tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31600645688356129602024-03-14T02:12:40.935-04:00Sisterhood of the Mommy PatriotsPolitics from a mom's point of view.Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.comBlogger186125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-62575156740469050592012-11-05T18:03:00.001-05:002012-11-05T18:03:59.848-05:00CLIMATE CHANGE, COMPASSION AND PRIORITIESHurricane Sandy has wreaked her vengeance on the Northeast. The storm was devastating, leaving thousands homeless and shivering. The fires at Breezy Point, NY, fanned on by Sandy's winds, tore through the middle class neighborhood leaving behind nothing but a few chimney stacks and the ghostly impression of post-WWII Europe. The devastation was widespread and heartbreaking. Even the famed Atlantic City Boardwalk didn't survive the power of the sea. My thoughts and prayers are with those who are suffering, friends and family among them. But there's one thing I know about Northeasterners. They will get through this (granted, probably with a good deal of cursing), and they will come out of it stronger than before.<br />
<br />
As usual, Al gore is out promoting global warming again, attempting to link Hurricane Sandy to the <strike>church doctrine</strike> science he has been promoting for more than a decade. On a certain level, you really can't blame the guy for trying - if I stood to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html">become a billionaire</a> upon passage of certain climate change laws, I'd be pushing the theory every chance I got, too. But even so, the fact is people are hurting, and blowhards like Mr. Gore and Mayor Bloomberg expostulating on how we have brought this destruction down on our own heads somehow (and there's more - and worse - to come) does no good to the people who have lost everything and don't even know where their next hot meal is coming from.<br />
<br />
The problem for Al is that, as bad as Sandy was, in the grand scheme she was really just par for the course, insofar as frequency and strengths of hurricanes striking the Northeast goes. That the damage is so severe is more a testament to an overpopulated coastline, our crumbling infrastructure, and an unfortunate tendency to brush off such approaching storms as non-events than to an excessively vengeful Mother Nature bent on extracting a pound of flesh. <br />
<br />
In 1985, Hurricane Gloria bounced around the Atlantic basin for twelve days. It hit the coast of North Carolina first, but instead of moving inland, the storm was pushed back out into the Atlantic, whereupon it set it's sights on Long Island, NY. After cutting a devastating path across the island, it again made landfall for the third and final time in Connecticut. Eight people lost their lives, and the storm cost taxpayers about $2 billion in today's dollars.<br />
<br />
In 1960. Hurricane Donna struck Marathon and Ft. Meyers, FL, coastal North Carolina and, finally, the eastern end of Long Island. <br />
<br />
In 1954, New York was hit not once but <em>twice</em>. Hurricane Hazel tore through Battery Park with wind gusts up to 113 mph followed by Hurricane Carol, which struck eastern Long Island and produced gusts of 120 mph. The storm surge wiped out a portion of the Montaugh Highway, which cut off the eastern portion of the Island.<br />
<br />
In 1944, the Great Atlantic Hurricane ripped through Long Island, killing six.<br />
<br />
The New England Hurricane of 1938, also known as the "Long Island Express", caused massive property damage throughout New England and claimed more than six hundred lives.<br />
<br />
The list goes on, <a href="https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/1786/2006GC001463.pdf?sequence=1">back through time</a>, all the way to the Great Storm of 1683, whose winds and storm surge created the Fire Island Cut.<br />
<br />
And that's just New York. As for New Jersey, my home state has been relatively sheltered from major storms, but she, too has suffered the wrath of Mother Nature:<br />
<br />
The Storm of October 1804 struck Atlantic City as a Category 2 hurricane. <br />
<br />
The Great September Gale of 1815 did not technically make landfall in New Jersey, but still managed to wreak havoc as it made it's way up the coastline.<br />
<br />
1821 brought the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane that made landfall at Cape May, NJ. While the town was devastated by the winds and storm surge, the surrounding areas were, thankfully, sparsely populated, minimizing damage.<br />
<br />
The Gale of 1878 caused eight deaths and significant damage to western New Jersey. <br />
<br />
There is even geological evidence that a major storm struck the coastline as much as a hundred years before Europeans colonized the area in the 1500s.<br />
<br />
My point being that the East Coast has long suffered hurricanes and tropical storms - predating even the Industrial Revolution. I was living on Long Island in 1985; Gloria's eye passed over my town. Power was out for weeks, but we were lucky because we hadn't lost water. In some areas along the eastern tip of the Island suffered without power and/or water for upwards of a month. It was a powerful storm. But it wasn't unusual.<br />
<br />
As for global warming, recent studies have shown that there actually has been <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/">no warming since 1998</a>. <br />
<br />
When the Goracle and his acolytes point to warmer temperatures in the Atlantic Basin, he ignores the cooler temps in the Pacific, much like the Ross ice shelf's melting is constantly hyped by alarmists, but <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/wuwt-ice-survey-shows-thickening-arctic-ice/">Arctic ice thickening </a>is ignored.<br />
<br />
Pointing to the high cost of disaster recovery as proof that storms are getting worse is fallacious. Did anyone really think a hurricane hitting some of the nation's largest city centers would be cheap? Did anyone really think few people would be impacted, when the region accounts for fully one-fifth of our population? Do those two things have anything at all to do with global warming?<br />
<br />
Instead of rending garments over the unproved theory of global warming, perhaps our leaders would be better used by putting their energy into <em>helping</em> the people impacted by forces well beyond the control of mere mortals. The fact is, east coast hurricanes are not unheard of - in fact, we have quite a history of them - and we may well be entering <a href="http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/joe-bastardi-east-coast-hurricanes-pacific-cooling-been-there-done-that-891993/">a cycle that mirrors the very active 1950's</a>.<br />
<br />
The plight of those in <a href="http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/staten_island_resources_where.html#incart_m-rpt-1">New York</a> and <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/hurricane_sandy_resources_get.html">New Jersey</a> and how they can be helped should be the only topic of discussion when it comes to this storm. Cheap attempts at furthering the global warming narrative give cold comfort to those who have lost loved ones and are suffering without shelter, clothing or food.<br />
<br />Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-14602685188196753672012-10-24T13:58:00.000-04:002012-10-24T13:58:02.439-04:00OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED (OR WENT TO JAIL)Well, it seems <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024">our President has been lying to us</a>. Surprise, surprise. Apparently an al Qaeda splinter group called Ansar-al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack early on and this information was on secured diplomatic wires within <em>two hours</em> of the start of the raid. Including, according to Reuters, the White House Situation Room.<br />
<br />
The most common argument coming from the left right now on the issue of whether or not President Obama knew the attack on our mission in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack relies heavily on the reasoning that Obama didn't want to "shoot first and aim later", as he (incorrectly) accused Romney of doing regarding his critique of the US Embassy's statement on free speech and the Egyptian protests. The problem with that argument is that, while it is commendable to want to get all of the facts first, the reality is, he <em>didn't</em>. Apparently when he made that statement about the video on Sept. 12th, he didn't know that the White House <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-administration-distances-self-from-statement-issued-by-us-embassy-in-cairo/">also released a statement distancing themselves from the embassy's statement</a>, mirroring Romney's 10pm release, at 11pm on Sept. 11th.<br />
<br />
Perhaps he was concerned with not wanting to damage whatever progress he has made with the members of the <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/04/muslim-brotherhood-delegation-meets-with-white-house-119647.html">Muslim Brotherhood that have been visiting the White House</a> recently, so instead he made the executive decision to introduce a whipping boy to keep the heat off the real perpetrators. How else to explain his blaming events on a Coptic christian in California who made a stupid, obscure video instead of the very real terrorist threat ever rising in North Africa?<br />
<br />
The excuse of "He didn't want to jump to conclusions" is specious, because he did, in reality, 'jump to conclusions'. Unfortunately, the conclusion he jumped to was that, as per usual with Mr. Obama, America is somehow to blame for everything. And this time, instead of a straw man for the usual speech denouncing whatever it is he wants to distance himself from, he had a real man on whom to pin the blame. The problem isn't the terrorists, you see, it's our pesky right to free speech.<br />
<br />
By the way, why is it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_(film)">award-winning 'art'</a> to fantasize about Jesus' sex life, but a crime to do the same with Mohammad?<br />
<br />
That real man languishes even now - weeks after his arrest, and in solitary confinement - in prison on a <em>parole violation</em>.<br />
<br />
Where is the outrage over this?<br />
<br />
Yes, the fact that the President lied about the events in Libya are concerning, but no more so than the fact that he is okay with a US resident being thrown in jail and labeled a murderer by society so that he doesn't take a political hit on his <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/18/With-Al-Qaeda-Resurging-Obama-Decides-To-Quit-Saying-He-Beat-Them">campaign stump claim that al Qaeda is on the run</a>. What is really mind-boggling is the fact that the media - the fourth estate, our vital watchdogs - are trying their best to sweep it all under the rug. Who would have thought that the American media wouldn't question a Nobel Peace Prize winner thinking it's okay to jail people for speaking their minds when his political life is on the line? Rush Limbaugh likened it to Woodward and Bernstein covering up Watergate for Nixon. <br />
<br />
This isn't the only example of Obama's refusal to cop to terrorism being a major issue. Let's not forget the Ft. Hood shooting that claimed thirteen service members and injured dozens of others. The Obama administration <em>to this day</em> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-victims-demand-attack-deemed-terrorism/story?id=17525656">refuses to call it an act of terror</a>, preferring instead to label it 'workplace violence'. Even though Hasan was mentored by Anwar al-Awlaki. Even though he shouted 'Allahu akbar!' as he murdered members of our military on home soil. Even though he had a history of support for jihad. Even though he continues to follow the al Qaeda playbook on working the judicial/military tribunal systems in the event of capture - right down to suddenly growing a beard and then refusing to shave it for religious reasons (in reality it is about flaunting army hygiene rules and quite effectively putting the brakes of postponement on his impending trial). <br />
<br />
It's interesting how our president is so concerned about not wanting to have a knee-jerk response to terrorists, but is quite comfortable throwing American citizens and military personnel under the bus. Doesn't this speak to character? Is this really the best man to be in charge of our country and our military?<br />
<br />
Isn't this just as important as who knew what, and when, in Benghazi?<br />
<br />
It isn't just that the White House knew within two hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack - although finding out our president has been baldly lying to us is never 'optimal' and deserves a high level of scrutiny to determine just how big the lie might be. It's that we now know that the White House, for more than two weeks (and <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-president-speaks-un-about-youtube-video-posted-june">in front of an international audience</a>), blamed and demonized a private citizen for exercising his right to free speech when they knew damn well that, at best, that video was just a convenient excuse for al Qaeda to gin up cover for their actions.<br />
<br />
Can you imagine the hue and cry if it had been a republican president who had sat quietly by as Nakoula was <strike>taken</strike> escorted from his house at midnight and placed in custody for a parole violation and some friendly "<a href="http://www.nbc.com/news-sports/msnbc-video/2012/09/feds-quiz-alleged-anti-islam-filmmaker/">quizzing</a>" after spending weeks demonizing him in every forum available? It's not hard to envision the protesters now, camped out near both the prison where he awaits his fate and in front of the White House, signs in hand calling for impeachment or arrest for war crimes and maybe even a burning effigy or two. There would be a whole cottage industry of 'Free Nakoula!' t-shirts and bumper stickers, quite possibly with a picture of him pensively staring off into the distance, towel draped at a jaunty angle on his head. Celebrities would speak out against the dictatorship that had incarcerated this innocent man....oh, I'm sorry, the celebrities come out for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara">homicidal maniacs</a> and <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2008/03/10/favorite-murderer-of-hollywood-and-college-students-challenged-in-new-book/">cop killers</a>, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/14/hollywood-silent-free-speech-graham">not free speech</a>. Silly me. You get the picture, though.<br />
<br />
Have we really reached the point where, a mere eleven years out from 9/11, we are okay with assuming the terrorists are innocent and Americans guilty? <br />
<br />
If the American president doesn't have the backs of American citizens and our most basic Constitutional rights, <em>who does</em>?Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-76407709046826745232012-10-09T16:05:00.001-04:002012-10-09T16:05:43.907-04:00SHOCKWAVES<br />
I'm a big fan of action movies. The bigger the explosion, the better. Action movies are one of the few genres that I am willing to plunk down the money to see in the theater because they are just so much better on the big screen. My personal favorite is what I like to call the 'super explosion', where the detonation is so enormous that a visible shock wave rolls out from the center. The best ones have the earth rising and sinking back down like ripples on a pond - preferably in slo-mo.<br />
<br />
I honestly wish I could have watched the presidential debate and the ensuing reportage in a movie theater because that was the biggest super explosion I have ever seen on screen. The shock waves are <em>still</em> resonating, nearly a week later. <br />
<br />
The first ripple was the moderator himself. While Jim Lehrer did a decent job, it seemed like he was in a state of complete shock at the dismal, lackluster, information-free performance of the Most Gifted Orator of Our Generation™. What was most shocking was that this wasn't an issue of a few gaffes or an annoying tick, it was a 90-minute long fail of epic proportions on several levels - the long pauses, the blame game, the endless distortions regurgitated even in the face of Romney denials (and, later, media <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-5-trillion-tax-cut-myth/2012/10/04/904f5a9e-0e4e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html">refutation</a>), the constant downward gaze (did he have the answers written on his shoes or something? Maybe he hoped the podium would sprout a teleprompter). Expect the President to get more help from the moderators in future debates. Can't have another debacle like that messing up the narrative!<br />
<br />
The second ripple fanned out to encompass the Twitterverse - which had it's <span id="goog_1058432270"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/">biggest night<span id="goog_1058432271"></span></a> in it's short history - and the FaceBook community where the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/03/big-birg-romney-debate-pbs/1612171/">fight over Big Bird</a> really hit it's stride. Because after all, the most important thing going on right now isn't events in Libya and the Middle East; it isn't the failing economy; it isn't even about the importance and impact of Obamacare. No, the most important thing on social media - even almost a week later - is whether Big Bird, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, should stay on the government dole. Good to know the Twitterati are focused on the important issues!<br />
<br />
Ripple number three was the media response, which seemed to be a combination of <a href="http://www.therightscoop.com/morning-joe-crew-still-bewildered-over-obama-poor-debate-performance/">bewilderment and disbelief</a>, with a dash of <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-rips-obamas-debate-performance-looked-like-he-took-my-million-and-spent-it-all-on-weed/">sarcasm</a> and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-moore-obama-debate-reaction-performance-live-tweet-2012-10">unfocused rage</a> for flavor. The disappointment was palpable, like a thick, heavy wave creeping down the spines of the One's most fervent followers, finally nestling deep in the pit of their gut, cold and unrelenting. Six days later it lays there still, even though they have desperately tried to distract from it - even going so far as to use <a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/234490/anatomy-of-a-campaign-ad-big-bird">Big Bird</a> for their political ends. <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/09/get-big-bird-off-welfare.html">Talk about desperate</a>! Even worse, the folks at Sesame Workshop are not amused by the new Obama attack ad featuring their <a href="http://rhetorican.com/2012/10/09/who-cares-about-big-bird-big-bird-is-a-character-worth-millions-and-pbs-doesnt-own-it-anyway/">big, yellow money maker</a> and are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/sesame-street-obama-ad_n_1951405.html?utm_hp_ref=media">demanding it be taken down</a>. <br />
<br />
It seems like it finally broke through the <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/26/nyt-ombud-yeah-this-paper-is-a-progressive-hive-mind-huh/">media hive mind</a> that their magic man might just have more in common with the bumbling guy behind the curtain after all. The epicenter of the blast seems to have been the <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/snls-msnbc-panel-takes-a-look-back-at-the-obama-debate-disaster/">MSNBC</a> post-debate panel (<a href="http://www.torontosun.com/videos/1878842961001">even the Canadians were making fun of them</a>). Shell shocked would be a good descriptor for the panelists. Chris Matthews had an on-camera nervous breakdown, Ed Schultz looked like he needed a scotch, a teddy bear, and a good cry (and not necessarily in that order), and Rachel Maddow was in <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/07/SNL-Slams-MSNBC-Freakout-Over-Obama-Debate-Performance">deep, <em>deep</em> denial</a> and grasping at any straw she could find. The disappointment wasn't just restricted to MSNBC - not even close. Most notably, Al Gore over at Current TV apparently suffered a little <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/04/gore-altitude-threw-obama-off-no-really/comment-page-1/">temporary insanity</a> in his vain quest for the answer to the burning question in every progressive heart that night: Why?!?<br />
<br />
The fourth, deepest, and most important ripple was the one that shook the electorate. As the great <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/10/05/krauthammer-romney-dissolved-obamas-negative-ads-dust" target="_blank">Dr. Charles Krauthammer</a> said of Romney's performance:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I think what he did last night is he dissolved $150 million of negative ads and turned them to dust."</blockquote>
<br />
Suddenly, the carefully crafted veil that Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) had been weaving for months was yanked away. Suddenly, an almost "bizzaro world" reality was revealed, where the world's most evil corporate raider was revealed as a compassionate, credible potential president, and the infallible, godlike creature so revered for deigning to step down to earth and grace us all with his omnipotence was exposed as a man whose soaring oratory that so swept them off their feet was apparently really almost entirely due to a TelePrompTer and lots of eye contact and prep time. Suddenly, people remembered how incredibly boring their college professors were - even the "cool" ones. Suddenly people realized Mitt Romney didn't have horns - but did have answers. Suddenly the post-modern Romney construct was replaced with reality for all to see.<br />
<br />
The mystique has been ripped away. In it's place is a man whose inevitable reelection is now not quite as inevitable as it once was and another whose unsuitability is being thoroughly <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260915-romney-surges-past-obama-to-four-point-lead-in-second-poll">reconsidered</a>. And I do mean <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/1/">thoroughly</a>.<br />
<br />
To say that President Obama was the only epicenter of the blast would do Governor Romney a great disservice. Most good explosions have several points of impact, and this was no exception. The man performed like a virtuoso. It really was a phenomenal performance for him. He was relaxed, assured, got his points across clearly and concisely, refused to allow lies to remain unchallenged and did what a true leader does - took command of the situation and ran the show with an ease, amiability and competence that was worthy of respect. In short, he looked - and acted - far more presidential than the actual president.<br />
<br />
It wasn't just that Obama was a dismal (<a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/post-debate-obama-under-fire-for-grim-demeanor/">grim</a>?) failure, it was that Romney was wildly successful. As he is with <em>just about every other thing he has set his mind to</em>.<br />
<br />
The full effects of the debate have yet to be seen. The ripples are still resonating as the president and his surrogates desperately scramble for excuses and scapegoats. The president has been saying that the Mitt Romney at the debate wasn't the "real" Romney. What else would he say? That in reality he knows he looked like a frat boy who hasn't been showing up for classes what with all the partying, and had to cram hard to try to (unsuccessfully) pass finals? He seemed annoyed that he had to be there, and it was obvious he didn't have the nerve to brazenly trumpet the low, false attacks he so robustly parrots on the campaign trail when the object of his lies and distortions stands six feet away with a pleasant smile and direct gaze. The high pitch and hesitation in his voice the first time he trotted out the $5 trillion lie gave him away. Not so easy to sling that mud when you're looking the victim of your smears in the eye, huh?<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the president, the entire night seems to have been the <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/presidential-debate-drew-more-than-70-million-viewers/">highest rated</a>, most followed political event in a very long time. Needless to say, <em>not</em> a good time to choke. No doubt Gov. Rick Perry feels his pain (and a great deal of relief for no longer being the poster boy for choking in a debate). As for the exposure Mitt Romney got from the debate, that has translated into cold, hard cash - more than $12 million in the first forty-eight hours after the debate - and a potent combination of <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82157.html">increased enthusiasm</a> and <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/08/buzz-bissinger-why-i-m-voting-for-mitt-romney.html">voter conversion</a> (that sometimes <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82157.html">stirs up controversy</a>). The bump in the polls has far exceeded expectations, with the most stunning turn around coming from <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/1/">Pew Research's</a> poll of likely voters, which had Obama up 51-43% pre-debate and Romney taking the lead, 49-45%, in the three days post-debate. <br />
<br />
All in all, the debate was an explosion of epic proportions, complete with all of the shock and awe such a happening generates. The challenger strode forth from the blast crater with celebratory fireworks exploding behind him while the president staggered, burned and bloody, from the smoking ruin of his negative campaign. <br />
<br />
Truly a debate for the ages.<br />
<br />
On a side note, does it bother anyone else that the man who has been running the show (almost singlehandedly, if you believe the press) for the past three-plus years was so woefully devoid of facts? This goes beyond the debate, too. On Letterman, he <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/obama-doesnt-remember-but-you-should.php">couldn't seem to remember the current national debt of $16 trillion</a> - after all, he's not worried about it. He was apparently also unaware of intelligence on the bloodbath in Libya, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfiUQASpVdc">continuing to peddle the laughable line</a> that some stupid video caused the "spontaneous" mob action more than ten days after <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-foreign-policy-narrative-unravels-article-1.1177651?localLinksEnabled=false">the administration knew it was a planned terror attack</a>. At what point do words like "incompetent", "negligent" or, perhaps more aptly, "cheap politicization sheerly for the retention of power" start to percolate up - and not to describe the republican in the race? Even fellow administration officials were <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/some-administration-officials-were-concerned-about-initial-white-house-push-blaming-benghazi-attack-on-mob-video/">uneasy about the plan to scapegoat the video in order to cover up the egregeous policy failures</a> that resulted in the death of a US ambassador and three others. Hopefully Romney will mention all of this and more at the next debate, possibly setting off a second super explosion. <br />
<br />
One other thing: Does this frighten anyone else? Do people really not know what a <em>debate</em> is anymore? God help us:<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="320" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23834113&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbart" width="425"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-8026647290032216572012-08-31T15:51:00.000-04:002012-08-31T15:51:07.096-04:00RNC RECAP<br />
<br />
Last night brought a close to the RNC Nominating Convention. And what a close it was. The entire convention was well done, from the debt clock to the well-made video vignettes that played between speakers. The energy was high and the speakers were inspired. <br />
<br />
If the only speeches you've seen are Ryan and Romney's you miss a lot. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Cbvewaa7g" target="_blank">Mia Love</a> gave a real barn burner and it was easy to see why she has garnered so much attention recently. It's unfortunate that after her speech, she was called an "Autie Tom" and her Wikipedia page was vandalized by racist bigots who seem to be a bit afraid of a black conservative woman. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEewz5v04mU" target="_blank">Susana Martinez</a> was hilarious and is without doubt a rising star. In fact. there were so many fresh, young faces in the Grand Old Party that is was reassuring to see such a deep, diverse bench. It's also probably <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2012/08/30/chuck_todd_democrats_wish_they_had_the_diversity_of_the_gop" target="_blank">pretty unsettling</a> to the other side. No wonder they are a little panicky.<br />
<br />
The big buzz today isn't really <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7420076n" target="_blank">Sen. Marco Rubio's</a> wonderful speech, which should be getting plenty of positive airtime (and probably would be, if only there were a 'D' after his name, instead of an 'R'). The talk wasn't even about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMuU-EwcIzs" target="_blank">Mitt Romney's speech</a>, which was very good. The part about his father giving his mother a rose every day of their married life was particularly touching, and he was quite clear on his vision for what he thinks America can be and firm in his belief that he can provide the answers that Barack Obama has failed to provide for the past four years. His was a vision of that shining city on a hill reborn. My favorite line was, "When the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American." Amen, brother!<br />
<br />
No, the big buzz today is all about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ" target="_blank">Clint Eastwood's speech</a> last night. Apparently the political press was expecting an entertainer to do something other than, you know, entertain. Did they expect a policy speech from the guy? He's an actor! One of my favorite quotes of the night came from Eastwood - "We all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party. He's just kind of a grin with a body behind it." Priceless! I also liked, "Politicians are employees of ours. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go." <em>Exactly</em>. He certainly <a href="http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/tv-zone-1.811968/clint-eastwood-speech-with-empty-chair-upstages-mitt-romney-at-gop-convention-1.3940970" target="_blank">shook things up</a> and his empty chair monologue most certainly wasn't a boring political speech. The fact that liberals found it to be an unhinged rant isn't surprising. After all, when <em>isn't</em> something coming out of a conservative's mouth an unhinged rant according to them? An actor, playing a scene to an imaginary character? Unheard of!!!1!1! He must be losing his mind!! But, then, that was a foregone conclusion anyway, when he signed up for the RNC instead of the DNC. After all, if you're a conservative, you're either old, crazy, stupid or evil, right?<br />
<br />
The entire convention had such a hopeful, forward-thinking vibe to it. Sure, there were some shots at President Obama - this is, after all, a <em>Republican</em> convention. Not only is it acceptable to bash the other side, it's sort of expected. Which is why so many on the right were disappointed with Gov. Chris Christie's speech. They had hoped for an Obama-bashing, in-your-face, "Jersey-style" rhetorical beat-down, and instead were treated to a kinder, gentler Christie who wanted to set the tone for the convention - this is who we are, this is what we believe, and this is what we can be once more. His speech was excellent, just not what people were expecting. And we know how the media just hate it when things don't go as they plan. There is no doubt they were loaded for bear with him and ready to knock the "tone" of the convention. <em>Sike</em>!<br />
<br />
What struck me the most, however, was the overarching story for many of the professional speakers. Many republican governors spoke over the course of the three days, and without fail, their stories chronicled their attempts to fix the mess their predecessors had left for them - some even having to work with opposition legislatures, much as President Obama has faced. But where the federal government has ground to a standstill because the democrats' idea of "compromise" is for republicans to simply rubber stamp whatever expensive scheme they concoct next, the republican governors have actually worked <em>with</em> their legislatures and turned their states around instead of demagoguing them for political advancement. It can be done. Mitt Romney did it in Massachusetts, and he can do it again on a federal level.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577621374151698522.html?mod=rss_opinion_main" target="_blank">Romney's entire career seems to be a dress rehearsal for just this moment in history</a>. Bain Capital was all about trying to turn businesses around. Sometimes they weren't successful, sometimes businesses had to close. But their success record far outweighs their failures, and their ethics have never been questioned. Well, until now, when it is politically expedient to try to demonize a decent, ethical businessman in an attempt to make the base politician he is running against look better by comparison.<br />
<br />
There was a lot of controversy over Romney's departure from Bain, but little talk about the venture he left Bain to pursue. Once again, he averted sure disaster and saved a failing enterprise and turned it into a triumph. This time, the scandal-riddled disaster was the 2002 Utah Olympics. He waded in and turned it around. <br />
<br />
That is what the man does. He turns things around. And if ever we needed someone to turn things around for us, it's now. Perhaps it's the post-convention buzz, perhaps not, but my reservations about Romney - whom I had planned to vote for, but with my nose firmly held - have been assuaged. I feel confident now, and my vote <em>against</em> Obama has become a vote, most enthusiastically, <em>for</em> Romney.<br />
<br />
The spin from the convention has been brutally negative in the press. From MSNBC's "<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/28/msnbc-abandons-gop-convention-during-every-speech-by-a-minority/#ixzz24uowbf2X" target="_blank">Whites Only</a>"<br />
policy to the constant attempts to find racism and <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/30/dnc-chair-republican-women-speakers-just-shiny-packaging-to-distract-from-anti-woman-policies" target="_blank">sexism</a> where none exists, the neo-pravda media have shamed themselves <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/28/RNC-Tuesday-Night-Media-Live-Blog" target="_blank">over</a> and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/29/Day-two-live-blogging-convention" target="_blank">over</a> and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/30/Live-Blog-RNC-Convention-Thursday-Night" target="_blank">over</a> (and that's just covering the convention!). No wonder no one takes them seriously anymore. Even so, we still have an uphill climb. <br />
<br />
All in all, the convention was a success. There is already a modest bounce, which has brought Romney even with Obama. The next day or two might show more of a bump. The general election is in full swing now.<br />
<br />
Let the games begin!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-2163322656692898602012-08-11T19:10:00.000-04:002012-08-13T19:32:45.942-04:00ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 Updated<br />
The Romney campaign has announced that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is their choice for Vice President. Needless to say, Ryan will be demonized in the press lickety-split - in fact, the demonization has <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/11/obama-campaign-statement-on-ryan-selection/comment-page-1/" target="_blank">already begun</a>. Prepare for those throwing grandma off the cliff videos to really ratchet up. The press is already talking about what a bad choice he is - pray tell, which candidate would be a <em>good</em> choice in their opinion? Before anyone takes their advice, let's remember that they hailed Joe Biden's nomination as a brilliant choice because of his "<a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/26/biden-on-foreign-policy-like-b" target="_blank">foreign policy expertise</a>". What a <a href="http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/opinion-10-gaffes-joe-biden-should-regret-1.3717994" target="_blank">joke</a>.<br />
<br />
I have to be honest. I was really hoping Ryan would be the pick. Those on the left (and some on the right) say that he will tie Romney to the Ryan plan, which they have been demonizing for more than a year now. Honestly, if you think they weren't planning on demonizing Romney for his support of the Ryan plan anyway, you just haven't been paying attention. So if he's going to be demonized anyway, why not have the architect of the plan out on the campaign trail explaining it and selling it? And when given a chance, he really can <a href="http://video.forbes.com/fvn/fact-and-comment/paul-ryan-vs-president-obama/" target="_blank">sell it</a>:<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="250" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.forbes.com/video/embed/embed.html?show=105&format=frame&height=250&width=336&video=fvn/fact-and-comment/paul-ryan-vs-president-obama&mode=render" width="336"></iframe><br />
If the Ryan plan is the basis for Romney's economic policy, why not own it? The man is great with Q&A - calm, collected, to the point, and always with a smile on his face and pleasant demeanor, so a series of town hall-style rallies with audience questions about the economy and jobs would play well against the absolute lack of interaction between President Obama and regular citizens as well as his arrogant, patronizing delivery. Ryan could have real interaction with the people on a one-on-one level - a genuine conversation about the things that really matter. Ryan's assumption that the American people are smart enough to understand the crises facing us and mature enough to tackle them is refreshing in comparison to Obama's approach that Americans are just not up to the task of either understanding his brilliance or making decisions on even the most personal or important of matters.<br />
<br />
Many on the right have argued that Ryan is needed in the House, chairing the budget committee. I disagree. His plan has already passed the House. It is stuck in the Senate, collecting dust. As the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">President of the Senate</a>, he would be able to work closely with the leadership of both parties to work some variation of his plan through to passage.<br />
<br />
Ryan is the wonkiest economy wonk in Congress today. The man really knows his stuff (love the look on Obama's face as Ryan tears down the fraud that is Obamacare piece by scammy piece):<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zPxMZ1WdINs" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
The tea partiers in my acquaintance are very happy with the pick, with many of them saying they now have a reason to vote for Romney. The energy and excitement today is palpable. The left are, predictably, saying his nomination just handed to the victory to Obama/Biden, namely because they presume this pick will alienate the crucial senior vote because of his alleged "gutting" of Medicare. The problem for them is that seniors have lots of time on their hands to check out the facts behind those 'throw grandma off the cliff' ads and as a result, his popularity among seniors is actually higher than the general population because <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/paul-ryans-2011-medicare-plan-a-primer/" target="_blank">they understand the changes won't affect them but will ensure the social safety net for generations to come</a>. He is <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/11/rasmussen-ryan-favorability-3925/" target="_blank">viewed favorably by a majority of seniors</a> - 52%, while only 29% view him unfavorably. The remainder have no opinion of him as of yet. In the general population his favorable/unfavorable stands at 39/25, with 35% having no opinion. <br />
<br />
There will be a race on over the next week to try to introduce him to those not yet familiar, and the question will be who has done a better job of it: Team Romney, who will paint him as a down-to-earth grassroots conservative who wants a return to founding principles or Team Obama, who will of course try to paint him as dangerous, evil, stupid and crazy, just like they do with every other conservative. Oh, and we can't forget <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/democrats-to-cast-paul-ryan-pick-as-extreme/" target="_blank">extreme</a>! Yawn. And, of course, the media will attempt to lampoon him by making him either Frodo Baggins or Eddie Munster in Saturday Night Live and the late night shows (unless his alleged <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-vice-president-pick-hottest-gallery/" target="_blank">six-pack abs</a> win over the shallow set). My money's on Eddie, which actually isn't a bad thing. After all, wasn't he the smart, semi-normal one amongst the crazies of the house (well, aside from Marilyn)? Actually, there's a pretty good skit in there - Joe Biden is a natural as Herman Munster! As for Frodo, wasn't he the brave leader who rose to the challenge at a time of dire changes to his world? <br />
Ryan may be a mild-mannered, happy warrior, but don't let that fool you. He can do far more damage with his cheerfully delivered, pro-America, pro-growth facts than Gov. Christie can do with his sharp tongue and in-your-face attitude. It's better to leave the sharp elbows to surrogates, freeing the candidates to focus on policy.<br />
<br />
Kudos to team Romney for going bold and choosing the best person out there to help lay out the Romney path to prosperity! I'd say I can't wait to see him debate Biden, but it might be a bit painful to see a sitting VP so heavily outmatched. Honestly, I'd rather see him debate Obama himself. Now <em>that</em> would be fun!<br />
<br />
<br />
UPDATE: <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/oh_my_new_poll_shows_huge_paul_ryan_bounce_with_independents_and_seniors" target="_blank">Uh-oh!</a>Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-68337373019562842222012-07-26T23:35:00.003-04:002012-07-26T23:40:31.240-04:00THE PLAN IS WORKING<br />
President Obama recently stated that:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-on-the-economy-we-tried-our-plan-and-it-worked/article/2502981" target="_blank">"We tried our plan - and it worked"</a></blockquote>
<br />
Needless to say, right-wing blogs ran with this and the left pretty much ignored it. But it is an important quote, and something to keep in mind as we inch ever closer to November. Today I'm going to do something that I try very hard to avoid. I'm going to take a step into the realm of conspiracy theory (hey, if it's good enough for a former cabinet-level advisor, it's good enough for me!) I generally try to stay away from those rabbit holes of circular logic and half-truths. I guess I just don't have that much paranoia in me. But there are a few - a very few - theories that have some weight to them, some merit. Sometimes it is possible to prove or disprove these theories over time. One such theory which is in the process of being proved and which I became acquainted with during the 2008 presidential election, involved something called the "<a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html" target="_blank">Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Chaos</a>". <br />
<br />
This strategy, cooked up in the 1960's by Columbia University professors Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, is a plan to bring down our capitalist system by overwhelming it and causing it's collapse. What would they replace the capitalist system with? Why, a European-style cradle-to-grave nanny state, of course. A collapse would be the excuse needed to throw out the constitution and, as Obama himself said just days before his election, "fundamentally transform America".<br />
<br />
Transition to socialism is usually achieved through revolution or war. We have neither on our shores, and the wars we fight half a world away don't cause the deprivations that triggered the socialization of Europe after the two world wars decimated that region. In the absence of those things, then, how is change brought about? By overwhelming our system in other ways.<br />
<br />
Why is it important to talk about this theory now? Because, as President Obama says, he has implemented his plan, and it is working, right before our eyes:<br />
<ul>
<li>The payroll tax he instituted and demanded stay in place means taxpayers are contributing 2% less to the Social Security trust fund each week. Which is already overwhelmed and expected to collapse by <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-23/social-security-fund-to-run-out-in-2035-trustees-say" target="_blank">2035</a>. Surely this "tax holiday" the president put in place has something to do with the fact that we are now looking at running out of cash in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-disability-trust-fund-projected-to-run-out-of-cash-by-2016/2012/05/30/gJQA3AfH1U_story.html" target="_blank">2016</a>.</li>
<li>The senate has not done its constitutional duty in more than three years by refusing to pass - or even seriously consider - a budget. As a result, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt" target="_blank">deficit spending has increased</a> from a high under Bush of $410 billion to an average of $1.4 trillion under Obama. For the record, that's $1 trillion more per year than Bush the Profligate at his worst.</li>
<li>There is a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/cardinal-tangles-with-doj/2011/09/13/gIQAhCMFdK_story.html" target="_blank">determined push</a> to get people on government assistance and entitlements, resulting in an unprecedented - and unsustainable - increase in participation. In addition, the absolute refusal by this administration to consider the effects their policies are having on job creation means unemployment has <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/jobless-rate-goes-nowhere-unemployment-above-8-for-41st-straight-month-1" target="_blank">not gone below 8% in 41 months</a>. Keeping people reliant on government instead of themselves has a twofold benefit for the president. First, the more dependents, the more indebted voters. Second, increased dependent participation and reduced taxpayer income create an unsustainable burden, hastening collapse.</li>
<li>The housing crisis was never really dealt with, aside from a few confusing, unpopular government programs that helped few and harmed many. But that isn't the problem with this issue. The real problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice is actually <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/cardinal-tangles-with-doj/2011/09/13/gIQAhCMFdK_story.html" target="_blank">forcing banks to do the very same things that helped cause the crisis</a> in the first place by bringing down the power of the DoJ against any banks that refuse to lend to unqualified buyers.</li>
<li>One of the first things Pelosi and Obama did upon his rise to power was to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/cardinal-tangles-with-doj/2011/09/13/gIQAhCMFdK_story.html" target="_blank">revoke the main part of the Clinton-era welfare reform</a>. The key to the reform - aside from the job training - was removing the incentive for states to add to their rolls. States are now being seduced by much-needed federal dollars to encourage citizens to jump on the dole. </li>
<li>A month later, Obama's HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, dealt the final <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/238501-obama-kills-welfare-reform" target="_blank">death blow to the wildly successful welfare reforms</a> of the 1990's, wiping out the other key to the reform - the work requirements that had effectively ended generational welfare. This now adds potential welfare collapse to the toxic entitlement brew threatening to bubble over.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304657804576401412033504294.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" target="_blank">requirements for entitlements have been reduced</a> so that more options are available to more people. In addition, active recruiting for candidates is going on, from the increased number and visibility of ads to parents being called by their children's schools to encourage them to apply for the lunch program. <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/27/will-food-stamps-help-make-you-look-amaz" target="_blank"> Selling foodstamps to seniors</a> as if it was a great way to lose weight ("Margie looks amazing! What's her secret?") instead of a humiliating state of dependence in their golden years is particularly loathsome. </li>
<li>Entitlement requirement reduction has resulted in an historic <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/03brfs-RECORDNUMBER_BRF.html?_r=1" target="_blank">45 million Americans receiving food stamps</a> (aka SNAP). This has not resulted in hand-wringing and promises to get people off the program and into jobs. If fact, the president hasn't really addressed the issue at all.</li>
<li>For two years, the democrats spent taxpayer money like it was their own private stash, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/23/where-did-stimulus-money-really-go/" target="_blank">doling out favors and riches to cronies and donors</a> with very little check from republicans, who were so much in the minority that their input was neither requested nor desired.</li>
<li>Through executive fiat, regulation, and legislation, this administration has managed to make government a direct "partner" with the energy, health care, automotive and banking industries. Other sectors of the country are so crippled by the excessive regulation and looming taxation that they are unable to make forward progress. The result has been <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65514.html" target="_blank">a "recovery" that is worse than the original recession</a>.</li>
<li>At a time when we have been experiencing long-term unemployment and our workforce participation rate is at the lowest it's been in decades, the president just granted <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/young-illegal-immigrants-amnesty-could-tighten-competition-for-jobs-college/2012/06/15/gJQAmgV4fV_story.html" target="_blank">amnesty</a> and offered our job market to upwards of a million new workers aged 18-35. Can't wait to see the impact that has on the job market. </li>
<li>Obama's amnesty is a double whammy. Not only will it increase our stubbornly high unemployment with the added competition for jobs, it also allows those former illegals access to our social safety nets - most notably <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_20926392/obama-deportation-deferment-plan-leaves-many-questions-unanswered?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com" target="_blank">unemployment benefits</a>. </li>
<li><a href="http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207061636/disability-climbs-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm" target="_blank">More people signed up for disability last month than got jobs</a>, and the administration seems to be just fine with that, if their absolute radio silence on the issue indicates anything.</li>
<li>Obamacare was designed to increase the cost health insurance for companies while simultaniously offering a cheap "penalty" to not offer insurance at all. This is what will make Obamacare what Pelosi and company promised it wouldn't be - <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/conyers-obamacare-platform-creating-single-payer-system" target="_blank">single payer</a>. And just who is that single payer? Why, government, of course. When businesses start dropping coverage in favor of the cheaper penalty, their employees will be shunted into health insurance "exchanges" that will basically put people into Medicare or Medicaid instead of private insurance. After all, these two fine agencies are well in the black and can easily accommodate more citizens on their rolls. One-sixth of the economy will be under complete control of the federal government if we go to single payer. And, considering how well all of our other entitlements are doing, it's just a matter of time until Obamacare is teetering on the brink of collapse, too.</li>
<li>More than 20 million Americans out of work, and all we get from the administration is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/obama-pivot-to-jobs_n_918902.html" target="_blank">promises to "pivot" to the jobs</a> issue. Eventually. Maybe in his second term? </li>
<li><a href="http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/US-poverty-on-track-to-reach-46-year-high/al11lFjj2UGuXekToDSS6Q.cspx" target="_blank">46 million Americans living in poverty</a>. Yet another historic first. Where's the outrage? </li>
</ul>
<br />
It's not possible to look at all of these things and not start to wonder about what exactly the "plan" is. The result of these policies and actions has been the dismal "recovery" we have been treated to, massive deficits and mind-boggling debt. They are combining to create an unsustainable welfare state that that is doomed to collapse. What Obama is offering Americans is welfare writ large. Everyone is on the dole. Remember, Barack Obama is a genius. He knows what he's doing. That's what they keep telling us. He's ivy-league educated. He's brilliant. <br />
<br />
So what did he study at those ivy-league colleges? Who did he hang out with? What ideas did he pursue? By his own admission, he <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/obama-college-marxism-occidental/2010/02/08/id/349329" target="_blank">espoused radicalism</a>, even taking Piven's classes in his time at Columbia. He was <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/why_obamas_red_mentor_is_news.html" target="_blank">immersed in it as a child</a>, and even <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227500/alinsky-administration/jim-geraghty" target="_blank">taught it</a> later in life. He admitted in <em>Dreams of My Father</em> to not just hanging out with radicals and communists, but actively seeking them out - they are the ones he identified with most. As for the ideas he pursued, his career after college has been a tribute to Cloward-Piven, from his time as a community organizer to <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-4145761.html" target="_blank">his church of twenty years</a> to his membership in the socialist <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/08/New-Party-Literature-Suggests-Obama-Paid-Dues-to-Join" target="_blank">New Party</a> to the people he has chosen as his <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/" target="_blank">administrative inner circle</a> and the policy decisions they have made.<br />
<br />
When President Obama said the jobs numbers were "a step in the right direction", he wasn't misspeaking. When he claimed his plan was working, that wasn't a gaffe. In order for Cloward-Piven to work, this three-year sustained crisis is <em>exactly</em> the right direction and the plan is unfolding exactly as envisioned. An expansive welfare state funded by a shackled economy and scapegoat one-percenters And if it isn't, it means the president and everyone in his administration, as well as former Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, are utterly incompetent. <br />
<br />
Either way, they need to go.<br />
<br /><em></em><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<em>Cross-Posted at <a href="http://theripleyreport.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-plan-is-working.html#more" target="_blank">The Ripley Report</a></em></div>Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-78428414313692900132012-07-19T00:30:00.000-04:002012-07-19T01:39:05.641-04:00AMERICAN PIES<br />
In Sarah McLachlan's wonderful, double-platinum 2003 album <em>Afterglow</em>, she has a song called "<a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-18085998/sarah_mclachlan_world_on_fire_official_music_video/" target="_blank">World on Fire</a>". It is a paean to left wing ideology, with one really standout line:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The fortunes of one man means less for some"</blockquote>
<br />
This is the melodious summation of the democratic argument for reelection in 2012. It is most often illustrated with the pie analogy the left uses <em>ad nauseum</em> about eeevil rich guys taking huge pieces of the economic pie and only leaving thin little slivers for the rest of the proletariat to squabble over. (by the way, how much is Ms. McLachlan <a href="http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/sarah-mclachlan-net-worth/" target="_blank">worth</a> again? More than her sound tech, I bet)<br />
<br />
When most world history has dictated that those in power allocate resources, it tends to be an acceptable world view. In order to to rationalize the deprivation and need that system imposes due to its participants' inevitable gluttonous greed, the theory develops that there just aren't enough resources to give to everyone. It makes a certain amount of sense.<br />
<br />
But here in America, we have a different mentality. Or at least, we used to. In America, each and every one of us has the freedom to go out there and...well, make pies of our own. It's not for us to wait for government to hand out the piddling little slice they deem worthy. All government can do here is try to limit the size of your pie by, say, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html" target="_blank">demanding the addition of an ingredient that doesn't exist yet </a>or by burdening you with <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/15/morning-bell-how-taxmageddon-will-impact-you/" target="_blank">so many taxes</a> that it's just not worth it to try to make a big pie. Instead you make a smaller one or use cheaper ingredients or, maybe, have fewer assistants in the shop.<br />
<br />
The problem is, the Baker-in-Chief loves pie, and simply cannot resist dipping his fingers into as many as he can, effectively cornering the pastry market by forcing bakers to give more than half of their wares to him. The cronies and donors get first crack at the best ingredients now and when they burn their pies, he's always there with <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303610504577420234053483326.html" target="_blank">a fresh one</a> for them, courtesy of the neighborhood housewives.<br />
<br />
I find it quite fitting that a symbol of America is apple pie. Here in America, we don't squabble over crumbs, we make our own damn pie, <em>thankyouverymuch</em>.<br />
<br />
Or at least, we used to. At one time, Susie Jones cooling a prize-winning deep dish caramel apple streusel on her windowsill would have inspired Betsy Smith to make her own mouth-watering creation. Nowadays, Betsy would call the town council and have Susie's pie removed, citing scent allergies, an aversion to the overt oppression of the patriotic reference to which apple pies allude and a feeling of social injustice and victimization because her oven did not spontaneously produce a pie when she demanded one. After rigorous investigation on the local, state and federal levels, Susie and her family are finally left alone to enjoy the forty-seven percent of the pie they are generously allowed to keep (the other fifty-three percent being redistributed to Betsy and other, hopefully more worthy, recipients) and the oven industry has strict new standards for mandatory spontaneous pie manifestation technology within the next decade. Naturally, a stiff penalty will be incurred if said technology is not implemented within the allotted time.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem seems to be that it's not just a matter of fighting over crumbs anymore. More than half of us are telling our government that <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html" target="_blank">it's okay to go ahead and help themselves</a> an enormous chunk of someone else's pie so we don't have to be bothered taking the risk of jumping the flaming hoops required for making our own. We've gone from "I want what you have so I'm going to go out and get it for myself" to "I want what you have so I'm going to take yours". It's a violation along the lines of what happened to that poor, innocent apple pie in the 1999 movie "American Pie". It is a defiling of our system, and the inevitable outcome will be stagnation and riots a la Paris and Athens. When only one pie is allowed, deprivation is sure to follow.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to Mitt Romney. He <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/17/romney-blasts-obamas-startling-and-revealing-comments-business-owners-foolishness" target="_blank">understands</a> that every man is his own baker, and should be able to make whatever size - and flavor - pie he (lawfully) chooses. He knows that there should be a few rules about baking, such as banning endangered animal meat pies, or using quality ingredients in a clean, safe environment so the consumer and the baker aren't injured. Such common sense rules and regulations are part and parcel of a well-run workplace. But government intrusion into every aspect of the baking process is not. <br />
<br />
We really need to get Chef Obama and his inexperienced sous staff out of the kitchen and let the real drivers of the economy - the neighborhood bakers like you and me - get to work. Here's a hint, Chef - the ingredients you were left with aren't the problem, it's the recipe you insist on following. That particular souffle will fall every time, as it has in countless state-run kitchens across the globe.<br />
<br />
It's time for government to get out of the kitchen and let the bakers bake again.Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-36505494720226147322012-07-08T18:55:00.000-04:002012-07-18T18:27:37.173-04:00TAKING A GAMBLE<br>
<br>
President Obama's campaign has rolled out yet another new campaign slogan on his new bus tour across the swing states of America. Nice touch, by the way, doing a tour to illustrate Obama's focus on American jobs (as opposed to Romney's <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/" target="_blank">illusory outsourcing</a>) with a tour bus made in Canada. One can only imagine how hilarious that would be, if only it was George W. Bush at the wheel. Anyhoo, once again the President's brain stormers fall a bit short with the new campaign slogan:<br>
<br>
"<a href="http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/05/obamas-betting-on-america-campaign-bus-tour/" target="_blank">Betting on America</a>".<br>
<br>
Hmmmm....Is it really a good idea to encourage a mental link between the president, his agenda and gambling?<br>
<br><br>
It is, of course, meant to give a sense of optimism; a feeling that ultimately America will live up to the president's vision The problem is, the American people are somewhat less than optimistic these days, and aren't necessarily interested in the America that is being envisioned for them. <br>
<br>
The most glaring problem is that references to betting tend to bring to mind things like, say, the money gambled on Solyndra, <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/06/28/solar-firm-that-got-doe-loan-to-declare-bankruptcy.html" target="_blank">Abound Solar</a>, and many other "green" companies the Speculator-in-Chief bet taxpayer money on and lost. Instead of seeing the obvious - that the technology is not fully developed and (or should I say, <em>because</em>) the market isn't ready yet - he instead presses for further "investment" in green companies. After all, it's not like he's gambling with his own money, right? (and when he runs out of taxpayer chips, surely pit boss Hu will be happy to <a href="http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/15/paul-ryan/gop-rep-paul-ryan-says-us-borrows-42-cents-each-do/" target="_blank">loan him another stack</a>)<br>
<br>
On a side note, that popular talking point about oil companies getting subsidies, so it's only "fair" (how I've come to hate that word) that green companies should too is complete bull. <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/oil-company-subsidies-clarified/" target="_blank">Oil companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies</a>. They receive tax <em>deductions</em>, and that is a different animal entirely. The former requires the government to pay large (sometimes <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/oil-company-subsidies-clarified/" target="_blank">downright enormous</a>) sums of taxpayer money to companies in order to fuel research and development. The latter allows companies to write off some of their costs, such as R&D, so they can retain more of their earnings to reinvest in the company and it's workforce, forking over less to Uncle Sam. Big difference.<br>
<br>
References to placing bets may also make one think of the doubling down that has been done over the past few years by the gamblin' man with the keynesian plan. From the contraception "compromise" that is merely a one-year extension before the church must put aside their fundamental principles and join the collective to the repeated demands for more stimulus, it's been all about ignoring the critics, ignoring the people, ignoring the constitution, even ignoring common sense and sticking with his favorite theories. Freedom OF religion has become freedom FROM religion, so any infringement upon the church is now perversely perceived as a win for individual liberty. Granting a one-year waiver is not a compromise, it's a demand for compliance - just at a later date. As for the new calls for stimulus, he can call it a jobs bill all he wants, but it sure as heck sounds like a smaller version of Porkulus - the original "jobs" bill that has resulted in 8.2% unemployment two years after it was passed. And here we are again, with Mr. Bigstuff looking to buy friends and peddle influence with another hand-out to help profligate states pay for teachers, police and firefighters. But hey, we'll win next time, honest - our luck's just <em>got</em> to change! The problem isn't the policy, we just didn't bet <em><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickschulz/2011/07/05/how-effective-was-the-2009-stimulus-program/" target="_blank">enough</a></em>! <br>
<br>
That word, "Betting", might even bring to mind the shady numbers racket the media has been trying to swindle the American public with - from <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/many-polls-are-skewed-and-manipulated-to-favor-democrats" target="_blank">bogus polls</a> to <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/lib-media-liars-busted-purposely-distort-romney-in-highly-edited-wawa-moment-video/" target="_blank">deceptive editing</a> - in order to make the case for another term for the First Bookie. Speaking of working the numbers, did the president really think that the American public would buy that <a href="http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor" target="_blank">ridiculous, obscure left-wing blog post</a> about Obama being the most frugal president since Eisenhower? <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/25/morning-bell-believe-it-obamas-a-big-spender/" target="_blank">Yeah, right</a>. The largest deficit under Bush was $458 billion, the <em>smallest</em> under Obama has been $1.2 trillion. But he's frugal, whereas Bush was <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/293809/obama-has-created-more-debt-bush-less-half-time" target="_blank">irresponsible and unpatriotic</a>. Uh-huh.<br>
<br>
It seems the overarching plea of the Obama campaign is for people to take a chance on him, once again. Let it ride, America, our luck will turn!<br>
<br>
Perhaps on some deeper level, even Team Obama knows their failed and yet unaltered agenda is, at best, a crap shoot.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://sisterhoodpatriots.blogspot.com/2012/07/taking-gamble.html#more">Read more »</a>Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-5420261153133083392012-06-29T17:51:00.000-04:002012-07-18T18:28:25.135-04:00IT'S TIME TO GET FURIOUSOperation Fast and Furious is not about politicization, as the left would have you believe. It is about gun control. The American people should be absolutely outraged by this operation, but instead it has been swept under the rug and ignored. The fact that hundreds of people have died is, apparently by ATF standards, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/" target="_blank">nothing more than a further argument for more restrictive gun regulations</a>. <br />
<br /><br />
If you have any doubts, a quick check of the facts will set you right. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, who has been doggedly following this story since February of 2011, has a great <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57461204-10391695/a-primer-on-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/" target="_blank">primer</a> on the scandal. Here's how the operation worked, in a nutshell:<br />
<br />
First, the ATF persuaded some of their informants to purchase large quantities of "long guns" - high caliber rifles. Then, when the gun shop owners contacted the ATF out of concern for the large numbers attempting to be purchased by rather shady buyers, the ATF encouraged the dealers to sell to the informants. <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b5_1308198279" target="_blank">Agents were specifically ordered to stop tracking the weapons and not interdict</a>, virtually guaranteeing the weapons would cross the border and reach the cartels. ATF then planned to use the large number of guns sold as leverage to institute "<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/?tag=mncol;lst;10" target="_blank">Demand Letter 3</a>", which would place strict regulations over the purchase of said long guns. According to emails, the fact that many of the guns made it over the border and were responsible for hundreds of deaths was seen as justification for their planned regulation. And now they're doing everything they can to cover it up.<br />
<br />
The ATF forced gun dealers to sell enormous quantities of guns to extremely shady people and then wanted to use the fact that gun dealers sell enormous quantities of guns to extremely shady people in order to enact stricter regulations. That's like demanding Chevy remove the exhaust filters from all the new Corvettes, then instituting new EPA regulations outlawing or restricting new sports car sales due to the environmental impact of the exhaust system. And now they're wide-eyed and saying they've never heard of such a thing as a 'sports car' before. Quite a racket.<br />
<br />
To put not too fine a point on it, our government knowingly and willingly sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, in order to push for more gun control laws. And now they are doing everything they can to cover it up. Which is why Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress this week.<br />
<br />
If stricter gun regulation <em>wasn't</em> the goal as democrats are arguing, then what was? It wasn't about tracking how guns get to, say, the Sinaloa drug cartel, because agents were <em>told not to track the weapons</em>. It obviously wasn't to help the Mexican government with their cartel problems, because if that were the case, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/01/nation/la-na-fast-furious-20120601" target="_blank">wouldn't we have let them in on the operation</a>? Perhaps rooting out drug lords on this side of the border was the goal, but unfortunately the drug lords in question were <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20112834-10391695.html" target="_blank">already in the employ of or under surveillence by the FBI and the DEA</a>. So if not those reasons, then why? <br />
<br />
As for the claim that this is being politicized, that's an absolute fact. Democrats and their supporters have made it political by refusing to see the facts in front of them in favor of blind party loyalty to a fellow democrat. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78015.html" target="_blank">They should be ashamed</a>.<br />
<br />Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-83070713154840559442012-06-28T13:44:00.000-04:002012-07-18T18:28:42.304-04:00OBAMACARE UPHELD<br />
The mandate has survived. Except now, it's being called what it has always been but was not allowed to be named - a tax. Technically, since no one has been taxed yet, it stands - but that's not to say once the tax kicks in it won't be challeneged in the courts all over again. This is a big win for democrats in the short term, but long term, this decision might well end up favoring Mitt Romney even more.<br />
<br />
The House of Representatives have announced a <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html" target="_blank">repeal vote for July 11th</a>. A wasted effort that will not get to the floor of the Senate as long as Harry Reid is in charge, but the optics of continuing the fight should rally the base a bit. It will also remind them of the importance of the twenty-four democratic senate seats up for reelection in the fall. Obamacare has now officially become a major campaign issue.<br />
<br /><br />
First and foremost, Romney can now spend the next four months running on repealing Obamacare. After all, you can't get rid of Obamacare unless you get rid of Obama, right? Not only will this decision fire up the base enormously but, considering <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law" target="_blank">54% of Americans want the law repealed</a>, it's a good bet that more than the base will be voting on this issue. Obama has to hope the 39% who support the law are far more motivated to get to the ballot box than the 54% who oppose it. <br />
<br />
While the ruling is a bit complicated, at least there is some much-needed clarification on one major question. It's finally official - the mandate is a tax, according to the Court. This is pretty big, because for the three years this has been an issue, democrats have been saying that the mandate is most definitely <em>not</em> a tax. After all, who wants to be known as the party that raised taxes in a recession (or <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/joe-biden-millions-and-millions-of-americans-are-in-depression-video/" target="_blank">depression</a>, if you're talking to VP Biden)? Well, it's official - taxes they are, and up they're going. There are more than twenty new or increased taxes in Obamacare, and eight of them will be hitting those making under $250,000 per year. If Romney's team has their ducks in a row, they will hit this fact hard and often on the campaign trail. <br />
<br />
This law raises taxes by more than $400 billion over the next ten years and guts Medicare by $500 billion. Everyone is getting taxed, including, insanely enough, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/28/milliman-obamacare-raises-taxes-on-the-government/" target="_blank">the federal government</a>. It has been now confirmed by the Court that the cost to businesses of hiring employees is going to go up substantially. The question now is, how long before these things start really affecting employment and the economy? Who better to talk about the impact of a 3.8% increase in the capital gains tax rate than a businessman who knows from his many years in the business sector the real effect that one tax alone will have on the economy and jobs?<br />
<br />
In fact, making the taxes in Obamacare a centerpiece of his campaign is imperative. After all, hardly anyone has read the damn thing, so the public probably has no idea how many taxes there are or whom they will affect. There should be a page on his website dedicated to the tax increases, and he should be hammering the issue on the stump. .<br />
<br />
For those on the right who are angry with Chief Justice John Roberts, here is a little nugget that might take some of the sting away. According to RedState's Erick Erickson, because Roberts has now deemed the mandate to be a tax, <a href="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/" target="_blank">democrats will not be able to filibuster</a> its repeal due to the sneaky reconciliation process used to pass it in the first place. Republicans only need to take four Senate seats from democrats to take the majority, and there are more than twenty up for grabs. With President Romney installed in the White House, Obamacare could conceivably be a thing of the past by February. Worst case scenario: even if Obama retains the White House, taxation is solely the purview of the House, and the Republican majority could <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html" target="_blank">take a page from Obama's book by just...refusing to enforce it</a>. No revenue means no implimentation. Precedence can be a bitch sometimes, eh liberals?<br />
<br />
Speaking of precedence, the main thought that has been running through my mind on this decision is the predecence that has now been set. Even if the law is repealed, the camel's nose is now firmly under the tent and Americans can now be taxed for not just what they consume, but also what they don't. The implications of this decision will be far reaching. What power<em> doesn't</em> Congress have over the people it's supposed to serve?<br />
<br />Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-53009254834557042622012-06-06T14:34:00.001-04:002012-06-06T14:36:41.956-04:00FUN WITH CHEESEHEADSBig fun today! The chaotic disarray of the democratic machine is quite a sight to see, isn't it? In case you've been living under a rock, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-wins-wisconsin-recall-election-tom-barrett-defeated/2012/06/06/gJQAXmmmIV_story.html" target="_blank">Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker won his recall election</a> last night. Handily. I'm not quite sure what's sweeter - the fact that he won, or that he won by a larger margin that when he was initially elected governor in 2010. <em>Mmmm</em>, sweet like candy!<br />
<br />
It looks like the taxpayers <em>finally</em> have a seat at the bargaining table in Wisconsin. It's about time.<br />
<br />
My favorite quote of the night comes courtesy of Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/05/Kleefisch-This-Is-What-Democracy-Looks-Like" target="_blank">"<em>This</em> is what democracy looks like!"</a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Running a close second is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal with this little gem:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“A lot of people thought it would be a late night in Wisconsin. I think it’s going to be a late night in Chicago.”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
To quote the vernacular: Tru'dat!<br />
<br />
How disconcerted are democrats? Well, David Axelrod had a rather puzzling <a href="https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/210166576857616384" target="_blank">tweet</a> on the subject:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bad night in Boston....WI raises big questions for Mitt"</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
In case you're confused, he isn't talking about Walkers reelection, he's talking about exit polling that shows President Obama over Mitt Romney, 51-45%. A six-point lead is nice, right? Perhaps Mr. Axelrod missed this from the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-wisconsin-exit-polls-show-obama-ahead-of-romney-20120605,0,7829580.story" target="_blank">Chicago Tribune</a> article he referenced in his tweet (<strong><em>emphasis</em></strong> mine):<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Wisconsin voters in Tuesday’s recall election seem ideologically fairly similar
to those in 2010 – <strong><em>more heavily conservative</em></strong> than in the <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/elections/u.s.-elections/u.s.-presidential-election-%282008%29-EVHST0000104.topic" id="EVHST0000104" title="U.S. Presidential Election (2008)">2008
presidential election</a>, but inclined to reelect <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic" id="PEPLT007408" title="Barack Obama">President
Obama</a> nonetheless, according to early, partial <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/elections/u.s.-elections/u.s.-presidential-election-exit-polls-%282008%29-EVHST0000102.topic" id="EVHST0000102" title="U.S. Presidential Election Exit Polls (2008)">exit
poll</a> results.<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<br />
It's that "more heavily conservative" bit that is the sticking point. <em>Heavily</em>, huh? Ouch. While a six-point lead sure is nifty, it isn't nearly as nice as the extra-spiffy <em>fourteen </em>point spread he enjoyed against McCain in 2008. An eight point drop isn't anything to brag about, Dave. Especially in ultra-blue Wisconsin. He might have missed that bit about 'more heavily conservative', though. It was waaaay down in the...first sentence of the article. I'd hazard a guess that the Romney camp was pretty happy with last night's outcome, and that his perfectly coiffed head slept soundly on its luxury 1000 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets, most likely dreaming up ways to make Wisconsin even more competitive in the future.<br />
<br />
The defeat has hit union supporters hard, to say the least. Last night Mayor Barrett was meeting and greeting supporters after he had called Gov. Walker to concede and found out just <em>how</em> hard - literally - when he was soundly slapped by a distraught...er, supporter (via <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/supporter-slaps-tom-barrett-after-he-concedes-recall-election/" target="_blank">Mediaite</a>):<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="421" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=YH1XZG0Y82ZB965G&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Well, at least she asked first, right?<br />
<br />
President Obama has piped in as well. He's sincerely hoping that Gov. Walker got the strong message the unions sent with the recall. <br />
<br />
Oy.<br />
<br />
Hopefully President Obama will eventually get the strong messages the American taxpayers have been sending <em>him</em> for the past three years, starting with Scott Brown. The attempt at getting the message received really hit its stride with the historic 2010 democratic defeats - not to mention loss after democratic loss in Wisconsin alone over the past year of recall mania. And all of it (at least for now) culminating with Scott Walker's enthusiastic reconfirmation. I'm not going to hold my breath on a presidential epiphany. In fact, I'm rather hoping he won't have one until he receives one more message on Nov. 6th.<br />
<br />
There will be a lot of moaning - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy8FSyI_Djg" target="_blank">crying, even</a> - over the "stealing" of the election by the eeeevil corporations and their dirty, nasty millions. Perhaps the unions would have had more in their war chest if the DNC had had more faith in their cause and candidate and had <a href="http://www.google.com/" target="_blank">actually given money instead of moral support</a> to help the election as the RNC did. <br />
<br />
On a side note, funny how blockbuster campaign contributions - including out of state money - are <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-14/news/31702899_1_donations-massachusetts-expensive-senate-race" target="_blank">a sign of universal support</a> when its for Obama and democrats, but a sign of the coming zombie apocalypse for anyone with an 'R' after their name.<br />
<br />
The big question now is whether the bitterness can be shed and relationships repaired. As a parent, whenever I have to strongly rebuke one of my children, I know that sometimes there will be a certain amount of anger, resentment, and maybe even a temper tantrum or two. But I also know that eventually they will get over it and life returns to a well-behaved, amiable normal. Unfortunately some children are either not that bright, self destructive, or a combination of the two and fight on far longer than is wise, not caring that they are damaging themselves and others along the way. Let's hope the union hierarchy, whose fifteen month tantrum has cost the state of Wisconsin somewhere in the neighborhood of <a href="http://www.ibwisconsin.com/In-Business-Wisconsin/May-2012/Fox-11-News-Green-Bay-TV-station-says-recall-will-cost-16-million/" target="_blank">$16 million</a>, will wise up soon. Continuing the bad behavior of the past year will only damage the image of the unions further. Considering they have already <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/wisconsin-unions-see-ranks-drop-ahead-recall-vote/print#ixzz1wSAESaLG" target="_blank">lost in excess of half their dues-paying membership</a> since the reforms were put in place, they certainly can't afford to alienate anyone else.<br />
<br />
It's time to concede and move on. I would counsel conservatives to not spike the ball on this too much (never mind that I've written a whole post that is pure ball spiking!), as we don't want to give cause to extend the epic pout we are in for over the next few days. But considering some of these people are fine with slapping their own candidates, I see no reason why we can't slap each other on the back a bit for a job well done (happy dances optional)!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-56766383427878082682012-04-13T13:05:00.001-04:002012-04-15T18:43:24.951-04:00WHAT'S NEXT, THE WAR ON APPLE PIE? UpdatedAs a stay at home mom, I have occasionally noticed a certain level of patronization and derision aimed my way by the more left-leaning, feminist career women sector. There seems to be a perception that stay at home moms are rich women who are not pulling their weight in society and have taken the easy way out or, even sillier, that those women are victims of male hegemony who have been brainwashed and, poor creatures, simply don't know any better. The reality is far different, but more on that in a minute.<br />
<br />
Wednesday night Hilary Rosen, democrat strategist extraordinaire, came out with this little doozy:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0vrE7DG1OWc" width="450"></iframe><br />
<br />
The White House is scrambling to get some distance from her comments, not even waiting until morning to chastise her. The bus she went under was chock full of top administration officials, including the President and First Lady personally. Good for them. <br />
<br />
Ann Romney has said that her <em>chosen career</em> was being a mother. I couldn't agree more. For women like us, raising our children is the most important job we can have. For me, being the subject of my daughter's essay on role models is better than any bonus. Seeing my children using the life lessons I have tried to instill in them to raise themselves up and strive for more is better than any promotion. And contrary to Ms. Rosen's bungled talking points, staying home isn't a 'luxury' for most women, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/stay-at-home-motherhood-isnt-a-luxury-census" target="_blank">it just makes sense</a>. I take nothing from working moms - I was raised by two and used to be one myself. I have enormous respect for women who pursue a career and manage to juggle it all. But because our priorities are different from Ms. Rosen's doesn't make them any less legitimate<br />
<br />
<br />
It's pretty obvious that what Rosen was trying to do was <a href="http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/13/hillary-rosen-was-right-ann-romney-is-out-of-touc/?xid=gonewsedit#ixzz1rv9goX00" target="_blank">go after Romney for being rich</a>. Thus the "never worked a day in her life" quip. The implication is that Romney spent her days eating bonbons and lounging around in a peignoir admiring her diamonds while her staff did all the work. Too bad democrat strategist extraordinaire Rosen screwed it up so spectacularly. Ultimately, she feels Romney shouldn't advise her husband because as a rich woman, she didn't have to deal with the financial struggles many women are dealing with today while raising her children and thus can't really identify with the 'common people'. Which, ironically, could have been a legit class warfare argument (if you go for that sort of thing), if only it hadn't been delivered by ol' Hamhands Rosen.<br />
<br />
Non plussed by the negative blowback, Rosen doubled down:<br />
<br />
<img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-454620" height="220" src="http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/rosentweet.jpg" title="rosentweet" width="420" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Wow. Talk about <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/12/democrats-declare-war-on-women/" target="_blank">respectful and sincere</a>! Mind boggling, isn't it? There were several more "clarifications" in the same vein. Again, she is stretching to make the 'Mrs. Moneybags' argument and fails spectacularly. She apparently didn't realize that her statement sounds a lot more like sour grapes than reaching out a hand of reconciliation. She has since offered a more traditional apology - via public statement. I guess there's no phone call for Ann, either.<br />
<br />
The really interesting part of all of this is that this wasn't just a case of momentary foot-in-mouthitis. This might well have been a trial balloon for a line of attack against the likable Mrs. Romney. We all know how necessary it is for Team Obama to shut down any threats quickly and thoroughly. Rosen's clumsy, tone deaf attempt at marginalizing Ann has been an unqualified disaster, without a doubt. But was it a fluke, or was it part of a greater plan?<br />
<br />
With that thought in mind, I'd like to show you a little snippet of a <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/12/We-didnt-have-luxury" target="_blank">speech</a> President Obama made last week at the White House Forum on Women and the Economy that slipped under the radar (<strong>emphasis mine</strong>):<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career. And something that, could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot. Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling. <strong>And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work. And I know when she was with the girls she’d feel guilty that she wasn’t giving enough time to her work, and when she was at work, she was feeling guilty she wasn’t giving enough time for the girls</strong>. And like many of you, we both wish there were machines that could let us be in two places at once.”</blockquote><br />
You decide. The setup for a line of attack against wealthy Ann Romney as an out of touch slacker lolling in the lap of luxury in contrast to hard working, guilt riddled working mom Michelle, or a simple attempt to appeal to middle class working women? Remember, it's not just about "getting a fair shot" it's also about <em>doing your fair share</em>. It's pretty safe to say that if this <em>was</em> a trial balloon, they probably won't follow up on it after the swift and damning reaction Rosen got, although they'll probably try coming at it from a different direction (do I see a Gloria Allred presser with a disgruntled nanny in our future?). They really can't drop it. "Hey, she's rich!" is about all they've got.<br />
<br />
What I would really like to know is, who better than a stay at home mother would know about the economic impact of legislation and the economy on the family budget? Sure, Ann Romney had more in the kitty than many stay at homes, but I fail to see how that disqualifies her from the discussion.<br />
<br />
One more thing: I love to find the silver linings in things, and I've found one in this: Ms. Rosen's day job happens to be democrat strategist with <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/295838/hillary-rosen-frequent-white-house-visitor" target="_blank">access to the top echelons of the Obama administration</a>. Why is this a good thing, you ask? Well, if this is the caliber of strategist they have working for them, this election is a shoo-in. <br />
<br />
For Romney.<br />
<br />
<strong>UPDATE:</strong> Before I start the update, I have a little question I'd like to pose: If making a paycheck is as important as it seems to be to legitimizing who can have a say and who can't, why is volunteerism so revered on the left?<br />
It seems Bill Maher might be having some money troubles, because he seems bound and determined to <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/04/15/abcs-george-stephanopoulos-obama-going-have-cut-ties-bill-maher" target="_blank">shame the Obama SuperPac into returning his million dollar donation</a>. <br />
Left-wing pundits tried to move on quickly from the whole thing, calling it a non-issue and a waste of time.<br />
As I predicted, they keep (<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/04/12/michael-steele-schools-joan-walsh-romney-rosen-dustup-stay-home-moms-" target="_blank">clumsily</a>) trying the "<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/not-just-stupid-outrage-over-hilary-rosens-ann-romney-comments-is-offensive/" target="_blank">Hey, she's rich</a>" line of attack, but could someone explain to me how Princeton and Harvard educated, multi-millionaire Michelle Obama is a legit voice for financially strapped women but Ann Romney isn't? Officially, Mrs. Obama went back to work to pay off school loans, but what fails to get mentioned is her million-dollar house and expensive private schools for the kids - luxuries many stay at home moms either scarifice or never have a chance to achieve. At worst, they're both out of touch, but that doesn't mean they can't advise their husbands. Besides, I'm pretty sure that no matter how dead-on Ann Romney's advice might be, neither Hilary Rosen nor the <a href="http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/12/now-president-defends-hilary-rosen-slams-ann-romney-for-lacking-life-experience-and-imagination/" target="_blank">president of NOW</a> would ever support either her <em>or</em> her husband.<br />
And in conclusion, here is some <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/04/15/abcs-george-stephanopoulos-obama-going-have-cut-ties-bill-maher" target="_blank">food for thought on the deeper reason</a> for why the left disdains stay at home moms. Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-26671855618754371372012-03-30T13:10:00.000-04:002012-03-30T13:10:38.742-04:00WHAT NOW?Now that the arguments both for and against ObamaCare have been made, it is in the Supreme Court's hands. Going into the fight, the law's supporters were cocky and arrogant. Coming out the other side, it's a different story, to say the least (actually, the term "<a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/politics/31247587_1_individual-mandate-freedom-health-care-reform" target="_blank">panic</a>" seems to be the go-to phrase). While we wait for the Court to make it's decision, I'd like to see some ideas from Republicans about what to replace the law with in the event it is struck down.<br />
<br />
It is important to note that while oral arguments went badly for ObamaCare, oral arguments are only a small part of the overall process. It may seem that the law went down in flames, but we won't really know for sure until the Court's session ends in June and they issue their verdict. They vote today on the issue and will spend the next few months writing their opinions. Keep in mind, too, that their vote today might not be the final verdict we see this summer. Justices have been known to change their vote upon reading a particularly persuasive opposing argument. So we really won't know for sure until the published opinions are released over the summer. Anything released before then is mere speculation and should be regarded as such.<br />
<br />
Solicitor General Donald <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/u-s-solicitor-general-donald-verrilli-did-not-do-well-does-it-matter.html" target="_blank">Verrilli is taking the brunt of the blame</a> from the left for the judicial beating the law took over the last few days. Poor guy. His inability to defend the mandate's alleged constitutionality wasn't due to incompetence, it was due to the indefensible unconstitutionality of the mandate. Simply dismissing talk of constitutionality out of hand as the left has consistently done is just not a convincing argument outside of the echo chamber. His stumbling over whether it was a tax or a penalty wasn't because he is too inept to figure out the difference, it's because he has been put in the difficult position of trying to, at times, make it not just both, but also neither. I'd say he did a pretty damn good job, considering. <br />
<br />
The law, as conservatives have been saying for two years now, is fatally flawed. That has now been made quite clear by the probing questions of the Justices that cut through to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) at the heart of the matter. The question now is severability. How do you strike down the mandate without causing an insurance industry "<a href="http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-21/without-mandate-an-insurance-death-spiral/" target="_blank">death spiral</a>"? How do they decide what stays and what goes (my favorite comment on it was <a href="http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/" target="_blank">Scalia's invocation of eighth amendment protections from cruel and unusual punishment</a> in regards to having to read the bill)?<br />
<br />
While we wait for the verdict of the court, due sometime this summer, Congressional Republicans need to take the opportunity to talk about their free market solutions in the event the law is struck down. Having a series of small bills that would implement those solutions at the ready would be a wise decision as well, particularly since the White House has decided to <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/218813-white-house-has-no-contingency-plans-if-health-law-is-tossed" target="_blank">forgo a contingency plan</a>, preferring to keep all of their eggs in the ObamaCare basket. <br />
<br />
Any talk of a "comprehensive" republican approach should be shunned. If we didn't want a 2,700 page monstrosity from the left, why in heaven's name would we want the same from the right? Small, targeted bills that address health insurance issues point by point are the way to go, not colossal, byzantine laws that will require judicial intervention to interpret. <br />
<br />
The "goodies" former Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised us have already been rolled out, and lots of people have felt the benefits of them, particularly those with pre-existing conditions (like myself). Many liberal pundits have argued in support of the law by talking about the pain that would be felt if it was struck down. But keeping the whole confusing, cumbersome, ever-more-expensive law because of a few perks is not a good idea. <br />
<br />
What we need to keep in mind is that striking down the law in toto won't create a vacuum, it will return us to the pre-obamacare system. A system that was <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/26/new-study-shows-higher-health-care-costs-under-obamacare/" target="_blank">cheaper</a>, and <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-two-years-later-2-million-more-are-projected-lose-their-insurance_634385.html" target="_blank">covered more people</a>, by the way. This doesn't mean republicans shouldn't have a game plan ready, though, because while ObamaCare made things worse, they weren't that great to begin with. It should be obvious that among the solutions republicans need to offer is a continuation of the two most popular "goodies" - abolition of pre-existing conditions and an option for parents to keep their 26 year-old adult children on their insurance. The costs for these perks will be passed on to the consumers who opt for them, of course - but then, you're only fooling yourself if you thought they weren't going to under ObamaCare. <br />
<br />
Republicans also need to start making the argument for severing the ties between health insurance and employment, as well as relaxing the regulations governing interstate commerce that keeps the more than one thousand insurance companies in this country from practicing in all fifty states. Toss in a little torte reform and and a few other free market ideas, and the disastrously lumbering behemoth that was ObamaCare can be replaced with a consumer-oriented free market that can be tailored to each individual customer according to their needs, not government diktat.<br />
<br />
Isn't it amazing that Congress wasn't allowed to read the bill before they voted for it, the president didn't bother to read it before he signed it, and now some members of the Supreme Court are calling reading it an eighth amendment violation? Considering the way it was written, it seems even those who were tasked with <em>writing</em> it didn't bother read it. But we're all supposed to be overjoyed and filled with gratitude for having to living under it. Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
For all we know, the Court could decide to uphold the law. God forbid. But in the meantime, doesn't it make sense to be prepared if they don't? <br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, and that <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-health-care-Supreme/2012/03/28/id/434120" target="_blank">lame spin</a> from the left about the law's repeal being good for democrats and bad for republicans? Wow. Proof positive of democratic over reach and the downfall of Obama's signature achievement due to it's being unconstitutional is going to be bad for <em>republicans</em>, eh? Boy, they really <em>are</em> freaking out over on the left, aren't they? They <em>must</em> be tied up in knots to come up with such ridiculously twisted logic. It's almost a little sad, isn't it? Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-72458670698491092792012-03-19T14:19:00.000-04:002012-03-19T14:19:55.014-04:00A LITTLE RETURN FIREThe so-called Republican <a href="http://thehill.com/video/campaign/216687-rnc-ad-goes-after-obamas-war-on-women">War on Women™</a> that the press and various liberals have been ginning up was starting to die down a bit (although Sen. Chuck Schumer is determined to <a href="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Schumer_schemes_to_hit_GOP-142745485.html">milk every drop</a> out of it first). Expect it to heat up again, though - provided the neo-pravda media decide to run this latest wrinkle.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-should-i-expect-your-call/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Bristol Palin</a> is now stepping up to the plate with an open letter to President Obama on the issue. And boy, does she knock it out of the park:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">"If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.<br />
<br />
Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.<br />
<br />
But…<br />
<br />
What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?<br />
<br />
I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals."</blockquote><br />
Over to you, Mr, President!<br />
PS - it seems to be getting a lot of attention, because in the time it took me to read her blog and post my own about it, her site has shut down. Be sure to check back and read the whole thing!Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-45207392396018367712012-03-15T15:47:00.000-04:002012-03-15T15:47:54.008-04:00OCCUPYING THE HUNGER GAMESAs the mom of a teenaged daughter, I find myself reading many books I normally might not, such as the less than exciting <em>Twilight</em> series (although kudos to author Stephanie Meyer for keeping it clean and having Bella wait 'til her wedding night - a rare and refreshing thing in young adult literature these days). But I like to know what my kids are reading, as there are so many questionable books out there. And so I found myself reading the much-hyped <em>Hunger Games</em>. I absolutely loved them. In fact, I read all three books in four days.<br />
<br />
For those unfamiliar with the series, it follows the events of heroine Katniss Everdeen and the two young men who love her, Peeta and Gale. But this is no love story, not by a long shot. No, this book is bloodsport and survival. A David and Goliath story, in which Goliath isn't some rich banker or CEO; Goliath is a vicious, ends-justify-the-means, oppressive totalitarian <em>governmental</em> regime. Unfortunately, one of the stars of <em>The Hunger Games</em>, Donald Sutherland, (perhaps lead there a bit by the interviewer) said this at a recent interview:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Q: It's interesting that you could really connect it to the Occupy moment. The underdog speech is something you might hear on conservative radio.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sutherland: Exactly, yeah. Yeah. Except for Rush [Limbaugh] [laughs]. I bet Lionsgate doesn't want us to dwell too much on Occupy Wall Street. But you're right. I went there. I went to Occupy Vancouver. It felt so good. Somewhere around '74, whatever we were doing was co-opted. It was commercialized. It became a brand and everybody lost heart. I have here [reaches for his briefcase], I have it here I don't want to take it out, The Port Huron Statement, that the SDS made in 1962... Oh god, read it. Read it! Read it! It's so -- it's just brilliant. It's really brilliant. It's brilliant today and I can't read it because I can't see properly, but it ends with something to the effect of 'You might think that what we are proposing is unattainable. But we're proposing that because otherwise what is going to happen is unimaginable.' And that's what happened.</blockquote><br />
Uh, okaaaay.... By the way, for those not in the know, the SDS is the Students for a Democratic Society - a radical '60's group that eventially spawned the Weather Underground, the radical group of bombers headed by William Ayers. So, what Sutherland expects us to believe then is that Occupy's main target isn't bankers, hedge fund managers or CEO's, it's the over reaching federal government? Interesting. And here I though that was the Tea Party. Silly me.<br />
<br />
Anyhoo, back to the book. Learning a little about the story is all you need to see how wrong Sutherland is in his socialistic rapture. His interpretation is so off the mark that it's difficult to imagine he even read the script, let alone the books. <br />
<br />
The setting is a post-apocolyptic America, now called Panem, which has been broken down into thirteen Districts, all ruled by the iron fist of the Capital's President Snow (Sutherland's character). Each district is known for the product it produces: District Four, being near the ocean, produced fish and seafood; District Seven produced lumber; District Twelve, Katniss' home, produced coal. Travel between districts was only allowed to Capital officials, military, and lesser officials stationed in the various districts, not the general population. If you were born in District Three, you died in District Three. <br />
<br />
Many years before Katniss' time, District Thirteen rebelled against the Capital. Reprisal was swift and merciless - no less than the total destruction of the district - and the legacy of that rebellion was the Hunger Games.<br />
<br />
The Games are a yearly event where two candidates, or 'tributes', were sent from each District to the Capital. The tributes, children between the ages of 12-18, were selected at the annual "Reaping", where one male and one female tribute would be randomly chosen from each district. Of those twenty-four chosen, only one would survive. The Games were a major event, broadcast to every District. Viewing was required. <br />
<br />
The point of the Reaping and the Games themselves was psychological warfare, meant to keep the remaining districts docile and in line. The yearly reminder of the ruthlessness with which the Capital put down Thirteen's rebellion is the harshest imaginable: Defy us, and we will kill <em>all</em> of your children.<br />
<br />
The prize for the winner? Fame and riches beyond measure courtesy of the Capital, plus additional bonuses of food and other necessities to the winner's home district for that year. This was an important incentive for Katniss, whose home district was the poorest of them all and starvation was something barely kept at bay. In fact, the spectre of starvation was so strong that, upon the loss of her father at a young age, Katniss took it upon herself to learn to hunt with a bow, sneaking out of the district into the fertile hunting grounds of the surrounding wilderness to keep her mother and sister alive. <br />
<br />
Katniss' culture shock upon arriving at the wealthy Capital is much like the culture shock citizens of communist block countries endured after the fall of the Iron Curtain. As with totalitarian states in the real world, Panem's Capital sucked up all the resources of it's satellite districts, concentrating the wealth in the elite political classes and those who leech off of them. <br />
<br />
The pomp and propaganda of the Games is reminiscent of both the Roman Circus and the propaganda films of the Nazi party. The blood quells the masses and every moment is spun politically to favor the State.<br />
<br />
Katniss rebels against this system, not out of noble intent or a revived American spirit. America is something she knows nothing about, becasue her history was stolen from her long ago by the Capital. But self preservation and a desire for freedom cannot be quashed, not even by the most ruthless regimes. We see parallels today in Syria, where the people refuse to back down, even though their leader, Assad, has now resorted to bombing their cities. <br />
<br />
Katniss eventually (in subsequent books) comes across an underground network whose sole mission is to depose Snow and bring down the Capital. She joins forces with them, only to discover later that the system they would impose is no better (and possibly a bit worse) than that of the Capital. <br />
<br />
The point is, at every turn, Katniss chooses freedom over the totalitarian state. The enemy isn't the people who make the goods, the enemy is the government that unfairly prospers while the people they profess to be loving caretakers of languish and die from starvation and disease.<br />
<br />
Perhaps Sutherland misunderstood his character. Perhaps he thought the character's name, President Snow, denoted some other title, such as CEO. Now granted, this first movie only covers the first book, which doesn't include the later information involving the possible overthrow of the Capital. So perhaps he thinks that Snow wins out in the end, and the nanny state, which Sutherland apparently believes knows best, continues on unaltered. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately for President Snow, author Suzanne Collins ends the rule of the Capital the way many totalitarian regimes end - with rebellion and bloodshed. If the Occupy movement were a part of the story, they would be fighting on the side of their beloved nanny state, not the side of the rebels, who want to take away their "free" stuff and replace it with true liberty.<br />
<br />
Long story short, my daughter and I can't wait to see the movie (opening nationwide March 23rd). And I can't wait for the sequels to start production, too, so that Mr. Sutherland can get a fuller picture of just what, exactly, the whole thing is all about.Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-67339058422456407662012-02-13T21:10:00.001-05:002012-02-15T11:34:24.123-05:00THE COLLISION OF CHURCH AND STATE UpdatedA firestorm has erupted over the Obama administration's enforcement of yet another of those <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To">little goodies Nancy Pelosi promised</a> we'd find out about eventually. In one more in a laundry list of examples of the contempt in which they hold the Constitution, the administration is subjugating the first amendment to birth control. Pelosi has dismissed claims of unprecedented violations of constitutionally protected religious liberty as merely an "<a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-republicans-want-use-excuse-religious-freedom-harm-womens-health">excuse</a>". The way they talk, you'd think women who worked for Catholic institutions were physically restrained from purchasing birth control. Well, except for the 98% of catholic women who use birth control, of course. <br />
<br />
That's right, they are attempting to use opposing straw men (straw women?) to support their attack. On the one hand, the women are being victimized, unable to be truly healthy because they don't have employer-paid access to IUDs and the abortion pill. The way they talk, birth control pills are a cross between super vitamin and miracle cure. On the other, all catholic women are on birth control and owe their lives and fortunes to their ability to be <strike>parasite</strike> baby free. But ultimately, if you oppose this measure, you are a troglodyte who wants to take women back to the stone age just because you are a mean old meany head. And paranoid.<br />
<br />
Push back to these bogus arguments has been quick and vehement, and completely dismissed or misunderstood. What is being forgotten is that trying to explain the impact it will have on people of faith is a wasted argument, because it would require politicians and media ideologues to understand morals, principles and answering to a higher power. Please note the high level of derision on the left in regards to the issue of the violation of our religious freedoms. Attempting to make people feel silly for believing something might work in politics, but it is much less effective in matters of faith. <br />
<br />
They can muddy the waters all they want, but it's pretty evident that this is all about placing the diktats of the state over the church's fundamental tenets. Under this administration, the much-vaunted separation of church and state is apparently a one-way street. <br />
<br />
I could spend time arguing about the war on Christianity in this country, but this is far more cut and dried, and it is something every American, regardless of religion, should think deeply about. This is a full frontal assault on our religious freedom, no matter what that religion is. Demanding that the catholic church ignore a fundamental article of faith - the sanctity of life - in order to comply with the requirements of the state is exactly why our founders created the first amendment. It wasn't to protect the State from the Church as we have been led to believe over the past few decades as much as it was to protect the Church from the State. According to <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html">Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802</a> in an effort to clarify the issue (<em>emphasis mine</em>):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, <em>that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions</em>, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that <u>their</u> legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or <em>prohibiting the free exercise thereof</em>," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.</blockquote><br />
The phrases I emphasized, "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" are key to this argument because the Obama administration is demanding that the Church change its long-held belief and opinion that contraception and especially abortion are against the will of God. This has been a teaching of the church for centuries; it is a matter of conscience, not convenience, to be tossed aside on a whim - or mandate. By forcing religious entities to fund such things, they are unable to freely exercise their religious conscience. It is a clear violation of our founding document.<br />
<br />
The Constitution is being tested as never before under this regime (yes, <a href="https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=regime+definition&psj=1&oq=regime&aq=5&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=905l2028l0l5101l6l6l0l0l0l0l312l1092l1.3.1.1l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a19adc643edab6bb&biw=1366&bih=578">regime</a>). While most of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-imperial-power-grab-on-immigration/2011/12/27/gIQAaI6GLP_story.html">other</a> power <a href="http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-the-cordray-appointment-constitutional/obamas-power-grab-sets-precedent-democrats-will-regret">grabs</a> under this president have been swept under the carpet, this is an affront on an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-radical-power-grab-on-health-care/2012/01/30/gIQANB7XdQ_story.html">epic scale</a>. The attempts by the media and various administration personnel to argue that this is about "right-wing radicals" trying to take away women's right to birth control or don't want them "healthy" has done nothing to blur the issue. People don't buy the argument that women can't get birth control if they want it. We all know it can be gotten at any pharmacy in this country. As for the poor, well, isn't that what left-wing darling Planned Parenthood is all about? The argument that the Pill saves women from ovarian cancer is an interesting argument, if you want to totally disregard the fact that the pill also increases your chances of getting <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives">breast, cervical and liver cancer</a>. Please note, too, that those who are championing this abomination studiously avoid the topic of abortifacients such as the 'morning after' pill. Making the topic only about contraception is a deceptive little ploy to cloud the issue and attempt to get concessions. Oh, its just contraception we're talking about, what's the big deal about that?<br />
<br />
We the People may be a little lethargic, a little pre-occupied, maybe even a little numbed by all that has happened to us in the past decade, but we're not blithering idiots.<br />
<br />
If there's one thing We the People know, it's our rights, and we don't like having them taken away. Spin it however you want, we know when our rights are being stripped from us. <br />
<br />
No doubt there will be a rash of polls from such unbiased bastions of <strike>propaganda</strike> information as the Washington Post (who <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/06/wapoabc-ends-sample-transparency-in-national-polling/">no longer publishes poll data</a>) and the New York Times in the next few days that will support the administration's actions in an attempt to legitimize this assault on our liberty. There usually is these days. But the thing is, on the subject of faith, people are going to believe their lying hearts before they allow a political poll to dictate their conscience.<br />
<br />
The argument I'm hearing most often is whether the administration's many missteps, over-reaches, and overall disregard for the rights and freedoms of the American people is a product of incompetence or design. The <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/senate-democrats-say-obama-reinforced-his-stance-on-contraception-mandate-at-democratic-retreat/">refusal of the President to back down</a> on this points to design, particularly when combined with his protestations of dissatisfaction over the years with the "negative" structure of the Constitution. But even still, the best-case scenario - the argument for incompetence- is being used far too frequently in this administration and brings up a plethora of other issues in it's wake, most rightly involving suitability for reelection.<br />
<br />
In an attempt at "compromise", the administration offered to grant a one-year waiver to come into compliance. How generous of them, to offer an extra twelve months to come to terms with betraying a belief system that has stood for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
On a side note, am I the only one who has noticed that "compromise" under this administration has meant bowing fully to their demands? These people need not only a copy of the Constitution, but a dictionary.<br />
<br />
And now the administration has come out with a new "compromise". Apparently the insurance companies are expected to pony up the funds to offer free contraception and abortifacients to all religious organizations without passing on the cost to the employer. <em>Riiiiiight</em>. There's no chance in the world that they will pad their premiums to offset the cost, ultimately passing the cost on to the protesting employer anyway, is there? Things like that just never happen. Obama's compromise is his ironclad bond, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/250356/obamacare-and-abortion-facts-william-l-saunders">right Bart Stupak</a>? And, in typical fashion, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/12/white-house-birth-control-compromise-will-stand/">this 'compromise' is not negotiable</a>. Take what they give us and be happy, right?<br />
<br />
He seems to have grossly underestimated the intelligence of the American catholic with this one, 'cause <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/notre-dame-faculty-obama-grave-violation-religious-freedom-and-cannot-stand">they're not buying it</a>. <br />
<br />
Americans across the board should be outraged by this trampling of our first amendment rights. And everyone, regardless of party, should consider this action when they are considering Obama's reelection. If he is willing to <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/senate-democrats-say-obama-reinforced-his-stance-on-contraception-mandate-at-democratic-retreat/">hold the line</a> on a blatantly unconstitutional action like this in an election year, what will he be willing to do over the next four years, when reelection is no longer an issue?<br />
<br />
<strong>UPDATE:</strong> An interesting development in the question of the legality of the mandate. Ed Whelan and David Rivkin of the Wall Street Journal argue that the mandate is in violation of existing law, namely the Clinton-era Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The ways in which the new mandate violates the RFRA are far too numerous to cover in an update, so get the whole story <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223003824714664.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">here</a>. Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-77449642982897732932012-02-03T14:02:00.000-05:002012-02-03T14:02:04.264-05:008.3-ISHThe latest unemployment numbers are out today, and the unemployment rate has dropped to a heartening 8.3%. No doubt there are lots of happy dances in the White House today. But, as with most things in this administration, things are not as they appear. While the administration touts the more than two hundred and fifty thousand jobs created in January, a deeper look at the numbers tells a different story.<br />
<br />
Here are some other numbers to consider before breaking out into a happy dance of your own:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/03/msm-hype-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-grim-reality-thanks-to-1-3-million-people-dropping-out-of-work-force-in-one-month/" target="_blank">1.2 million</a> is our first number. That is the number of people who dropped out of the work force entirely last month. That's a record, by the way.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blog.american.com/2012/02/why-the-official-8-3-percent-unemployment-rate-is-a-phony-number-and-what-it-means-for-obamas-reelection/">63.7%</a> is the rate of participation in the job sector - also a record. And not in a good way - which brings us to....<br />
<br />
30, which represents the <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-" target="_blank">thirty-year low</a> we have reached in work force participation. We haven't had this few people in the work force since 1982, when the US population was a hundred million people fewer. <br />
In reality, counting all the people who have dropped out of the work force, unemployment is at about eleven percent. Add in all the people who are working part-time jobs because they can't find anything else, and you're looking at an unemployment/underemployment rate north of fifteen percent. But hey, Mr. President, happy dance it up!<br />
<br />
Just for fun, let's see where those people who dropped out of the workforce have gone over the past three years. Well, it seems a lot of them have managed to make their way to the food stamp line, where we have a <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/12/06/food-stamp-use-on-the-rise/" target="_blank">record 46.3 million</a> Americans. That's up significantly from the 28.2 million Americans who were on food stamps when President Obama took office. One in seven Americans are now enrolled in the program.<br />
<br />
How about Welfare? Well, since Obama <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/stimulus-bill-abolishes-welfare-reform-and-adds-new-welfare-spending" target="_blank">repealed the major welfare reforms</a> of the 1990's, it's on the rise. This isn't going to change anytime soon, either, as states are once again being paid to add recipients to the welfare rolls. <br />
<br />
Oh, and <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nonfarm-payroll-surge-gain-low-wage-jobs" target="_blank">almost half of the jobs gained were "low wage</a>" jobs. Which is better than nothing, to be sure, but when we're losing high-paying jobs and replacing them with low wage jobs, that doesn't bode well for the economy.<br />
<br />
False numbers, false hope, false change. That's all we have here. Still in the mood for a happy dance?Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-48391402845009495162012-01-23T14:22:00.000-05:002012-01-23T14:22:51.149-05:001,000 DAYSTomorrow night, President Obama will be giving his State of the Union address. In it, he will doubtless take the opportunity to throw some barbs at the Do Nothing Congress™ he has become so fond of demonizing. He will push his "We Can't Wait™" schtick, trying to sell the idea that Congress or that pesky Constitution are holding him back from the fundamental change he so desperately wants, in a vain attempt to justify his unconstitutional power grab.<br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, tomorrow is also another major milestone for America. It marks the one thousandth day since the democrat-led Senate last passed a budget.<br />
<br />
So who is more do-nothing - the House republicans who have passed <a href="http://hayworth.house.gov/in-the-news/weekly-address-highlights-rep-nan-hayworth-on-gop-jobs-bills-fullyear-payroll-tax-relief-extension/" target="_blank">nearly thirty jobs bills</a> since they took power a year ago, or the Senate democrats who refuse to bring a single one of them to the floor for a vote in an effort to carry water for President Obama's Do Nothing Congress™ campaign push?<br />
<br />
When the president talks about the obstructionist Congress, he's not just whistling Dixie. But in true democratic fashion, he is <a href="http://theripleyreport.blogspot.com/2012/01/projection-and-reversism.html" target="_blank">projecting</a> the inactivity for which his own party is responsible onto House Republicans, while his lapdog press happily echo it for all it's worth. He <em>has</em> to run against a Do Nothing Congress™, because the other option is to run on his record, and we all know <em>that's</em> a non-starter. And if you don't have a Do Nothing Congress™, why, good ol' Harry Reid is there to make sure you do!<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see how his 'free markets are evil' meme goes over, considering polls like <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2012/70_prefer_free_market_to_government_managed_economy" target="_blank">this</a>. According to that, it certainly doesn't seem like pushing a top-down, government managed economy is going to be a big seller in November. But when you live in a bubble and refuse to give credence to such polls, <a href="http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/02/democrats-emphasize-its-not-over-pelosi-says-theyll-keep-majority" target="_blank">the most unexpected things happen</a>.<br />
<br />
There's another benefit to Senate dems refusing to pass a budget. One can't help but come to the conclusion that passing a budget that calls for, say, <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/14/Obama-Budget-Cautious-on-Debt-Reduction.aspx#page1" target="_blank">$1.6 trillion</a> in deficit spending would raise a hue and cry and put the excessive federal spending of this administration in the spotlight, as happened with President Obama's (I use the term loosely) "budget". Passing contentious continuing resolutions instead keeps the spending blurred and harder to keep track of - and offers the additional bonus of a handy bludgeon to go after republicans to make them seem stingy and mean for saying no to the out-of-control spending. Think about it. When are you more responsible with your money - when you are trying to keep to a budget or when you just spend as the need (or desire) arises? It's a no brainer. Well, except in Washington.<br />
<br />
Delusional lefties whine that republicans have kept them from passing a budget with filibusters and other dirty tricks since Obama took office. Well, as far as the past year goes, that's a stretch considering the House actually passed a budget, the Ryan Plan, which the Senate refused to even acknowledge and a second, President Obama's, that the Senate voted down unanimously - but at least it got a vote. But what about the other two years of the Obama administration - one of which featured a democratic House majority and Senate <em>super </em>majority, and the other with just plain old democratic majorities in both houses? How is it that they were able to pass Obamacare - arguably the most unpopular piece of legislation to be signed into law in recent memory - but they couldn't pass a <em>budget</em>? <br />
<br />
One thousand days of irresponsibility at the hands of Democrats in Washington. Here's hoping we only have 287 more to go before REAL change comes to town.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/H2r_YevgDj4" width="425"></iframe>Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-71911676245737320432012-01-17T21:00:00.000-05:002012-01-17T21:00:43.909-05:00A SCANDALOUS EDUCATIONThere has been a lot of news out of our public schools over the past few months of varying degrees of importance. From epic fails to blatant corruption, our schools have become less about education and more about social agendas and the illusion of success.<br />
First - and silliest - on the list is the school lunch fiasco out in California. The Los Angeles Unified School District implemented Michelle Obama's program for healthier school lunches and created a new menu that was apparently taste-tested in the exclusive, vegetarian enclaves of Beverly Hills. The new, upgraded menu had such teen-friendly gems as quinoa and black-eyed pea salad and black bean burgers. These exotic offerings have resulted in a record number of students dropping out of the lunch program, opting instead to bring Flamin' Hot Cheetos and sodas from home. How bad is it? Well, according to the <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/17/local/la-me-food-lausd-20111218" target="_blank">LA Times</a>, a junk food black market has sprung up in the wake of the new menu:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">At many campuses, an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare is thriving.</blockquote><br />
Oh, if only liberals were as good at encouraging the growth of the free market as they are at encouraging the growth of black markets due to their policies....<br />
They are now revamping the menu, hoping to find healthier versions of the foods kids love, such as pizza with a whole wheat crust, reduced fat cheese and reduced sodium sauce. Might I also suggest baked chicken nuggets instead of fried? Perhaps a salad bar (maybe with an optional grilled chicken breast) or hamburgers made of a beef/turkey blend to reduce fat but keep flavor on whole wheat buns with lettuce, tomato and reduced fat cheese. Some kids might still turn their noses up at the food, but there is a better chance of the kids' palates "<a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mrs-obama-let-them-eat-steak-and-arugula" target="_blank">adjusting</a>" to these changes than vegetable curry and lentil and brown rice cutlets. One would think that would just be common sense, but, then again, this is California we're talking about.<br />
<br />
On a more serious note, there are a few school scandals coming out of the state of Georgia that deserve attention. The first involves <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/new-major-test-cheating-scandal-revealed-in-georgia/2011/12/20/gIQA9Wmb7O_blog.html" target="_blank">school faculty cheating on tests for their students</a>. This one engulfed first the Atlanta school system and then the Dougherty county school district a few months later. While the falsely improved test scores made the schools - and thus the teachers and faculty - look great for a while, the reality is that there are hundreds of students who have been sent out into the world not just unprepared, but actually illiterate:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">“The disgraceful situation we found in the Dougherty County School System (DCSS) is a tragedy, sadly illustrated by a comment made by a teacher who said that her fifth-grade students could not read, yet did well on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT).</blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Remember when teachers took up their low paying, mostlly thankless careers in hopes of reaching and opening young minds? It seems that for every dedicated, devoted teacher these days there is one of the new breed, out for tenure and an easy ride, using their classrooms to push political agendas and leveraging themselves in any way possible, even to the detriment of their own students. Right now, the former outnumber the latter. But in a system where merit means little and tenure and the unions make it impossible to get rid of bad teachers, that paradigm is destined to shift. <br />
<br />
The cheating scandals are being blamed, in part, on No Child Left Behind. Yup, it's Bush's fault. While there is a lot of consternation on the left about "teaching to a test", the reality is, teachers have <em>always</em> been teaching to a test of some major or minor magnitude, from pop quizzes to midterms and finals to the Regents exams I took as a high school student in New York lo those many years ago. The test is to make sure the kids got the lesson or grasped the overreaching arc of the class. A standardized test means a standardized curriculum with a (one would hope) balanced, well-rounded approach to education encompassing all the major requirements of a basic education. Teaching to a test <em>does not</em> make it impossible to produce graduates who can read a job or college application or figure out how much they will owe if they want three pounds of apples at $2.59 per pound. <br />
<br />
In Atlanta, 78 teachers and the principals of 44 out of 56 schools were found to have cheated. In Dougherty county, 49 teachers and 11 principals have been implicated. Hundreds, if not thousands of Georgia students have been cheated of an education. There will probably be lawsuits over this, which means that the taxpayer will be paying the price for these unethical public servants. What a waste, all the way around.<br />
<br />
The second Georgia school scandal is about a little blended-lesson oopsie over at Beaver Ridge elementary school. Nine third grade teachers, in an attempt to do a "cross-curricular activity" combining a segment on Frederick Douglass with math word problems, sent home work in which <a href="http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/01/09/georgia-school-math-assignment-references-slavery-beatings/" target="_blank">some problems referenced slavery</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">The first asked, “Each tree had 56 oranges. If eight slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?” The other said, “If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?”</blockquote><br />
<br />
The thing about Frederick Douglass was that, while his life in slavery was violent and brutal, he escaped to freedom at the age of twenty and spent the rest of his life as an outspoken abolitionist and suffragist who affected change through his oratory. His gift for words eventually won him the respect and friendship of none other than Abraham Lincoln, and it isn't hard to imagine that long fireside talks between Lincoln and Douglass helped keep the steel in the president's spine and the fire in his belly. It is, unfortunately, unsurprising that the teachers at Beaver Ridge chose to focus on the twenty years Douglass was enslaved as opposed to the fifty-seven years he spent crusading for the final fulfillment of the Founders's vision of a truly free people. Their students would have been better served with questions like, "If Frederick gave four speeches on abolishing slavery and two hundred people came to each one, how many people heard him speak?" or "If Frederick's abolitionist newspaper, The North Star, published twenty-one editions per week, how many editions were printed each day?". But no, one must push the America-is-a-mean-country meme at every opportunity, mustn't one? Yes, slavery happened in this country. Yes, it was a bad thing. But was his <em>enslavement</em> the point of his life, or was it his breaking of the bonds of slavery and rising from those horrible circumstances to create a bold, outspoken life that lead to enlightenment and, eventually, freedom for all? Instead of that fine legacy, all those kids will remember is that he was a slave who was supposedly beaten every day and apparently had to pick oranges. Again - what a shame.<br />
<br />
Our public schools are rotting from the inside out. The widespread corruption and lack of ethics, combined with the complete disregard for the harm they are doing to the students in their care is breathtaking. What makes it worse is that these cases in Georgia are just the tip of the iceberg. In the past three years, FairTest (the <a href="http://www.fairtest.org/" target="_blank">National Center for Fair and Open Testing</a>) has documented confirmed cases of test cheating in <em>thirty</em> states, as well as the District of Columbia. <br />
<br />
Many parents feel as though they are hostage to the school in whose district they live. While they desperately wish there was another alternative, for most families private and parochial schools are out of reach. While there are some great charter schools out there, there are also some really, really bad ones, too and it's pretty much a crap shoot on what might pop up in your neighborhood. So what's a parent to do? <br />
<br />
Get involved.<br />
<br />
Let's face it. Parents who are involved in their child's education are going to realize that little Timmy, while in 6th grade, is reading at a first grade level. Involved parents will hold teachers and schools accountable. Widespread corruption resulting in hundreds of kids falling through the cracks can only happen when people aren't paying attention. Not only have we gotten used to the idea that our schools are solely responsible for teaching our children everything they need to know about life from mathematics to birth control, but we apparently don't even feel the need to make sure they're competent at it.<br />
<br />
What a shame.Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-40468930583500807852011-12-10T19:31:00.001-05:002012-01-18T11:17:10.908-05:00FOUR REASONS UpdatedThere has been a lot of talk in both the media and the republican establishment about Mitt Romney being the only truly electable GOP candidate. It is common opinion amongst the pundits that Romney is the best person to go up against President Obama and win and polling seems to support this theory. The problem is, many conservative voters just aren't buying what they are selling. His inability to garner more than twenty-five percent support, spun in the press as consistent front-runner status, was more about the other seventy-five percent looking for someone else. He ran in 2008; we know who he is and what he's done and we see some major problems with his candidacy. The pundits are happy to write it off as tea partiers being too stupid to know what's good for them, but when you look at the facts, their spin just doesn't add up.<br />
<br />
As a little reminder, these are the same group of people who sold us Sen. John McCain as the only reasonable, electable, moderate candidate, blah, blah, blah. The problem isn't that the Tea Party is too conservative. The problem is that the country has been dragged so far to the left by the rise of Obama, Pelosi and their radical progressive ilk that anything not progressive or borderline socialist seems excessively conservative by comparison. Let's not forget, too, that Romney's electability is a bit of a myth in that the man has run for senate, governor and president in the past with only one resulting win, his single term of office as Governor of Massachusetts. If being 1-3 is a winning record, then my Eagles aren't doing nearly as bad as I thought!<br />
That aside, there are four main reasons why Tea Party conservatives tend to want anyone but Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee:<br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203914304576627683818892932.html" target="_blank">Romneycare</a>. This is a no brainer, and the biggest hurdle he faces. Romneycare knocks out one of the biggest political bones of contention - Obamacare - thus neutralizing that line of attack. Mitt can talk about the difference between state mandates and federal mandates until he's blue in the face, but for many in the electorate, a mandate is a mandate. If he felt able to mandate once before, who's to say he won't mandate again? After all, even Obama himself on the campaign trail in 2008 reassured Americans that he would not sign any bill that had an individual mandate.<br />
<br />
2) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checker-biography-romneys-dubious-explanation-for-slow-massachusetts-job-growth/2011/10/28/gIQAhclXmM_blog.html" target="_blank">Job Growth</a>. I won't call it 'job creation' because, as we all know, government doesn't create private sector jobs, it only creates the environment for job creation. Anyhoo. Romney's record on job growth in his years as Governor of Massachussetts is pretty dismal. Forty-seventh out of fifty isn't very good, no matter how you slice it. In addition, the state's unemployment ranking went from twenty-ninth to seventeenth after three years of Romney's stewardship. Considering jobs are second only to the economy at large for voters, this record can hardly be seen as a recommendation.<br />
<br />
3) Bain Capital. Obama and his DNC operatives have been working overtime on ginning up some good old-fashioned class warfare, and a Romney candidacy might be at the heart of it. <a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-14/politics/30278452_1_photo-attack-ads-memorable-shot" target="_blank">This picture</a> sure doesn't help. It will be easy for Obama and democrats to tie Romney in with the Wall Street crowd. Plus, Bain was all about buying failing companies and dismantling them - thus <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/03/nation/la-na-romney-bain-20111204" target="_blank">putting lots of people out of work</a>. Bain + Romney = Rethuglican Meaniehead.<br />
<br />
4) The Cool Factor. President Obama and Mitt Romney have something other than Obamneycare in common - their cool quotient. And I don't mean 'cool' like James Dean Cool (sorry, Obots). I mean cool like cold fish, unapproachable, chilly. The reason conservatives haven't warmed up to Romney is because he's just not, well...warm. Herman Cain made it to the top tier, even with his abysmal foreign policy chops, because he's a genuine, likeable guy. He is also someone who sees life the way a majority of Americans do; not from a lifetime of privilege and politics, but as someone who worked his way to prosperity against the odds. His enthusiasm for and love of country was also a winning combination for patriotic Americans tired of being told to be ashamed of their country.<br />
<br />
The American people have been through a lot over the past ten years or so. When Barack Obama was elected into office, we thought we were getting a charismatic, empathetic young dreamer who wanted to unite this country and move it forward into the new century. Instead we got an arrogant man whose ideology is a throwback to 1933; someone who has spent most of his term of office attempting to gin up disagreements between various and sundry factions in America. <br />
<br />
Right now, most of us just want someone to tell us it's going to be okay, that the future will bring a return to the heights we once enjoyed; that we will some day be the shining city on the hill once more. Instead we get an absentee president who is too busy vacationing, fundraising or trash talking us to spend any time on the myriad crises we face here at home - one of which is a crisis of confidence. It is this crisis that many Americans have a hard time seeing Mitt Romney ease. His aloofness and untouchable, Candidate Ken™-like quality is off-putting. He will be easily depicted as an elite, upper crust persona, reinforcing the idea of a ruling class and an inability to empathize with average Americans. Obama, on the other hand, the beneficent redistributer of all things welfare, will be painted as the saint of the working class in contrast by his lapdog press.<br />
<br />
The complicit media is certainly doing their part to steer the masses towards Romney, and it's not hard to see why. Ultimately, people aren't warming up to Mitt and probably won't. It will once again be an election where people hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil. The saving grace in the general election is the enormous enthusiasm gap between conservatives and liberals, but having to rely heavily on the electorate's dislike of Obama instead of enthusiasm for their candidate to turn out voters is a risky chance against an opponent who is as well funded and organized as the president. <br />
<br />
The 2012 election isn't going to be just about getting rid of Obama (although that alone would do an awful lot to restore confidence), it's also about what his successor will do when he/she take office. If we have learned anything from the election of Barack Obama it is that a) we need to thoroughly vet candidates and b) we need more than 'hope and change' as a platform. For many independents, there won't a lot of daylight between Obama and Romney. Quite often, when you put people in a position where they must choose either the devil they know or the devil they don't, they will either vote for the status quo or abstain altogether.<br />
<br />
There's a good chance that <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot" target="_blank">whoever the republicans nominate will win</a> over President Obama. After all, the man has ushered in an age of food stamps, persistently high unemployment, over-regulation and out-of-control spending. Even the worst RINO would be hard pressed to match his record. But the American people are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils. We want someone who will give us a different choice, and Romney just doesn't seem to be the guy for that. <br />
<br />
Let's face it. If Romney wins the nomination, tea partiers will vote for him. To stay home would be to give their vote to Obama, and that is something no self-respecting tea partier will do. But nominating Romney will keep the GOP on the ropes in the general election by taking away all the major points of attack. It's bad strategy, pure and simple. Independents who haven't been paying attention are an unknown quantity and the target of persuasion in a general election, so a strong case based on the issues <em>must</em> be made against Obama to combat the mud, smoke and mirrors sure to be on the offing from the DNC. <br />
<br />
There is far too much riding on the outcome of the 2012 elections to allow a Romney nomination to take such vital weapons out of the quiver.<br />
<br />
<strong>UPDATE:</strong> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/the-top-three-conservative-arguments-about-romneys-record-that-no-one-has-made/" target="_blank">ABC's Jake Tapper has three reasons</a> why Mitt Romney shouldn't be the conservative frontrunner.Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-19942376198765657752011-12-06T10:00:00.000-05:002011-12-06T22:23:52.993-05:00PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER<a href="http://sisterhoodpatriots.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-obamaville.html" target="_blank">My last post</a> poked a little fun at the Occupy movement. What can I say? I just can't resist such low hanging fruit! Seriously though, aside from hygiene and a disturbing number of anarchists, anti-semites and commies, at the heart of it, it could be argued that Occupy is sort of following in the Tea Party's footsteps. Both want to end the FED, both are vehemently against bank bailouts, and both see crony capitalism as the disease that is crippling this great nation. Unfortunately, the most glaring difference between the two groups is that the Tea Party holds government responsible, and Occupiers think government is the solution.<br />
<br />
At least, until now.<br />
<br />
In an interesting series of events, it came to light that the Mayor of Richmond, apparently an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaLcEnjcWT8" target="_blank">Occupy sympathizer</a>, has been <a href="http://www.varight.com/news/exposed-mayor-jones-screws-taxpayers-of-city-of-richmond-city-paid-7000-on-behalf-of-occupy-richmond-here-are-the-invoices/" target="_blank">passing on the costs of the occupation to the taxpayer,</a> instead of requiring the Occupiers to foot the bill as the Tea Party was. Over the past three years, the local Tea Party chapter has held Tax Day rallies and were required to pay for permits and other fees, to the tune of about $8,500. When the Tea Party realized the Occupiers were getting a free ride, they submitted an invoice to City Hall for reimbursement of the fees they have paid, citing fair treatment under the law.<br />
<br />
The city's response? Why, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/28/richmond-tea-party-claims-to-be-treated-unfairly-by-occupy-friendly-mayor/" target="_blank">an audit</a>, of course.<br />
<br />
The Tea Party isn't going down fighting, and is preparing a lawsuit. What is really surprising is the group that is standing with the Tea Party against the democrat-led City Hall. This weekend Occupy Richmond voiced their solidarity (via <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/02/occupy-richmond-to-tea-party-can-fight-city-hall/" target="_blank">Fox News</a>):<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">“Occupy Richmond believes in absolute free speech, including the right to criticize the government without fear of retribution," Occupy Richmond said in a statement posted Thursday on its website. "Given the duplicitous and violent manner in which the city government chose to raid our peaceful occupation, it would not surprise us if the recently announced city audit of the Richmond Tea Party were retaliation for their criticism of the mayor.”<br />
<br />
The statement also called audits "bureaucratic harassment" and "one weapon oppressive regimes use to silence dissent."<br />
<br />
"Not only do we call on the city to drop the audit, but we also demand the immediate refund of any money paid specifically to secure the Tea Party's free speech and assembly privileges,” the Occupiers said.</blockquote> <br />
Okay, so there's still a little room for improvement. Apparently the Occupy spokesperson doesn't understand that the charges don't just disappear. Those fees cover the cost of cleanup or damage to facilities incurred during the exercise of free speech. The magical creatures who pick up the tab for the mess are not social justice fairies flitting from camp to camp, happy to spend their stardust for the cause. In reality, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/occupy-protests-cost_n_1109695.html" target="_blank">the people who pay</a> are fellow Americans who have been busy working, not camping, and will see their taxes go up as a result of the shenanigans in cities across the land. Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens was happy to have the moral support, but commented that they don't want the taxpayer to foot the bill - that isn't the point of the suit: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">“But this has never been about the money. It was about the principal," Owens said. "A public official should not be able to pick and choose which groups are charged."</blockquote><br />
It is a refreshing change to see the Occupiers starting to identify the government - and not just republicans, but majority party democrats, too - as a major player in the ills of the day. It was almost heartwarming to see them actually <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/occupy-protesters-mobilize-for-obamas-visit/" target="_blank">protesting President Obama</a> on one of his <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/president-obama-fundraising-blitz-manhattan-article-1.984988" target="_blank">many</a>, <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/10/20/WP-Obama-Still-Minting-Money-on-Wall-St.aspx" target="_blank">many</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638" target="_blank">many</a> trips to Wall Street for fundraising cash. They grow up so fast, don't they? Gee, perhaps if the Occupiers went home and sat down and talked to their Tea Party parents, maybe common ground could be established. And maybe, after that, common <em>sense</em>. <br />
<br />
Two things to remember about these angry, disillusioned kids: First, as Churchill said, s<span class="st">how me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains</span>. Second, sometimes a conservative is just a liberal who was <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/04/mugged_by_reality_1.asp" target="_blank">mugged by reality</a>. There has been a mass mugging (sometimes literally) in parks and plazas across the country over the past few months as those who were once embraced and celebrated became those who were being either co-opted or ignored (Tea Partiers can <em>definitely</em> empathize with that). Some poor souls have even been <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/04/awww-some-occupiers-so-traumatized-they-may-need-therapy/" target="_blank">traumatized</a> by it all.<br />
<br />
All we can hope is that the rest open their ears (and minds) and start thinking. Many of our centers for higher education, where we send our children to learn <em>how</em> to think, have become indoctrination centers where they are taught <em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_DgBBwE3G4" target="_blank">what</a></em> to think. Perhaps the disillusionment of their <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/06/inside-the-orwellian-machinations-in-occupy-wall-street/" target="_blank">failed experiment in commune-ism</a> will get them thinking. If Richmond is any indication, the worm may be turning. <br />
<br />
Could it be that the spring might bring a new crop of protests featuring not just Occupiers, but Tea Partiers, too, standing together as one against the banks and politicians? Now <em>there's</em> a thought.<br />
<br />
And if that doesn't work? Well, if you can't beat 'em, <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/occupier_gets_an_occupation_o8x0D8DkpsWB60rSMhcEgP" target="_blank">join 'em</a>! (or <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/03/if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em-occupy-sf-launches-its-own-bank/" target="_blank">become a competitor</a>!)Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-80954756504498762992011-11-29T07:09:00.002-05:002011-12-04T19:33:19.390-05:00MY OBAMAVILLEMY OBAMAVILLE<br />
(sung to Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville)<br />
<br />
Nibblin' on soy cake<br />
Man, I am so baked<br />
All of those hippies covered with paint<br />
Bangin' my drum kit<br />
I bet you hate it<br />
The smell might make you want to faint<br />
<br />
(Chorus)<br />
<br />
Wasted today again in my Obamaville<br />
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot<br />
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame<br />
All I know is it's not government's fault<br />
<br />
I don't know the reason<br />
Private property seizing<br />
Nothin' to show but some lice and some fleas<br />
But I got of easy<br />
I'm not that sleazy<br />
So at least I don't have STD's<br />
<br />
(Chorus)<br />
<br />
Wasted today again in my Obamaville<br />
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot<br />
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame<br />
Now I think<br />
It might be government's fault<br />
<br />
Government fat cats<br />
Gettin' their kickbacks<br />
I'll wash yours if you wash mine<br />
How can this not be <br />
Laundering money<br />
Robbin' the taxpayers blind<br />
<br />
(Chorus)<br />
<br />
Wasted today again in my Obamaville<br />
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot<br />
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame<br />
Now I know it's crony government's fault<br />
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame<br />
But I know it's crony government's fault<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Cross Posted at The Ripley Report</div>Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-10931485386969131762011-11-06T18:23:00.005-05:002011-12-04T10:49:43.070-05:00THE PALINIZATION OF CAIN UpdatedPolitico and the liberal media in general are in the process of "Palinizing" Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. The anonymous, vague allegations of gestures and comments that might make some people "uncomfortable" are the thinnest of gruel, but Politico has managed to squeeze not one or two, but <a href="http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/politico-publishes-90-stories-cain-scandal" target="_blank">over <em>ninety</em> stories</a> out of the "scandal". When shock jock Howard Stern opined that it's nothing more than a smear campaign, sidekick Robyn rebutted that 'that's what politicians do'. This is par-for-the-course liberal equivocating, but the fact is that this wasn't done by a politician, it was done by an alleged <em>news</em> publication - an entity that, if nothing else, opens itself up to litigation when it resorts to peddling fact-less innuendo. It seems the future of journalism is distortion and allusion - turning allegations into convictions - and the future is now. Don't forget to stir the coals and <strike>implicate more republican candidates</strike> report on speculation over where the leak is coming from (when you <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282165/ipoliticoi-tawdry-andrew-c-mccarthy" target="_blank">already know damn well</a>)! <br />
<br />
When Sarah Palin emerged on the national stage, she was immediately perceived as a threat to the democratic ideal that minorities -women included - are strictly democratic voters. Well, the ones not suffering from <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-janeane-garofalo-says-gop-women-have-stockholm-syndrome" target="_blank">Stockholm Syndrome</a>, that is. They managed to bring her down with an overwhelming number of legal challenges to her in her capacity as governor. These bogus suits were costly not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the time spent dealing with them instead of the business of the state (which she was then criticized for neglecting). The fact that none of the suits had any merit and cost the Alaskan taxpayer millions means nothing. The ends justified the means. <br />
<br />
Herman Cain poses an existential threat to the locked-in democratic votes of the black community. There is a possibility that a choice between a black democrat and a black republican might cause some to reassess their true political leanings, rejecting the traditional knee-jerk liberalism. This cannot be allowed to happen.<br />
<br />
And so the palinization of Cain has begun. <br />
<br />
His portrayal of himself as a non-political everyman has encouraged a perception of him as having an aura of decency and strong personal ethics. He comes across as a man of integrity - plain-spoken, patriotic and honest. These are all things sorely lacking in the current occupant of the White House. This is NOT a comparison democratic operatives want the public making in the general election. Since it is impossible to attempt to recast Obama as a man of integrity, patriotism and a champion of personal responsibility, it is necessary to instead bring Cain down. They simply <em>had</em> to drop his credibility level.<br />
<br />
Don't forget that this was also attempted in 2008 against Senator John McCain after he won the primary. Allegations of an affair between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman were dismissed rather quickly. The New York Times - purveyor of the smear - ended up <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/nyt-settles-with-lobbyist-accused-of-affair-with-mccain-20090219" target="_blank">settling the dispute with a retraction</a> in January of 2011 (one of <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/new-york-times-issa/2011/08/26/id/408806" target="_blank">several the NYT has had to print</a> in recent months in regards to smearing conservatives).<br />
<br />
The media meme of "where there's smoke, there's fire" is quite convenient for palinization, considering as many anonymous accusers as necessary can be ginned up to smear Cain and plant the seed of doubt about his ethics without any need for pesky things like facts or corroboration. The best part is, instead of having to file costly lawsuits like the antics in Alaska, all that's required are barrels of ink and reams of paper. So much cheaper! This new trend towards "take my word for it, it's bad" journalism is quite a change from the traditional standard of verifiable sources and hard evidence.<br />
<br />
Apparently there is no need to discover if allegations are true nowadays. Just the fact that someone has been <em><strong>accused by anonymous sources</strong></em> is enough to convict - at least in the press. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Proof of a settlement is no proof at all, particularly when it comes to sexual harassment allegations. It is routine for large companies to pay off on claims like this as it is far cheaper (even at $45,000) than investigating and defending a suit. Ultimately, a southern man - particularly of a certain age - calling someone '<a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/%E2%80%9Ccain-said-%E2%80%98darling-do-you-mind-doctoring-my-tea-for-me%E2%80%99/" target="_blank">darling</a>' is as much sexual harassment as Brigadier General Michael Walsh's calling Senator Barbara Boxer <a href="http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Dont-Call-Me-Maam-Senator-Boxer.html" target="_blank">'ma'am'</a> was an attempt to somehow demean her. Ridiculous.<br />
<br />
That Cain has enjoyed a bump in not just contributions but polling, too, shows that the public just doesn't seem to be buying what Politico is selling. The question is, has it cast at least a shadow of a doubt on his character? The media are certainly trying to imply that, but his support seems to be as strong as ever, even after a week-long journalistic full court press. NRA's consent for the non-disclosure agreement to be lifted should put an end to the matter once and for all. At this point, the accuser restricted by the agreement is unwilling to go public, and none of the others seem too keen to step forward either. <br />
<br />
The big question is, will this palinization work? <br />
<br />
So far, it hasn't. In fact, his less than stellar handling of the situation might do more to damage his prospects than the initial allegations themselves. There is also the possiblity of another accuser stepping forward, but if her accusations are as flimsy and vague as the other three, it's more likely the public will take it with a boulder of salt, roll their eyes and move on. Don't get me wrong - if Cain has skeletons in his closet they must, by all means, be brought to light. It's called <em>vetting</em>. If the media had done half as good a job vetting candidate Obama, we'd be talking about running against incumbent President Rodham-Clinton today - you know, the one who <em>wasn't</em> hanging out with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko. <br />
<br />
But that would be to imply that those associations carried just as much political import as those of Jane Doe numbers One, Two and Three. <br />
<br />
How silly.<br />
<br />
<strong>UPDATE:</strong> Herman Cain has suspended his campaign after a woman named Ginger White stepped forward and claimed a thirteen year affair with the candidate. It seems that this particular bit of smoke had some fire behind it. Cain blames the media for his sinking polls and thus the suspension of his campaign, but it would be more likely that his poor performance in interviews and debates - particularly on foreign affairs - did him in. If allegations of affairs with presidential candidates were disqualifiers, Bill Clinton would never have been elected. But the Lothario-in-Chief got into the Oval Office because his responses and debate performances were as strong and rock-solid as his libido. In my opinion, Herman Cain's campaign was over with that infamous question on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGGpK7bSWc" target="_blank">Libya</a>. It's painful to watch. I'm with <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/03/opinion/cupp-cain-candidacy/index.html" target="_blank">S.E. Cupp</a>. He just wasn't up to the task and it was only a matter of time before it became obvious.Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-86488264228718888852011-10-17T11:08:00.000-04:002011-10-17T11:08:42.973-04:00THE FALL OF FUNJohn F. Kennedy Elementary School principal Ann Foley sent out an email to her teachers last week informing them that she was banning all fall holidays, claiming they are "insensitive". The teachers at the Somerfield, MA school had already been instructed to tell their students that there would be no dressing in costume on Halloween, which falls on a Monday this year. In the email she stated (via <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/15/massachusetts-principal-aims-fall-holidays-says-theyre-insensitive/">Fox News</a>):<br />
<blockquote><br />
"When we were young we might have been able to claim ignorance of the atrocities that Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous peoples," Kennedy School Principal Anne Foley wrote.<br />
"We can no longer do so. For many of us and our students celebrating this particular person is an insult and a slight to the people he annihilated. On the same lines, we need to be careful around the Thanksgiving Day time as well."</blockquote><br />
Okay, get a grip. <br />
<br />
Look, to be honest, I always thought it was sort of silly celebrating Columbus Day, considering the man <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/11/11/1235290.htm">never actually set foot on American soil</a>. But honestly, couldn't this have been handled a little better? Just a hint to Principal Foley - use of the word 'atrocities' in an elementary school memo about holiday parties is a bit excessive. Perhaps raising the possibility that Leif Ericsson (or Polynesia or China) was the first to discover America might have been a better, less explosive angle. As for parents going to the school superintendent to get the ban lifted, they are probably in for a long slog:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Superintendant Tony Pierantozzi told The Herald that Halloween is “problematic” because of connections to witchcraft.</blockquote><br />
Yes, the roots of Halloween go back to paganism, but Celtic pagans were <em>not</em> witches. For them, Samhain (also known as the Winter Solstice) was a mystical night. It was the Celtic New Year's Eve - the end of the harvest, the end of the year. The work was done - crops harvested, herds culled, land fallow, flora and fauna easing into winter sleep. They believed that on that night, the wall between this world and the next came down and the souls of the dead roamed the earth. The Celts would leave offerings and say prayers for those lost over the preceding year and indulge in a little ancestor worship on the Solstice - a tradition adopted by the Romans when they conquered Celtic lands and, eventually, the Catholic Church, who changed the name to All Hallow's Eve.<br />
<br />
Taking away the Halloween and Thanksgiving parties for elementary school children is just ridiculous. It's a real shame that the kids can't dress up. It is, after all, <em>elementary</em> school. My girls really looked forward to the annual Halloween parade at school, followed by a little "Monster Mash", cupcakes and juice in the classroom. It was, if nothing else, an hour-long oasis of fun from the monotony of the daily routine.<br />
<br />
As for Thanksgiving, perhaps Principal Foley should google the origins of the holiday. According to <a href="http://www.thanksgiving-day.org/origin-thanksgiving-day.html">Thanksgiving-day.org</a> (emphasis mine):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In the summer of 1621, owing to severe drought, pilgrims called for a day of fasting and prayer to please God and ask for a bountiful harvest in the coming season. God answered their prayers and it rained at the end of the day. It saved the corn crops. </blockquote><blockquote>It is said that <strong>Pilgrims learnt to grow corn, beans and pumpkins from the Indians, which helped all of them survive</strong> . In the autumn of 1621, they held a grand celebration where 90 people were invited <strong>including Indians</strong>. The grand feast was organized to thank god for his favors. This communal dinner is popularly known as “The first thanksgiving feast”. There is however, no evidence to prove if the dinner actually took place. </blockquote><br />
How atrocious. The Indians saved the pilgrims and the pilgrims repaid them by sharing the bounty. The horror. <br />
<br />
On a side note, am I the only one who feels a little sad for her that, instead of seeing a beautiful moment of outreach, peace and harmony between two very different peoples, she sees atrocities and insults? It must be stressful carrying around all of that anger and hate. Sounds like somebody needs a hug.<br />
<br />
There will surely be a new memo circulating soon, detailing how Principal Foley is going to suck the fun out of the Winter Holidays, too (better not call it Christmas - her head might explode). Considering there are more religions observed in this country than just Christianity and some religions celebrate a special event - such as Hanukkah - in December, if schools want to call it a Holiday Party instead of a Christmas party, that's just fine. But let the kids have their parties, whatever PC name you pin to it! <br />
<br />
They're kids - they don't care about the impact of Columbus' exploitation of the indigenous population of San Salvador, the religious puritanism at the root of the Salem Witch Trials or the separation of church and state issues that some use to attack Christmas celebrations. All they care about is that they get out of classwork, they get to eat cupcakes and maybe - just maybe - they get to play a few games and have some fun. At Halloween, they look forward to showing off their costumes to their friends, not recruiting a coven and practicing black mass. It's a break from the routine, a way to cut loose. Since many schools no longer offer music or art programs, recess or gym, these parties are some of the only outlets for fun left to them during school hours. <br />
<br />
So Principal Foley, how about we keep the politics out of it and let the kids be kids and have some fun?Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3160064568835612960.post-16335884136604016432011-09-22T23:56:00.002-04:002011-09-23T10:19:03.317-04:00"NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY GOT RICH ON THEIR OWN" UpdatedProgressive Elizabeth Warren is in the running for Republican Scott Brown's Senate seat in Massachusetts. There's no mushy middle ground for this lady, so it should be an interesting race. At a recent campaign stop, Ms. Warren said this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/htX2usfqMEs" width="450"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.<br />
<br />
<br />
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.<br />
<br />
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”</blockquote><br />
<br />
First of all, companies aren't like sourdough bread, where you reserve some of the yeast for the next batch. Business owners already "pay it forward" in many ways - by providing intern programs, scholarships or mentoring, to name a few. Second, the "big hunk" government allows companies to keep doesn't go right in the owner's bank account. It makes payroll, buys materials and machinery, advertising, shipping, and myriad other things. Most small business owners don't see a profit for the first five years. Most businesses operate with a lean 2-5% profit margin. Every new tax, fee and license the State demands cuts into that. People aren't in business for philanthropy, they're in it for success and money. Profits are NOT evil - if nothing else, without them who would be footing bills like <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-warrent-buffett-to-host-fundraiser-for-obama-in-chicago-20110921,0,2294.story">this</a>?<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/09/elizabeth_warre_1.html">Boston Globe</a> actually tries to spin her comments as conservative, if you can believe it. It's an interesting take, but what author Ben Jacobs misses is that for conservatives, a good faith 'social contract' between the factory owner and the taxpayers who pay for the infrastructure upon which he is dependent isn't about an unspecified increase in taxes (how much is fair? when is it enough?) or punishing regulation. The factory owner fulfills his obligations by giving the homeowner whose property taxes paid for the infrastructure a silly little thing called....a <em>job</em>. You know, the thing people do to earn the money to pay the property taxes to keep the road that they themselves use every day to get to work at the factory or one of the many other businesses that crop up around manufacturing centers like restaurants, shops, hotels, apartment complexes, car dealerships - need I go on?<br />
<br />
By the way, isn't it interesting how greedy old business owners apparently don't pay any taxes at all? At least, that's how progressives make it seem lately. (Maybe it's because so many of the progressive <strike>cronies</strike> business owners they know <em><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ">don't</a></em>) So we're to believe there are no property taxes on the building housing the factory - no permits, fees or licenses needed, at the very least? What about business taxes? Payroll taxes? Or don't those count? Some go into the federal piggy bank, others to state and local. But make no mistake, <em>everybody</em> gets a slice - including the workers who take their portion as paychecks, perks and bonuses.<br />
<br />
Yes, there is a social contract between a large business and the community that supports it. It is a symbiotic relationship that, when done right, nurtures and supports both parties. Many businesses even participate in community outreach such as <a href="http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Target-Unveils-New-Library-Video">Target, who partnered with Oprah Winfrey to give my daughters' school a new library</a> in appreciation for their dedication to promoting reading. Just think of it as private sector <em>voluntary</em> redistribution of wealth from Target to the kids of Ocoee Middle School. But when government steps in and begins punishing businesses for their success through excessive regulation and confiscatory taxation, they are not only sabotaging the businesses, but the communities with whom they are so closely tied by taking the resources that would have gone into the local community and redirecting it to Washington. <br />
<br />
As of now, Warren is the front runner in her race against Brown for the Senate. It will be interesting to see how her comments are taken by the Massachusetts public. We truly are at a crossroads with the 2012 election. Which will we choose - a further slide into the floundering European model of high unemployment, high taxes, excessive regulation and low productivity or a return to the founding principles of smaller federal government, more power to the states and, above all, fiscal sanity. If Warren remains the front runner, it will be clear that there really <em>is</em> a desire to punish the private sector and grow the public as the press has been claiming. There was certainly no ambiguity in her statement to confuse voters about where she stands. She has pinned her hopes on class warfare and redistributionism. If Brown retakes the lead, well...if even uber-liberal Massachusetts gets it, there's hope for the rest of the country.<br />
<br />
<strong>UPDATE:</strong> Oh dear God in Heaven. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/krugman-the-social-contract.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">Looney old Paul Krugman is calling Warren a "financial reformer"</a> whose "eloquent" comments have spoken truth to power. If by "financial reform" you mean more of the same tax and spend policies that the democrats have been shoving down our throats for decades (and really put on steroids since 2007) then sure, she's a real "reformer". Ripleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03084714996372103357noreply@blogger.com0