Attempting to "gin up" sympathy for individuals who are targeted by this legislation (children of illegal aliens) would not be necessary if US law were enforced in the first place!
So, not enforcing the borders, allowing people to "sneak" into the country, have babys or even bring babys, is a violation of the law.
Administrations not enforcing the law are breaking the law, and to propose legislation that will benefit and protect people who broke the law by entering illegally, by those guilty of not enforcing the law (thus breaking the law) is circular stupidity.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The ring in the nose
The Ring in the Nose
The days of Politicians being able to control the direction of "American thinking" seems to be over. Our glorious electorate of antibodies is waking up and answering the call to service. Liberty through education of what’s been going on in our government is inspirational, waking more people up to the cause of liberty. Awareness to the corruption in our own government who, at the same time, speak of American values and American Ideals, is motivating hundreds of thousands - even millions of American patriots.
Awareness. What is seen cannot be unseen.
The growth of government is now properly seen as a cancer, and it is being surrounded by the antibody electorate, even as the big government types flounder and flail in a last gasp effort to hold onto their power. The proverbial ring has ripped out of our nose. We have a scar on our nose, but we'll have more of our freedom. Freedom isn't free and the burden can't fall on just our military. No ring in our nose, and we're doing just fine. Man can govern himself. Education is a necessary element that, before internet and new media allowed for the dumbing down of our information. We were at the mercy of whatever news we consumed.
More people now hear the President and other politicians say things like "...the American people want..." or "the American people don't want..." and now we say "Nooooo....the 'American people' don’t want to be told what we think or what we want..."
To me, this is the ultimate tribute to individual liberty.
More and more, these tactics are recognized for what they are...tactics! Right along with the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' tactics, these political "steering phrases" fall into the category of "A tactic known is a tactic blown'
This kind of awakening and increased awareness delights me because it is the only way the people can hold their elective politik accountable. People are climbing out from under their rocks and agreeing with the idea that elections are no longer open to the highest bidder.
Unions will be the last to experience this awakening, as they're still able to rally members by exaggeration and omissions. For instance, union leaders, when speaking to their members, will tell them that any republican candidate will slash benefits to the point where your children will be denied a weekend and will end up in a sweatshop working for pennies...if at all. That's only if they live, because a missed checkup with the doctor means certain death for most of your children. Of course we know the missed appointment which causes certain death was missed to protest the fact that their co-pay was raised from $5 to $20. The kind of exaggerations that union leaders tell their people have ballooned into a caricature of itself, making it difficult to believe anyone buys it.
The omissions are simple facts like if there's no money, everyone loses their job. An example of this is Detroit. It's a ghost town in terms of production and producers. Producers voted with their feet against the unions.
Public unions are a glaring example of this as they don’t produce anything which creates wealth. The system is simply a redistribution. The reason people like Michael Moore say things like "The country is not broke....there's plenty of money." His vision is that of a finite amount that is divided to everybody and if someone has more, they took it from someone else. Nowhere in that philosophy is there any room for creation of wealth…no matter how hard an individual works. Public unions are in an unbalanced negotiation.
An unbalanced negotiation will always eventually unravel.
Luckily, the ring is out of our nose and the “steering phrases” no longer have the effect they once did.
The days of Politicians being able to control the direction of "American thinking" seems to be over. Our glorious electorate of antibodies is waking up and answering the call to service. Liberty through education of what’s been going on in our government is inspirational, waking more people up to the cause of liberty. Awareness to the corruption in our own government who, at the same time, speak of American values and American Ideals, is motivating hundreds of thousands - even millions of American patriots.
Awareness. What is seen cannot be unseen.
The growth of government is now properly seen as a cancer, and it is being surrounded by the antibody electorate, even as the big government types flounder and flail in a last gasp effort to hold onto their power. The proverbial ring has ripped out of our nose. We have a scar on our nose, but we'll have more of our freedom. Freedom isn't free and the burden can't fall on just our military. No ring in our nose, and we're doing just fine. Man can govern himself. Education is a necessary element that, before internet and new media allowed for the dumbing down of our information. We were at the mercy of whatever news we consumed.
More people now hear the President and other politicians say things like "...the American people want..." or "the American people don't want..." and now we say "Nooooo....the 'American people' don’t want to be told what we think or what we want..."
To me, this is the ultimate tribute to individual liberty.
More and more, these tactics are recognized for what they are...tactics! Right along with the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' tactics, these political "steering phrases" fall into the category of "A tactic known is a tactic blown'
This kind of awakening and increased awareness delights me because it is the only way the people can hold their elective politik accountable. People are climbing out from under their rocks and agreeing with the idea that elections are no longer open to the highest bidder.
Unions will be the last to experience this awakening, as they're still able to rally members by exaggeration and omissions. For instance, union leaders, when speaking to their members, will tell them that any republican candidate will slash benefits to the point where your children will be denied a weekend and will end up in a sweatshop working for pennies...if at all. That's only if they live, because a missed checkup with the doctor means certain death for most of your children. Of course we know the missed appointment which causes certain death was missed to protest the fact that their co-pay was raised from $5 to $20. The kind of exaggerations that union leaders tell their people have ballooned into a caricature of itself, making it difficult to believe anyone buys it.
The omissions are simple facts like if there's no money, everyone loses their job. An example of this is Detroit. It's a ghost town in terms of production and producers. Producers voted with their feet against the unions.
Public unions are a glaring example of this as they don’t produce anything which creates wealth. The system is simply a redistribution. The reason people like Michael Moore say things like "The country is not broke....there's plenty of money." His vision is that of a finite amount that is divided to everybody and if someone has more, they took it from someone else. Nowhere in that philosophy is there any room for creation of wealth…no matter how hard an individual works. Public unions are in an unbalanced negotiation.
An unbalanced negotiation will always eventually unravel.
Luckily, the ring is out of our nose and the “steering phrases” no longer have the effect they once did.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tea Party!!
Wahoo!! Look at the tea party candidates go! Much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment. I recently discovered an old war horse radio talk show host named Bob grant from WABC in New York. From what I understood with what I heard, he was a staunch conservative. Well, the first show I listened to, he was going on about the fact that if he lived in Delaware, he would've voted for Mike Castle over Christine ODonnell. I was devastated. He threw in with Karl Rove and the rest of the liberal media. This was the moment everyone knew that Karl Rove was a Republican more than he was a conservative. A distinction without a difference you ask? n n n n nooo.
Big difference. Just take a look at John McCain. Liberals and progressives, (what the hey, we'll just call them socialists shall we?) insist on making the distinction the difference between D and R. THIS is more a distinction without a difference. Why? Just take a look at how just about everyone running for any election runs to the right (conservative) or at least to the middle (spineless). Very few will run on out and out socialism. Why? Well I'll let you figure it out.
I'll tell you that the more I follow politics, and learn, and absorb the processes, I learn to recognize more quickly aspects and seeds of a progressive agenda. I've Expanded my awareness. I can see that the progressives constantly have the ball in motion. They are constantly running plays in the form of focus groups, the use of the (complicit) media to disseminate info supportive of the agenda. Leaving out anything that would make it look bad. Ordinarily, that would be where the media would investigate and report. Instead, they let it stand. Diversion, distraction, and outright deceit.
I also think a growing number of people realize the outright instigation of class warfare. Forget for a moment (for those who care) the tenth Commandment:
'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Then there is what's known as "The Golden rule": "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31) The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If you have less than someone else and you covet what they have to the extent that you vote into office a politician who will legislate the taking from said folk and redistributing it to you, keep in mind, you are not the only one getting redistributed to. how much will that really benefit you? After everyone else gets a few pennies, you'll get your few pennies. yay. Now, extend it down to those with less than you. They're looking at what you have with a dribble of spittle emerging from the corner of their mouth.....Get it? It will never end. The bar will continue to change levels until everyone fits the system.
What I find reprehensible are the ones who wish to wield this power of redistribution, pointing out differences in people and groups of people instigating this envy because that's what will get them elected. Examples of this abound in the media. Most recently in the form of calling income earners of 250K millionaires and billionaires. Putting aside the fact that individuals in the 250K category are mall shop owners, franchise owners, 2 income families, gas station owners, otherwise small business owners. I can't think of very many positions where someone else will put someone on payroll at 250K compared to the number of 100K or 150K positions. That's why the categories with income of 250K or more contain the word "owner". This title comes with responsibility and risk. Those 2 items need to be rewarded.
Other examples are references to "fat-cat bankers" (Obama). What about the media outrage over the big 3 auto execs flying in private jets to testify before congress. They were so emasculated that they then all carpooled in a hybrid to the next visit. The point of this is the incitement to envy and covet. Does pointing out what someone else has compared to what you have really accomplish anything? Other than making a few "feel better"?
aaahhh....
Emotion.
Appealing to the lowest emotions is the easiest way to garner support and get votes.
It's a little more work, but the opposite can be accomplished also by changing the frame of the issue. For instance: Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.
Abraham Lincoln
In other words, Rich people can inspire that others may also be rich. However, demonizing and demoralizing the "rich" makes it less desirable to become rich in a sense. Not that being rich isn't the best revenge, but the opinions of others undulate and agitate creating discomfort amongst peers.
Other ways higher emotions can be appealed to is presenting successful (which needs to be defined on an individual basis) people and describing the level of self discipline it took to get there. Combine self discipline with passion and the ability to make decisions (as well as the ability to learn from incorrect decisions) and very literally anyone can become successful.
You will hear these kind of things only if the tea party continues in it's present form for another 50 to 80 years. The media hates this country as it was founded, Academia hates this country as it was founded, The media is being more and more ignored in favor of alternative media. So market forces may just solve this problem eventually. The next problem will be academia. Between tenure and unions, this is a much bigger problem that will take much longer to unravel.
I'm open to ideas but until the market - and this may also be the answer - basically defunds the major institutions in favor of patriotic American loving colleges, I don't know how to tackle this one.
In fact, my answer to folks who would tell me that because I didn't go to college, I just don't "get it", I say because I didn't go to college--I kept it!
Go Tea Party!!
Big difference. Just take a look at John McCain. Liberals and progressives, (what the hey, we'll just call them socialists shall we?) insist on making the distinction the difference between D and R. THIS is more a distinction without a difference. Why? Just take a look at how just about everyone running for any election runs to the right (conservative) or at least to the middle (spineless). Very few will run on out and out socialism. Why? Well I'll let you figure it out.
I'll tell you that the more I follow politics, and learn, and absorb the processes, I learn to recognize more quickly aspects and seeds of a progressive agenda. I've Expanded my awareness. I can see that the progressives constantly have the ball in motion. They are constantly running plays in the form of focus groups, the use of the (complicit) media to disseminate info supportive of the agenda. Leaving out anything that would make it look bad. Ordinarily, that would be where the media would investigate and report. Instead, they let it stand. Diversion, distraction, and outright deceit.
I also think a growing number of people realize the outright instigation of class warfare. Forget for a moment (for those who care) the tenth Commandment:
'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Then there is what's known as "The Golden rule": "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31) The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If you have less than someone else and you covet what they have to the extent that you vote into office a politician who will legislate the taking from said folk and redistributing it to you, keep in mind, you are not the only one getting redistributed to. how much will that really benefit you? After everyone else gets a few pennies, you'll get your few pennies. yay. Now, extend it down to those with less than you. They're looking at what you have with a dribble of spittle emerging from the corner of their mouth.....Get it? It will never end. The bar will continue to change levels until everyone fits the system.
What I find reprehensible are the ones who wish to wield this power of redistribution, pointing out differences in people and groups of people instigating this envy because that's what will get them elected. Examples of this abound in the media. Most recently in the form of calling income earners of 250K millionaires and billionaires. Putting aside the fact that individuals in the 250K category are mall shop owners, franchise owners, 2 income families, gas station owners, otherwise small business owners. I can't think of very many positions where someone else will put someone on payroll at 250K compared to the number of 100K or 150K positions. That's why the categories with income of 250K or more contain the word "owner". This title comes with responsibility and risk. Those 2 items need to be rewarded.
Other examples are references to "fat-cat bankers" (Obama). What about the media outrage over the big 3 auto execs flying in private jets to testify before congress. They were so emasculated that they then all carpooled in a hybrid to the next visit. The point of this is the incitement to envy and covet. Does pointing out what someone else has compared to what you have really accomplish anything? Other than making a few "feel better"?
aaahhh....
Emotion.
Appealing to the lowest emotions is the easiest way to garner support and get votes.
It's a little more work, but the opposite can be accomplished also by changing the frame of the issue. For instance: Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.
Abraham Lincoln
In other words, Rich people can inspire that others may also be rich. However, demonizing and demoralizing the "rich" makes it less desirable to become rich in a sense. Not that being rich isn't the best revenge, but the opinions of others undulate and agitate creating discomfort amongst peers.
Other ways higher emotions can be appealed to is presenting successful (which needs to be defined on an individual basis) people and describing the level of self discipline it took to get there. Combine self discipline with passion and the ability to make decisions (as well as the ability to learn from incorrect decisions) and very literally anyone can become successful.
You will hear these kind of things only if the tea party continues in it's present form for another 50 to 80 years. The media hates this country as it was founded, Academia hates this country as it was founded, The media is being more and more ignored in favor of alternative media. So market forces may just solve this problem eventually. The next problem will be academia. Between tenure and unions, this is a much bigger problem that will take much longer to unravel.
I'm open to ideas but until the market - and this may also be the answer - basically defunds the major institutions in favor of patriotic American loving colleges, I don't know how to tackle this one.
In fact, my answer to folks who would tell me that because I didn't go to college, I just don't "get it", I say because I didn't go to college--I kept it!
Go Tea Party!!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Freedom isn't Free
How many times have you heard this one?
Used frequently as an excuse for war. Soldiers dead or dismembered. Well it's true.
The Soldier has chosen that line of work and it's always in the back of their head.
This, however, is not the only price for freedom. Blood, I mean. No, there is an equally high* price demanded of people who don't choose to enlist to protect this Nation.
Responsibility and education. That might boil down into "awareness" but that excludes necessary action.
What do I mean by that? I mean your vote. Your EDUCATED vote. That vote comes with the responsibility of educating yourself at this point.
The media has proven incompetent.
No I take that back. The media has proven to be an enemy of liberty.
I'm not aware of anyone who would knowingly vote for straight up socialism. Maybe generational welfare recipients. But other than that, individuals have pride. They would like to support themselves and their families on their own. Not to say that if they need a hand through a rough patch they wouldn't take it if it was available, but for the most part, A person would like to make his or her own way.
The problem I see is that people absorbed with making their own way use the mainstream media for their education and awareness of political candidates. The media expresses disdain and distaste for ANY Conservative candidate. Ridicule, slam, discredit, anything they can do to to taint your impression.
Try and notice it, not only in the news, but more subtle in the programming. Remember shows like "The West Wing"? Or the other bomb with Gina Davis as President? "Commander In Chief"? I don't remember the name. But I did notice while watching it, back when I first began to notice liberal agenda in programming, The policy discussion regarding handling of criminals. It was something to the effect that rehabilitation instead of incarceration is the manner in which that administration deals with criminals. I stopped watching.
In any case, the media actively pushes an agenda toward....well, it used to be liberalism, now it resembles a lot more like socialism.
Polls are used by the media not to report the news, but to 'create' news and nudge opinions as well as desensitize attitudes regarding liberal and socializing ideas.
I remember watching a 'round table' discussion on this topic where the argument was "What's wrong with socialism? We've had socialism for years in the form of police, fire, garbage collecting, and public schools."
Well, the trouble with public schools are almost self evident. But, the police and fire, well, there is a service trade-off for tax money collected. No one argued in that round table discussion the difference between tax money collected to pay for services, and tax money collected for redistribution. Otherwise known as
welfare. "e n t i t l e m e n t s". What do we get in return for those taxes?
That's the difference.
Freedom isn't free.
Educate yourself by digging beyond what is spoon-fed to you by the main-stream media.
Used frequently as an excuse for war. Soldiers dead or dismembered. Well it's true.
The Soldier has chosen that line of work and it's always in the back of their head.
This, however, is not the only price for freedom. Blood, I mean. No, there is an equally high* price demanded of people who don't choose to enlist to protect this Nation.
Responsibility and education. That might boil down into "awareness" but that excludes necessary action.
What do I mean by that? I mean your vote. Your EDUCATED vote. That vote comes with the responsibility of educating yourself at this point.
The media has proven incompetent.
No I take that back. The media has proven to be an enemy of liberty.
I'm not aware of anyone who would knowingly vote for straight up socialism. Maybe generational welfare recipients. But other than that, individuals have pride. They would like to support themselves and their families on their own. Not to say that if they need a hand through a rough patch they wouldn't take it if it was available, but for the most part, A person would like to make his or her own way.
The problem I see is that people absorbed with making their own way use the mainstream media for their education and awareness of political candidates. The media expresses disdain and distaste for ANY Conservative candidate. Ridicule, slam, discredit, anything they can do to to taint your impression.
Try and notice it, not only in the news, but more subtle in the programming. Remember shows like "The West Wing"? Or the other bomb with Gina Davis as President? "Commander In Chief"? I don't remember the name. But I did notice while watching it, back when I first began to notice liberal agenda in programming, The policy discussion regarding handling of criminals. It was something to the effect that rehabilitation instead of incarceration is the manner in which that administration deals with criminals. I stopped watching.
In any case, the media actively pushes an agenda toward....well, it used to be liberalism, now it resembles a lot more like socialism.
Polls are used by the media not to report the news, but to 'create' news and nudge opinions as well as desensitize attitudes regarding liberal and socializing ideas.
I remember watching a 'round table' discussion on this topic where the argument was "What's wrong with socialism? We've had socialism for years in the form of police, fire, garbage collecting, and public schools."
Well, the trouble with public schools are almost self evident. But, the police and fire, well, there is a service trade-off for tax money collected. No one argued in that round table discussion the difference between tax money collected to pay for services, and tax money collected for redistribution. Otherwise known as
welfare. "e n t i t l e m e n t s". What do we get in return for those taxes?
That's the difference.
Freedom isn't free.
Educate yourself by digging beyond what is spoon-fed to you by the main-stream media.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Demographics v Collectivism
Try to determine the time in your life when you went from craving individuality for yourself, to wanting collectivism.
Think back when young people (in your own awareness) would dress outrageous or pierce various parts of their body, or begin different behaviors trying to "find their place".
Now, however, let me nudge your awareness to notice the fact that everyone must think the same way or risk some sort of public humiliation. Oh sure, you can still dress weird or have unique behaviors, but your thought process....your thinking
must be in a certain direction.
I bring you "Man made global warming". I bring you "green jobs". I bring you the Prius. I bring you the "evil rich". I bring you any progressive idea.
I bring you Barak Obama "...our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation..." I bring you Hillary Clinton "It takes a village". I bring you any "progressive". Everyone must be on board for this idea to work. That's why it will never work. The human spirit yearns for freedom. Even in Iran there are millions in the street to protest rigged elections. They yearn for freedom.
What the whole idea is centered around is power. Power over the "masses". Me? I'm not like that. That's why I don't understand why some seem to "crave" it. I don't want power over you, Neither do I want you to have power over me. I want to choose what and to whom I give my power to.
The way I see it, the collective concept starts with the grouping of individuals.
Now, with sales, demographics is a valuable way to effectively market your product. No one who has developed a product or service doesn't ask the question of: who will most likely buy what I'm selling? Whether it's polling, surveys, focus groups or just plain common sense. The fact is that, if there is a group which will most likely buy more of what your selling, that's where your advertising dollars will be most effective. At least until your product is established within that market. Then maybe a few dollars to try to attract a slightly different market. This is all wonderful and wholesome. When it comes to demographics used in politics, it turns nasty. It turns almost nefarious when folks are shoved into a certain category that can then be pitted against another group. Each group is then turned into a victim that candidate X can then exploit. Each group is made to believe that candidate X is going to solve whatever problem was created that placed them in that category to begin with.
There are categories, and sub categories, and sub-sub categories. Think of it this way: Try to come up with as many dfferent groups there are in the category of "minorities". Once you get through all of the "hyphinations" (hyphinated Americans)you then get into where they live and how much money they make. So see? there can be a never-ending list of categories for politicians to shove individuals into.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on polling data, survey data, and the one that is the most distasteful for me, the "focus group". I don't know why I find this method so distasteful. Perhaps because I can now recognize what is commonly known as "the talking point". The speeches, phrasing, terminology, and even the order of words comes out of the focus group. The result is a sanitized phony pile of words and phrases strung together designed to weave in, out, and around the offending words and ideas that the focus group directed.
If you notice whenever an election approaches, the news becomes saturated with polling data. That's fine I guess, but what I notice is that they always seem to mention color, or race, or ethnicity. Once individuals allow themselves to be placed into some sort of "group", then the different groups can be pitted against each other. Don't give away your individuality. Don't participate. The Obama administration is a constant stream of pitting the blacks against whites, Latinos against whites, in overt ways as well as subtle. This is how he will stay in power.Then there's the class warfare, where the "poor" are instructed to despise the "rich". This is how he redistributes "wealth".
Don't play. Don't participate. Keep your individuality.
Collectivism or socialism is not new. All throughout history socialism has been tried and it inevitably ends up in despotism. Now, I've heard some of the weak liberal arguements for socialism in America. They (liberals) will argue that socialism has existed in America for a long time in the form of police and fire departments, libraries and other public funded establishments like government schools etc.
Well that's fine and no one doesn't want there to be no firemen when there's a fire needing to be put out. But that exactly is my point! They perform a service!
These "socialist" establishments perform a service! There is a return for what you pay in taxes to support these entities. The purpose of these "socialist" organizations is NOT to redistribute wealth!!!
Even the Native American, or the American Indians lived under different systems of socialism and that worked for them. The difference is that there was no concept of "private property" in their ideaological paradigm. And! The system was used primarily for survival and not to redistribute wealth! We live in a "civil society" We need laws and regulation only to the degree that it does not harm others, or take away their liberty, or hinder them in their pursuit of happiness.
Think back when young people (in your own awareness) would dress outrageous or pierce various parts of their body, or begin different behaviors trying to "find their place".
Now, however, let me nudge your awareness to notice the fact that everyone must think the same way or risk some sort of public humiliation. Oh sure, you can still dress weird or have unique behaviors, but your thought process....your thinking
must be in a certain direction.
I bring you "Man made global warming". I bring you "green jobs". I bring you the Prius. I bring you the "evil rich". I bring you any progressive idea.
I bring you Barak Obama "...our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation..." I bring you Hillary Clinton "It takes a village". I bring you any "progressive". Everyone must be on board for this idea to work. That's why it will never work. The human spirit yearns for freedom. Even in Iran there are millions in the street to protest rigged elections. They yearn for freedom.
What the whole idea is centered around is power. Power over the "masses". Me? I'm not like that. That's why I don't understand why some seem to "crave" it. I don't want power over you, Neither do I want you to have power over me. I want to choose what and to whom I give my power to.
The way I see it, the collective concept starts with the grouping of individuals.
Now, with sales, demographics is a valuable way to effectively market your product. No one who has developed a product or service doesn't ask the question of: who will most likely buy what I'm selling? Whether it's polling, surveys, focus groups or just plain common sense. The fact is that, if there is a group which will most likely buy more of what your selling, that's where your advertising dollars will be most effective. At least until your product is established within that market. Then maybe a few dollars to try to attract a slightly different market. This is all wonderful and wholesome. When it comes to demographics used in politics, it turns nasty. It turns almost nefarious when folks are shoved into a certain category that can then be pitted against another group. Each group is then turned into a victim that candidate X can then exploit. Each group is made to believe that candidate X is going to solve whatever problem was created that placed them in that category to begin with.
There are categories, and sub categories, and sub-sub categories. Think of it this way: Try to come up with as many dfferent groups there are in the category of "minorities". Once you get through all of the "hyphinations" (hyphinated Americans)you then get into where they live and how much money they make. So see? there can be a never-ending list of categories for politicians to shove individuals into.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on polling data, survey data, and the one that is the most distasteful for me, the "focus group". I don't know why I find this method so distasteful. Perhaps because I can now recognize what is commonly known as "the talking point". The speeches, phrasing, terminology, and even the order of words comes out of the focus group. The result is a sanitized phony pile of words and phrases strung together designed to weave in, out, and around the offending words and ideas that the focus group directed.
If you notice whenever an election approaches, the news becomes saturated with polling data. That's fine I guess, but what I notice is that they always seem to mention color, or race, or ethnicity. Once individuals allow themselves to be placed into some sort of "group", then the different groups can be pitted against each other. Don't give away your individuality. Don't participate. The Obama administration is a constant stream of pitting the blacks against whites, Latinos against whites, in overt ways as well as subtle. This is how he will stay in power.Then there's the class warfare, where the "poor" are instructed to despise the "rich". This is how he redistributes "wealth".
Don't play. Don't participate. Keep your individuality.
Collectivism or socialism is not new. All throughout history socialism has been tried and it inevitably ends up in despotism. Now, I've heard some of the weak liberal arguements for socialism in America. They (liberals) will argue that socialism has existed in America for a long time in the form of police and fire departments, libraries and other public funded establishments like government schools etc.
Well that's fine and no one doesn't want there to be no firemen when there's a fire needing to be put out. But that exactly is my point! They perform a service!
These "socialist" establishments perform a service! There is a return for what you pay in taxes to support these entities. The purpose of these "socialist" organizations is NOT to redistribute wealth!!!
Even the Native American, or the American Indians lived under different systems of socialism and that worked for them. The difference is that there was no concept of "private property" in their ideaological paradigm. And! The system was used primarily for survival and not to redistribute wealth! We live in a "civil society" We need laws and regulation only to the degree that it does not harm others, or take away their liberty, or hinder them in their pursuit of happiness.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Islam does NOT mean peace
That's right boys and girls, islam doesn't mean peace.
"Salam" means peace. Maybe us westerners can't be bothered enough to differentiate. After all, "Salam" kinda sounds like "islam".
So, what does "Islam" translate to you ask as you lean forward in your seat? Eyes wide? Heart pumping? both knees jumping up and down at a hundred miles an hour?
Well,....
Islam, means "submission". Submission to Allah. Submission to Sharia law. These 2 items are virtually one and the same. If you fully submit to Allah, you're bound by all the rules set by Muhammad who got them from Allah. If you submit to sharia,.....
then you're all set with Allah.
I noticed the media will trot out muslims, after a terrorist attack of some sort, who will go on and on about how Islam is a religion of peace. "Islam means peace."
They know deep down it's a lie because first: A muslim will never speak ill of another muslim.
second: as long as no muslims were killed, they don't disparage another's jihad.
Third: They are forgiven that lie due to the law of "Kithman" or the principle of "taqqiya".
Oh! what's this?!
That's right! Any lie told knowingly is forgiven so long as said lie perpetuates and assists the spread of islam.
Keep this in mind the next time you see a muslim on American Media saying that Islam is a religion of peace.
That's that person's form of jihad. See, jihad isn't "inner struggle", as one of those liars put out there when that word first became a household word.
There are so many forms of jihad. In fact, anything that furthers the cause of islam or otherwise brings the world closer to caliphate, or global islamic rule.
Deception, coersion, terrorism, influence peddling, the end justifies the means. And there is no shame because caffirs (that's us) don't need to be bargained with. We don't need to be reasoned with. You don't reason with your dog, you just train it. To the hard line muslim, we are second class citizens, unworthy of having traits like honor or honesty wasted upon.
As far as I know, "caffir" means simply: non-believer.
"Salam" means peace. Maybe us westerners can't be bothered enough to differentiate. After all, "Salam" kinda sounds like "islam".
So, what does "Islam" translate to you ask as you lean forward in your seat? Eyes wide? Heart pumping? both knees jumping up and down at a hundred miles an hour?
Well,....
Islam, means "submission". Submission to Allah. Submission to Sharia law. These 2 items are virtually one and the same. If you fully submit to Allah, you're bound by all the rules set by Muhammad who got them from Allah. If you submit to sharia,.....
then you're all set with Allah.
I noticed the media will trot out muslims, after a terrorist attack of some sort, who will go on and on about how Islam is a religion of peace. "Islam means peace."
They know deep down it's a lie because first: A muslim will never speak ill of another muslim.
second: as long as no muslims were killed, they don't disparage another's jihad.
Third: They are forgiven that lie due to the law of "Kithman" or the principle of "taqqiya".
Oh! what's this?!
That's right! Any lie told knowingly is forgiven so long as said lie perpetuates and assists the spread of islam.
Keep this in mind the next time you see a muslim on American Media saying that Islam is a religion of peace.
That's that person's form of jihad. See, jihad isn't "inner struggle", as one of those liars put out there when that word first became a household word.
There are so many forms of jihad. In fact, anything that furthers the cause of islam or otherwise brings the world closer to caliphate, or global islamic rule.
Deception, coersion, terrorism, influence peddling, the end justifies the means. And there is no shame because caffirs (that's us) don't need to be bargained with. We don't need to be reasoned with. You don't reason with your dog, you just train it. To the hard line muslim, we are second class citizens, unworthy of having traits like honor or honesty wasted upon.
As far as I know, "caffir" means simply: non-believer.
Friday, June 4, 2010
American Exceptionalism
America is the best because we have the most to lose if we never defeated an enemy. On the flip side, we have the bright hope of (pure) freedom and individual liberty to gain (keep) at the other end of the conflict, from a victory.
We have the carrot and the stick.
See, there are two Americas. Left and Right. What the rest of the world sees and all they really have to go by is what the media shows them. Well what is that? Debauchery in prime time. As of this posting, I can count on one hand the number of "family" programs during prime time on the major networks. After that, you get into cable programming which can in most cases be far more risky. Even Cartoon network and Nickelodian have shows that my kids don't need to see.
The other thing that the rest of the world goes by is not only what the polititians have to say, but what left wing pundits have to say about what they say. Well what is that?
Harry Ried: "This war is lost"
Obama: "America at times has been ... arrogant."
I don't need to list all the quotes or I'll never get to the other side of this coin.
The other America is fighting tooth and nail to push back against what the President and media is saying.
The left worries about what the rest of the world thinks of us.
If we're so bad why don't they leave?
Why are so many people breaking to make it to America?
The right is waiting for a President who will look enemies in the eye and call them out.
Someone who can tell the criticizers outside this country that until they have freedom of press and speech, that they don't get to criticize.
We have the carrot and the stick.
See, there are two Americas. Left and Right. What the rest of the world sees and all they really have to go by is what the media shows them. Well what is that? Debauchery in prime time. As of this posting, I can count on one hand the number of "family" programs during prime time on the major networks. After that, you get into cable programming which can in most cases be far more risky. Even Cartoon network and Nickelodian have shows that my kids don't need to see.
The other thing that the rest of the world goes by is not only what the polititians have to say, but what left wing pundits have to say about what they say. Well what is that?
Harry Ried: "This war is lost"
Obama: "America at times has been ... arrogant."
I don't need to list all the quotes or I'll never get to the other side of this coin.
The other America is fighting tooth and nail to push back against what the President and media is saying.
The left worries about what the rest of the world thinks of us.
If we're so bad why don't they leave?
Why are so many people breaking to make it to America?
The right is waiting for a President who will look enemies in the eye and call them out.
Someone who can tell the criticizers outside this country that until they have freedom of press and speech, that they don't get to criticize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)