg, through Pennsylvania Dutch Lancaster County (because my wife likes to shop for that kind of stuff, even if she can't actually buy any of it), and then to Phoenixville, to visit my older brother, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. But we couldn't. We didn't have enough money to make the trip after paying for our prescriptions and groceries.
Am I bitter? You bet I am.
Am I envious? Guilty as charged.
But, here's the difference between those bitter, envious, Liberal hippie type pinko fags and me:
I don't blame my poverty on anyone else.
I have only myself to blame for my poverty.
I went to college, but I didn't finish. Like the current crop of Liberals, I spent my college years engaging in protests against the "establishment" for the exact same reasons the protesters do now. Class envy. Thinking the government owed me a living without expecting anything in return. Expecting someone else to pay for my education.
Basically, expecting something for nothing.
I didn't finish college, but that's my fault. I don't have a good job because I didn't get a degree. I didn't get a degree because I was foolish.
That isn't anyone's fault but my own.
I've made mistakes, perhaps more than most, but my mistakes and the consequences of them are my sole responsibility. My poverty is a direct result of my own bad decisions and choices.
And, an unwillingness to take chances. That, again , is on me.
Sure, I've had some bad breaks in my lifetime. So what? Everyone does. The difference between me and "them", is, instead of whining about how life treats me and blaming others and refusing to take responsibility for the actions that (most of the time) contributed to my bad luck, I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and redoubled my efforts. And, I will continue to do that every time catastrophe strikes until I die.
I do complain. I have that right. But I complain while working.
These poor under-privileged protesters are complaining while begging for help from the very people they are protesting. Who do they think bankrolls their sloth?
Our boy-child President, Barry Hussein Sotero Obama, received more donations from the bankers on Wall Street than any President in history. And he says he supports the OWS protesters.
And, they support him.
How do the protesters explain this apparent dichotomy?
And Warren Buffet (Liberal) says he thinks his taxes should be raised. Well, who's stopping him from voluntarily giving whatever amount he thinks he should pay to the Government? Who's stopping any of these fat cat billionaire Liberal Obama supporters from volunteering their money to the government?
Yea, when it's their money, they are strangely Conservative.
Hey, Warren? If you want to give your money away, I could use a few bucks. (I'm not begging. I know there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Warren Buffet would ever give anything away, certainly not to me.)
And speaking of taxes, let me explode a Conservative myth here and now:
I pay taxes. Regardless of what Rush or Hannity or all those other Conservative millionaires tell you, poor people like me pay taxes. Every paycheck I get has a healthy portion deducted for taxes, right off the top. At the first of the year, I fill out my tax return. This year, I didn't get a refund, I had to pay the government an additional $1300.00 over and above what they took directly out of my meager paycheck last year.
Even when I did get a refund, I have never - repeat - never - received more of a refund than I paid in during the course of the previous year.
So, don't give me that BS about how the poor don't pay taxes.
I am currently trying to improve my lot in life by working hard and driving my bosses crazy pushing them to promote me into the management training program. Management trainees in our company earn more than double the salary that I make now.
Class envy? Yep. But envy that is a good thing. Without envy, we have no incentive to try to attain the success of those whom we envy.
OK. That's enough of a rant for today. I'm sure I will have much more to say later.
I haven't posted anything for a while. I've been on vacation for the last week with a couple of regular days off sandwiched between two half days, so it isn't as if I haven't had time to blog. I have no excuse. So, I guess it's time I wrote something.
The problem is, I don't have any fresh ideas. I don't like to write the same thoughts everyone else does. Anyone can do that, and just about everyone can write more eloquently than I, so it seems rather pointless to me to simply repeat what has already been said.
As I have often said, I prefer to offer a unique point of view. If I can't, I don't write anything.
So perhaps that explains my lack of attention to my blog, although my computer didn't forget my password. Other than that, as I said, I have no excuse.
I still don't have a subject for today's post. I guess I'll just wing it, and write whatever comes to mind.
I'll start off with some facts about me.
I doubt that either of my regular readers know this, but I am not a rich man. In fact, I am poor.
Rich and poor, of course, are relative terms. What is wealthy to me may in fact, be poor to others.
Roseanne Barr (who recently said she thinks anyone who is worth over 100 million should be re-educated or beheaded) is worth 80 million. Apparently, to her, 100 million is considered rich and 80 million is considered middle class or lower.
I read somewhere that she recently inked a contract for her own television show. I wonder -- if she earns more than 20 million more than she has now, will she behead herself?
One can only hope, I guess.
To me, $100,000.00 is wealthy. To Bill Gates, it is pocket change. As I said. Relative.
Since wealth is a relative term, allow me to define what "poor" means to me.
I recently got my annual forty cent per hour raise. At 40 hours a week (which I rarely get because my company cuts my hours to keep their profits up), and no unpaid time off due to illness etc, my recent raise takes my annual income to over $20,000, but just barely over.
I have no other income. My wife has too many medical problems to work. We exist solely on my income. My work tires me out too much for me to work another job part time. I am close to retirement age now, but, at this point, I don't see how I will ever be able to retire.
Be that as it may, It could be worse. I am grateful just to have a job at all.
I lay awake at nights worrying about how I am going to make even the most basic payments on my bills. If I suddenly disappear off the internet it (probably) won't be because I died (knock wood). It will be because I couldn't pay my cable bill and got it cut off. That could well happen any day now.
We use fuel oil for heat and hot water in this house. The fuel oil company will not even show up to pump more fuel oil into our tank if we can't pay for at least 150 gallons. At today's prices, that's about $600.00. We don't have it. Not even close. In fact, just to have enough fuel to heat our water, I've been pouring diesel fuel (Fuel oil and diesel fuel are the same thing) into our tank every two weeks. If I splurge, I can buy as much as 10 gallons diesel fuel at a time. That's about 40 dollars worth. I can't really afford that much, but we need hot water.
I don't know what we're going to do when it gets cold this year.
If I lose my job, unlike others who lose jobs, we have no emergency funds on which to rely. We would be completely destitute within two weeks, possibly even within one week. We have no savings. I recently had to withdraw my 401K money to pay a down payment on a badly needed used car. It's gone now.
Please understand, I'm not looking for sympathy. I am simply describing what being poor means to me, and how it compares with others who say they are poor. I do not feel I deserve sympathy.
I have made my own bed. It is my responsibility to sleep in it.
So my readers will understand when I have absolutely no sympathy for those whiny bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters who are currently making fools of themselves protesting Wall Street bankers. I will ceaselessly attack them for being duplicitous and hypocritical.
Have you seen pictures of these idiots?
They are camping (incidentally, where do these poor unfortunates get the money to buy tents and sleeping bags? I can't afford them) on Wall street, and various other streets in various other cities across America, bleating about how unfair it is that the wealthy have more money than they do.
Well, wah, wah, wah.
Who said life was fair?
They also recruit other miscreants, derelicts, and ne'er-do-wells to join in their cause by texting them on their Apple iPhones, iPads, and various Android devices. All of these devices aren't donated to them, I assure you. Someone pays for them, and it's not simply a one time charge, either. They have to lock themselves into a two year contract, paying a minimum of $80.00 a month (excluding FCC fees and licenses and taxes) simply for the use of those devices. Where do they get the funds for those expenses? I pay $30.00 a month for my cheap little pre-paid flip phone. I can't afford those fancy cell phones.
Ironically, I sell cell phone contracts for a living, if you can call it a living.
They wear designer clothes. They dress in the height of fashion. Being fashionable takes money.
Last week, my wife wanted to buy me two pair of pants at Walmart to wear, so I wouldn't look so seedy on the job. I accepted one pair, not both. Just can't afford more. I really can't afford one pair, truth be told. But, since it's been over two years (yes, I said two years) since I've had a new pair of pants, I allowed myself this one luxury.
I've noticed the Occupy Wall Street protesters seem to have the time and the money that it costs to drive their new Prius's into the city (some from other states) so they can march past George Soro's apartment building to do their protesting in front of greedy Republican Billionaire's houses.
On my recent vacation, I wanted to drive up to Pennsylvania, making a quick stop at Gettysburg, through Pennsylvania Dutch Lancaster County (because my wife likes to shop for that kind of stuff, even if she can't actually buy any of it), and then to Phoenixville, to visit my older brother, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. But we couldn't. We didn't have enough money to make the trip after paying for our prescriptions and groceries.
Am I bitter? You bet I am.
Am I envious? Guilty as charged.
But, here's the difference between those bitter, envious, Liberal hippie type pinko fags and me:
I don't blame my poverty on anyone else.
I have only myself to blame for my poverty.
I went to college, but I didn't finish. Like the current crop of Liberals, I spent my college years engaging in protests against the "establishment" for the exact same reasons the protesters do now. Class envy. Thinking the government owed me a living without expecting anything in return. Expecting someone else to pay for my education.
Basically, expecting something for nothing.
I didn't finish college, but that's my fault. I don't have a good job because I didn't get a degree. I didn't get a degree because I was foolish.
That isn't anyone's fault but my own.
I've made mistakes, perhaps more than most, but my mistakes and the consequences of them are my sole responsibility. My poverty is a direct result of my own bad decisions and choices.
And, an unwillingness to take chances. That, again , is on me.
Sure, I've had some bad breaks in my lifetime. So what? Everyone does. The difference between me and "them", is, instead of whining about how life treats me and blaming others and refusing to take responsibility for the actions that (most of the time) contributed to my bad luck, I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and redoubled my efforts. And, I will continue to do that every time catastrophe strikes until I die.
I do complain. I have that right. But I complain while working.
These poor under-privileged protesters are complaining while begging for help from the very people they are protesting. Who do they think bankrolls their sloth?
Our boy-child President, Barry Hussein Sotero Obama, received more donations from the bankers on Wall Street than any President in history. And he says he supports the OWS protesters.
And, they support him.
How do the protesters explain this apparent dichotomy?
And Warren Buffet (Liberal) says he thinks his taxes should be raised. Well, who's stopping him from voluntarily giving whatever amount he thinks he should pay to the Government? Who's stopping any of these fat cat billionaire Liberal Obama supporters from volunteering their money to the government?
Yea, when it's their money, they are strangely Conservative.
Hey, Warren? If you want to give your money away, I could use a few bucks. (I'm not begging. I know there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Warren Buffet would ever give anything away, certainly not to me.)
And speaking of taxes, let me explode a Conservative myth here and now:
I pay taxes. Regardless of what Rush or Hannity or all those other Conservative millionaires tell you, poor people like me pay taxes. Every paycheck I get has a healthy portion deducted for taxes, right off the top. At the first of the year, I fill out my tax return. This year, I didn't get a refund, I had to pay the government an additional $1300.00 over and above what they took directly out of my meager paycheck last year.
Even when I did get a refund, I have never - repeat - never - received more of a refund than I paid in during the course of the previous year.
So, don't give me that BS about how the poor don't pay taxes.
I am currently trying to improve my lot in life by working hard and driving my bosses crazy pushing them to promote me into the management training program. Management trainees in our company earn more than double the salary that I make now.
Class envy? Yep. But envy that is a good thing. Without envy, we have no incentive to try to attain the success of those whom we envy.
OK. That's enough of a rant for today. I'm sure I will have much more to say later.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Justice And Injustice
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
A Facebook acquaintance of mine posted this link on his Facebook page. This, coupled with the recent news of the release of convicted murderess Amanda Knox, I find disturbing.
How is it we Americans celebrate the release of a murderer (Amanda Knox) but say nothing when a Christian Pastor (Yosef Nadarkhani) may be given the death sentence for nothing more than being a Christian?
It was American's outrage over the remote possibility that Amanda Knox "might" be innocent (despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary) that pressured an Italian Court to reverse her conviction.
Where is our outrage now?
We already know why Liberals are not outraged over this obvious dichotomy. Lone Ranger's Immutable truths about Liberals number 20: When given a moral choice, liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.
But why don't we hear more from the Conservative community?
Conservatives and Christians need to raise as much or more of a ruckus over this injustice as the uninformed American masses did in the Knox case.
A Facebook acquaintance of mine posted this link on his Facebook page. This, coupled with the recent news of the release of convicted murderess Amanda Knox, I find disturbing.
How is it we Americans celebrate the release of a murderer (Amanda Knox) but say nothing when a Christian Pastor (Yosef Nadarkhani) may be given the death sentence for nothing more than being a Christian?
It was American's outrage over the remote possibility that Amanda Knox "might" be innocent (despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary) that pressured an Italian Court to reverse her conviction.
Where is our outrage now?
We already know why Liberals are not outraged over this obvious dichotomy. Lone Ranger's Immutable truths about Liberals number 20: When given a moral choice, liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.
But why don't we hear more from the Conservative community?
Conservatives and Christians need to raise as much or more of a ruckus over this injustice as the uninformed American masses did in the Knox case.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
The Boy President
"To be mature means to face, and not evade, every fresh crisis that comes." ~ Fritz Kunkel
My wife usually sleeps in, but today, she was already up when I awoke. She watches "Good Morning America" in the mornings, which helps explain why she is uninformed about a lot of the political issues that concern Conservatives.
So, when I walked into our computer room this morning, the first thing that assailed my ears was this:
Specifically, this:
OK. So, if you haven't yet heard the "boos" he's referring to, here is the actual clip:
I heard one, maybe two boos. Out of a crowd of over 5,000 people. And, if you didn't catch it yet, watch the clip again. It's blatantly obvious the (possibly) two people who booed didn't boo the soldier.
They booed his question.
The child President undoubtedly knows this. Yet, he stands at the Presidential podium, and perpetuates the Democrat attack machine's (AKA the Mainstream media) lies.
Obama's response to this non-issue is dishonest, irresponsible, and yes, childish.
Here are some other examples of Obama behaving--uh---slightly un-Presidential:
This one is photo shopped, but focus on the fact that he's throwing a snow ball, not on the child.
This one is particularly childish and dis-respectful.
And he has the unmitigated gall to call the Republican candidates un-Presidential!
My wife usually sleeps in, but today, she was already up when I awoke. She watches "Good Morning America" in the mornings, which helps explain why she is uninformed about a lot of the political issues that concern Conservatives.
So, when I walked into our computer room this morning, the first thing that assailed my ears was this:
The clip I saw started at about mark 1:38 on this clip.
Specifically, this:
"We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's okay for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don't believe in that," said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.
OK. So, if you haven't yet heard the "boos" he's referring to, here is the actual clip:
I heard one, maybe two boos. Out of a crowd of over 5,000 people. And, if you didn't catch it yet, watch the clip again. It's blatantly obvious the (possibly) two people who booed didn't boo the soldier.
They booed his question.
The child President undoubtedly knows this. Yet, he stands at the Presidential podium, and perpetuates the Democrat attack machine's (AKA the Mainstream media) lies.
Obama's response to this non-issue is dishonest, irresponsible, and yes, childish.
Here are some other examples of Obama behaving--uh---slightly un-Presidential:
This one is photo shopped, but focus on the fact that he's throwing a snow ball, not on the child. 
This one is particularly childish and dis-respectful.And he has the unmitigated gall to call the Republican candidates un-Presidential!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
