Fearmongering

We've been hearing a lot about fearmongering as it relates to any political debate. Right now the opposition to government run health care are being accused of spreading misinformation and fearmongering; so what exactly does that mean?

Wikipedia defines it as: is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.[citation needed]

Merriem Webster defines a Fearmonger as somebody who incites alarms needlessly.

If we use the Wikipedia definition then isn't anybody who says, "hey this bad thing could happen" considered a fearmonger?

If we use the Webster definition then is pointing out potential and probable issues around government health care really raising a needless alarm?

The biggest question though may be why it's ok to be a fearmonger when you oppose something, but bad to have a fearmonger opposing what you support? For example, does anybody remember the attempt to fix social security by phasing it out; giving the young people another option while leaving people over a certain age on the social security program? What happened to that? Opponents screamed that seniors would have their benefits taken from them and be left to die in the streets. Completelly untrue according to the information proposed but I guess that wasn't bad fearmongering because it was done by the same people crying about fearmongering now. But what is the fearmongering now? Is saying that there will be rationing of healthcare in the US based on what has happened in every other nation who has tried this type of program really fearmongering? Is telling the truth as you see it, calling out a consequence there is a high probability of occuring, fearmongering?

So here's how I see it -- Telling both faced lies about a proposed legislation and using those lies to scare the shit out of the general population is not fearmongering, but showing the true and actual potential problems of a piece of legislation is bad fearmongering.

Do I have this wrong?

Obama On Immigration Reform

While at the North American Summit, President Obama addressed the issue of illegal immigration. The clips below are from the Washington Post.

"Wrapping up the two-day meeting, Obama said that there needs to be "a pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, and that the system must be reworked to avoid tensions with Mexico. Without it, he said, Mexicans will keep crossing the border in dangerous ways and employers will continue exploiting workers."

Avoid tensions with Mexico? So having a secure boarder might create tensions with our neighboring nation, but we'll pay no attention to the tensions created within our own nation over NOT securing the boarder. Isn't this like saying that though the neighbors keep breaking in to my house I'm not going to lock my doors because my neighbors may not like it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?

Mexicans will keep crossing the boarder in dangerous ways? So what we're really interested in here is making it less dangerous for the Mexicans to violate our immigration laws? I know that's my top priority when it comes to immigration reform. It's so dangerous to break our laws that we should just do away with the laws all together. That will make everything so much nicer because right now it's just tragic what they have to go through to bypass all of our immigration laws and boarder patrols. I think it is tragic what people suffer when violating our laws, but we can't forget that they wouldn't be going through any of it if they weren't violating our laws.

Employers will continue to exploit workers? The workers of course have no culpability in their own exploitation; or should we make it easier for them to get false documentation so they aren't exploited. It's just so unfair that we don't give somebody who shouldn't be here taking the job of a citizen the same way we treat the citizen. How rude.

"We can create a system in which you have . . . an orderly process for people to come in, but we're also giving an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in the shadows," Obama said during an hour-long news conference at the Cabañas Cultural Center in downtown Guadalajara. "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult."

So they don't have to live in the shadows? How dare we force the people who break into our country without documentation, violating our immigration and labor laws and putting stress on our educational and healthcare systems, to live in the shadows.

The common theme in these statements from Obama is that none of the fault for the illegal immigration issue lies with the illegal immigrants. It's all our fault and the poor illegal immigrants are being unfairly forced into dangerous environments to get here illegally, exploited when they try to work illegally, and live in the shadows like a criminal just because they're here illegally.

So the people who violate the laws are the victims and the people who seek to uphold the law are the criminals. Isn't that typical.

Bend Over For The President

While in Italy the President was captured checking out a backside reportedly attached to a 16 year old girl. This could be just a man appreciating a thing of beauty, after all, who hasn't looked at something that caught your eye just to find out it was something you really shouldn't be looking at? I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the fact that, since he took office, he's been asking every American to bend over and grab their ankles.

But here we have a man who is trying to pass legislation, and pass it quickly, which will grow the federal government to the largest it's ever been. He's taking us further and further away from the government listed in our Constitution and the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence. He is single minded in his goal to turn us into Europe, the one thing our Constitution was supposed to protect us from. But maybe he only wants to be someplace where he can ogle a teenage girl's backside with impunity. But if that's the case, I wish he would have moved there on his own and left us the hell alone.

And why do you think it is so important to pass the healthcare legislation before the August break? Is it because the crisis that they've been talking about for 20 years just can't wait a day more? Will all of us be bankrupt from our medical bills by the time Congress comes back? Nope. But if the congressmen get back to their own districts and find out just how upset people are about the high cost and low return, his bill will really be in trouble. People may want a healthcare bill, but they also want a good one.

I for one am a little ticked at the idea of our healthcare reform bill including money for parks, walking paths and street lights. They may say it's an encouragement for people to exercise, but if you don't go out and walk now, streetlights aren't going to help.

So when it comes right down to it, I'd rather have our President looking at a teenage girls butt instead of him asking me to bend over and present him with mine.

A Universal Belief in Free Speech?

I've been out of the country for a few weeks so am late in posting my response to President Obama stating that there is a Universal Belief in free speech as he responded to the protests in Iran over their elections.

Free speech may be a truth we hold to be self-evident, but it is not a universal belief. It is what separates us from so many other countries. Iran doesn't believe in the freedom of the people. Pretty much everybody except Obama is aware of this. Iran will deal with these protests very differently than we would, mainly because they don't believe in freedom of speech or the right of the people to protests. This is, I'm convinced, exactly why they are now forbidding foreign press from covering the protests.

The freedom of the people to worship as they choose, speak out against their government, and peaceably assemble in protest is a right of people in a free nation where the government is run by the people. It is not a right in a Theocracy and it is not a right in a Dictatorship. Just ask anybody speaking out against Hugo Chavez what kind of rights of free speech they have.

Stating the freedom of speech and the ability to protest is a universal belief was naive at best and downright stupid at worst. Does Obama really believe that? Does he really believe that all countries agree that the people have a right to speak out? Did he believe that Saddam Hussein felt that way? If so, I guess it would explain why he thinks we're so arrogant for trying to intervene. We do believe that everybody has the right to speak, but not everybody is allowed that right. Some are imprisoned. Some are executed. Some are bankrupted. The whole tragedy of so many countries is that it is not a universal belief.

With legislation regarding hate speech, and the increasing prominence of political correctness, we don't even have the full rights of free speech here anymore. And who is a great component of limiting what we can say and to whom? Obama. Not offending somebody has become more important than our right to say what we like. It's kind of strange because though our Constitution does say we have the right to free speech, it does not say anywhere that I can find that we have a right to not be offended. If what I say offends you, well then, you have the right to say something that offends me but you do not have the right to silence me because you are offended. And you may have the right to speak, but you do not have a right to be heard. Basically, nobody has to listen. And Congress and the White House prove that quite well by not listening to a word we say. So how then, can Obama say that the right of the people to speak is a Universal Belief? Is it because he sees the world as he thinks it should be instead of how it actually is? Possibly.

And I won't even get started on how Achmadinijad was polling behind and ended up winning 2 to 1.

Congress To Legislate TP Usage

In the new green environment of Congress and the Obama Administration, legislation is being passed to control how we use products that impact the planet. When the Cap and Trade was proposed, Republican Roy Blunt said, "Taxes on air my ass!" This gave the Democratic leadership in congress what they believe is a brilliant idea.

"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."

New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."

The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.

Sotomayor - Good Story - Bad Judge

Sonia Sotomayor is being officially announced as the Obama appointee for the supreme court. Ms Sotomayor is the example of the American dream. Starting out poor with a father who didn't go to high school and then died young, she was raised by her mother with little money. She worked hard and changed her circumstances in life through that hard work. She worked her way up through the legal hierarchy to become a judge on the court of appeals. I respect her for that, but her appointment as a Judge should not be based on her personal stories but on her job performance.

Ms Sotomayor has what Obama wants and that is empathy. The one thing that our legal system is NOT supposed to have. Justice is blind. This means that the rule of law is applied without consideration of the ethnic, religious or financial background of the parties involved. Look at the rule of law not the individuals involved. But Obama wants the blindfold removed from justice, and Ms Sotomayor has a history of stripping that blindfold and making decisions based on the background of the people.

The most glaring example of this "empathy" is in the New Haven fire department case. The fire department told the firemen that promotions would be given based on the results of a test. However, they turned around and changed the guidelines when the test results didn't show them what they wanted. Unfortunately, the people who did the best on the test were white men and a Hispanic man. The New Haven fire dept decided they couldn't promote those people because of the color of their skin. An obvious and glaring example of racism and discrimination. When the firemen sued, Ms Sotomayor threw the case out with no explanation as to why. No legal standing for the dismissal. No constitutional basis for the dismissal. Based on other things she has said, it becomes apparent that she dismissed it because it was a bunch of white men bringing the case.

This same case is now going to the Supreme Court. How awful for the men suing to then have to present the case again to the same person who summarily dismissed it.

If she were to give her opinions based on the law with equal protection for all, I'd be all for her. But that's not what she'll do. She will do in the future what she has done in the past, and that is to favor some demographic groups over others in spite of the law. Not a good place to be.

Don't Let Your Faith Keep You From Reason

Towards the end of President Obama's indoctrination speech at Notre Dame, he actually told the students not to let their faith cloud their judgement.

"But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds."

So what Obama is really saying here is that doubting your faith is good and natural. And that if you don't have a reason for for stance on an issue other than your faith, that you have no reason for your stance at all. According to our president, any belief that you have which is founded in your faith is an illegitimate stance and you should be "open minded" to the opinions and stances of others. So basically, your a right wing nut job if you make your issue decisions based on your religious and moral beliefs. This is the speech at a Catholic college.

My other blog is about how the rest of this speech was all about him, but the one thing that needed it's own blog was how he more or less told the graduating students at a catholic college that their religious beliefs were irrational. Nice!

Well If The Taliban Says So

The Taliban made an announcement that US Troops had killed civilians and President Obama and Sec of State Hillary Clinton apologized to the Afghanistan President for the tragedy. An investigation, standard procedure in the loss of civilian life, shows that it was the Taliban themselves who killed civilians just so they could accuse the US. Most intelligent Americans would have told the President and Sec of State that this was a a likely possibility, but instead they took the word of the Taliban. What's up with that?

So what they're really saying is that they trust the word and the behavior of the Taliban, an organization known for it's lies and propaganda, over the honor and integrity of our military. But is this really surprising? Going back to the punish the innocent and protect the guilty mentality that I've mentioned before, this is just another example. The President doesn't want to offend the terrorists so he throws the troops under the bus. It is well known that the Taliban uses just these kinds of situations to recruit people and prove that America is really the evil one, but still we took their word. How hard would it have been for the President to say, "An investigation is underway and I am secure that the findings will show that the loss of civilian life was not due to the US air strikes. However, the loss of civilian life, no matter by who, is always a tragedy and you have our deepest sympathies." Not hard at all. But the President simply blamed the US and apologized. Yet another stop on the apology tour.

After giving terrorists that ammunition by all but admitting our culpability, he's going to release photos of interrogation methods. Way to go Prez. Why do I feel like my president has pushed me aside to embrace terrorists instead? Because I he has. Political correctness can be taken too far, and changing the war on terror to an overseas contingency operation, and taking the word of the Taliban over that of our troops, is going way too far.

Overspending Used To Justify Overspending

President Obama held a press conference today (imagine that) to announce that the growing gap between the revenue and the spending shows just how necessary it is to get health care reform. Siting costs for entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, he stated that the amount of money that the government spends on these programs shows just why his Health Care Reform bill needs to be passed.

Working with Lobbyists to address health care costs, he will of course be able to close that gap. Yeah right. What he's really saying is that he needs to get the existing entitlement programs under control so that he can create new ones. What I find so funny is that on the one hand he is admitting just how much these entitlement programs cost the taxpayer, and on the other hand he's talking about creating so many more. He already knows we can't afford the government health care programs we have, but is using that to justify expanding it.

At no time will he admit that the gap between spending and revenue could mean that he shouldn't push his new programs through yet. Instead, that gap will be used to create yet another crisis that they can take advantage of. The overspending will be used to show that health care is a crisis that must be addressed now, with no time to read the proposal.

Of all of the justifications I've ever heard this has got to be the most bizarre.

The Banks Are Off The Treadmill

So the banks have jumped down off the treadmill and the stress test is completed. But oh my, my, my the government doesn't like what it sees. Was there ever any doubt that the government would identify problems?

The funny thing is that on the one hand they're telling us that their stimulus package was great and the downturn is bottoming out, and on the other hand they're telling us that we have to test the banks to see if they can survive if things get worse. So which is it? Are things getting better or worse?

What they're really saying is that they have to show that the banks need even more help so that the government can take even more control. So in the event of a catastrophe the banks would need more money so we better give it now, with all of our strings attached of course. The goal is to turn the banks into marionettes who move only to the government strings to which they're tethered. It's all about control of an industry that the government should not control.

I have an image in my head of the White House staff behind a curtin moving their puppets like Julie Andrews in The Sound Of Music. Oh said the Czar to the lonely banker, lae-de o-de-lae-de 0-de-lay-e-hoo, I'll give your job to Barny Frank o lae-de-o-de-lae-de-o-de-loo.

Ecouraging Companies to Stay By Raising Corporate Taxes

On Monday President Obama said that he was going to crack down on companies and individuals who abuse the overseas tax shelters. Good for him. The abuses he is referring to are already illegal but I'm all for enforcing the law. I'm a little leery about paying for the 800 new auditors in the IRS this is going to require, but enforcing the law is still a good thing.

However, and this is a really big however, in addition to enforcing those laws he's also going to increase corporate taxes. He talked about taxing corporations on the money they make overseas and aren't currently paying taxes on. He made this sound like it was criminal and that they were avoiding paying taxes, but the truth is that they are paying taxes in the other country and paying the taxes here too would be double taxing. And we are the ONLY country who would be doing that. So what he was really saying was that he intends to raise corporate taxes. Obama states that this would encourage companies to keep jobs here, but what about retail stores that have to have employees in stores overseas in order to sell their products? What about companies that need to manufacture in a country in order to be competitive there due to high tariffs and import charges?

If you think this sounds perfectly reasonable, that if they're an American company then the money they make globally should be taxed here, let's put it in perspective of individuals instead of companies. Sales tax is based on where you buy the product not where you live, and sales tax is deferred if the product is shipped elsewhere. But what if this wasn't the case? And what if in addition to paying the sales tax for the area where you bought it or where it was manufactured, you also had to pay the sales tax for where you live? This is the basic principle of Obama's corporate tax plan.

I recently went on vacation to Florida and did quite a bit of shopping while I was there. I paid only the FL sales tax and not the MO sales tax. If we applied Obama's corporate tax plan to me, then I would have paid both sales taxes on everything I purchased there. So let's say that you buy something on-line from an area that has an 8% sales tax and the area you live in has a 6.5% sales tax. Under Obama's proposed plan it would be the equivalent of corporations paying 14.5% tax instead of 8%. And according to Obama, paying double taxes on the same profits is only paying their fair share.

We already have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. And when the state taxes are added on to the federal, some of our states have the highest corporates taxes in the world. For example, our federal tax rate is 25% and Ireland's tax rate is 13%. Which would you rather pay? This, and labor costs, are the reasons that our corporations are moving overseas. But instead of decreasing our tax rate in order to be more competitive, the current administration is raising it.

Instead of encouraging companies to stay by offering a competitive tax rate, they punish corporations for wanting to sell their products in other countries through double taxation. Once again, where is Obama's touted fairness?

How Dare You Expect To Be Paid Back!

The other day, President Obama spoke out against those debt holders who would not accept pennies on the dollar for the Chrysler debt they held. He spoke very harshly about their insistance that they could get a better deal in bankruptcy court and held them (and of course not the company itself) responsible for Chrysler's bankruptcy.

Well first, these debt holders were supposed to be first in line to get repaid and they were getting the worst deal. Where's his touted fairness in that? Second, they are responsible for 401Ks (possibly yours) and they were doing the right thing by their customers. But when Obama said he didn't stand with them what he was really saying was that he was incensed that they would expect to be paid for the debt they bought.

This is really interesting considering that at the same time Obama is spending money we don't have and relying on other countries to buy our debt in order to do that. So on the one hand he's asking for countries to buy our debt and on the other hand admonishing debt holders for expecting to be paid. What message do you think this sent to China? I believe what China heard was "Don't ever expect to get paid back for this debt you're buying." Paradoxically, China is no longer all that interested in buying our debt. So now we've spent trillions of dollars we don't have and our credit has dried up. This could get really interesting.

But this is just another example of President Obama having one set of standards for himself and another for everybody else.

Educate yourself and speak out.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

Justice Was Blind But Now She Sees

Justice is blind. This is the cornerstone of the American Judicial system. The non-negotiable belief that the law should be applied the same way to all people. That no matter who you are, the law applies and it applies the same way regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. This is who we are as a nation. This is about to change.

President Obama announced that he will be seeking a new Supreme Court Justice who will bring "empathy" to the bench. Somebody who can understand what it means to be black, to be poor or to be gay in America. What he's really saying is that he is looking for somebody who will apply the law differently based on an individuals personal situation in life. Justice will no longer be blind. The law will no longer apply the same way to all. Special considerations will be given to different demographics. Lady Justice's blindfold will be removed.

He has also stated that he is looking for a Justice who will take a "broader view" of interpreting the Constitution. This means that he is looking for somebody who sees our Constitution as a suggestion. Somebody who will, in effect, legislate from the bench. Somebody who will take us farther away from the core of who we are.

What will happen to the truth that is held to be self-evident when our Supreme Court makes their decisions based on the idea that all men are NOT created equal? This is one Supreme Court Justice, but we have at least 2 more who could retire during Obama's first term. What will our Justice system look like with one third of our bench deciding cases based on the antithesis of what this country was built on? I shudder to think.

Remaking America - Into What It Was Never Supposed To Be

I just finished watching a speech from President Obama which has pretty much scared the crap out of me. We know from the campaign that he wants to redistribute the wealth of our nation, and in his speech he re-iterated that.

He said that he's working to eliminate inequality and restore fairness to our economy. So what he's really saying is that capitalism is bad and socialism is good. As long as we have capitalism there will be inequality, most of it deserved. People are not all the same and they have different talents, different dreams, different work ethics and different priorities. A person who works 60 hrs a week SHOULD make more than somebody who works 30 hrs a week. But according to Obama, paying people who are great at their job more than somebody who is mediocre is unfair and unequal. By saying he is going to restore fairness to our economy what he's really saying is that he's going to take money from one person and give it to another. Redistribution of wealth (AKA socialism).

What scared me the most though was when he said he was beginning to "remake America". Cold chills went down my spine when he said that. What he was really saying was that he intends to throw out all of the principles the country was built on and turn us into Europe. America does not have to be remade, but it does need to be restored. We have moved too far from our basic principles and Obama's plan is to toss them aside all together and start over. Absolutely frightening.

I'm Not Willing To Fight

I am here for you to cut through the political language and get to the heart of the message. Wade through the 5 min answer to a simple question to get to the simple answer. Today's translation has to do with the release of the water boarding information. We have several translations for that.



I'm just a simple Hillbilly so I have to break down the bull to figure out what's really being said. I've never understood why the truth has to be cloaked in crap and 100 words have to be used to give an answer when 5 words tell the whole story. I'll give you my perspective on what's being said and you can agree or disagree as you see fit. I won't tell you what to think, but I will tell you what I hear.



The Obama administration has stated that they released the information on the advanced interrogation techniques because the ACLU filed a suit and they were probably going to win anyway so we may as well release it now. Translation of this - "Our national security is not worth a fight with the ACLU and whenever they file a suit we'll cave." Isn't that reassuring.



Then we have Nancy Pelosi talking about what she new about those same techniques. She says that she was told that they were determined to be legal and that they might be used but not that they would be used. There are several different translations of this. The most likely is Translation 1 - "I knew what was going on and I thought it was a good idea at the time. I've since changed my mind and am attempting to cover my ass. I also think the American people are too stupid to figure out what I'm doing." However, we also have Translation 2 - "I'm a total dumb ass with no deductive reasoning skills. With my limited brain function I knew I couldn't' get a job in the private sector so I've stayed in Congress where full brain function is not required."



If only our politicians spoke in the straightforward terms of the so called hillbillies and rednecks. If they would only say what the really mean. But then, you wouldn't need me to translate.