Obama secession petitions: 34 of 50 states petitioning the president to secede
It's unclear whether these petitions are a nod to dissatisfaction that some conservatives think may soon match Civil War proportion,or not. However, the utter contempt for the Obama administration indicated by this petition drive, which appears to be on its way to all fifty states, is very clear.
====================
Commentary by walford
Greetings from Virginia.
These petitions at the very least make an explicit statement that, in the aftermath of the most recent election, many of us are finding ourselves in a country that is no longer a nation.
In its bid for power-by-any-means, the Party of Jim Crow has successfully played upon fear, envy and other base emotions selling the bill of goods that dependency and hedonism are to be exalted, while the values of freedom, self-reliance and equality under the law -- upon which the Party of Abraham Lincoln were founded -- are out-dated at best and evil at worst. People who stand for limited government and individual rights are smeared as by definition stupid, ill-informed and/or evil.
We have a smirking, disdainful elite that is increasingly unable to conceal its contempt for the general population for whom it purports to advocate. Much of their energies are spent thwarting popular will if it cannot be manipulated via carefully managed information from the classroom, Movie Theater, T.V. screen and press. They are building a medievalist society in which the vast majority is deliberately kept poor, ignorant and disenfranchised.
And yet they are lionized as champions of the masses.
They consider themselves entitled to have political influence grossly disproportionate to their numbers. Much like the Machiavellian princes of pre-democratic Europe, they regard themselves superior [without having to be bothered to offer proof as to why] and therefore tasked with Divine Right the responsibility to lord over us as paternalistic tyrants -- because we cannot be trusted to see to our own economic needs and personal security. Hence, they are against anything that empowers the citizenry and for anything that fosters dependency.
Rather than being born into this class, one gains exalted status via the political arena wherein the rules depend upon with whom you are connected. They make it clear that there is no legitimate means to garner personal economic success other than in the media, politics or the entertainment industry. They have many convinced that it is not possible to gain wealth while creating jobs in the private sector except through treachery that must be roundly punished. If people lose jobs as a result, this is blamed upon capitalist greed, not their policies.
And there is no such thing, of course, as greed for the ability to use the coercive power of government to hold sway over others.
It is not too hard to predict the results of the medieval barbers currently in charge prescribing more blood-letting as a cure for economic anemia. Most people don't care about politics, but they do care if they can provide for their most basic of needs as wages remain flat and the cost of living soars. There simply are not enough of “the rich” to provide for the rest of us and most still have enough pride and integrity to want to pay their own way.
What will come of this, it is hard to say. But those of us who truly love America are not going to stand idly by and watch our country lain waste by those who demonstrably fear and loathe the Land of the Free.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Post-Mortem on the 2012 GOP Presidential Election Loss: Rush-bo and Huff-Po Were Wrong
In a Nation of Children, Santa Claus Wins
By Rush Limbaugh
...Mitt Romney and his family would have been the essence of exactly what this country needs. But what was Romney's recipe? Romney's recipe was the old standby: American route to success, hard work. That gets sneered at. I'm sorry. In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins? And say what you want, but Romney did offer a vision of traditional America. In his way, he put forth a great vision of traditional America, and it was rejected. It was rejected in favor of a guy who thinks that those who are working aren't doing enough to help those who aren't. And that resonated.
Top Ten Reasons Romney Lost
By Bob Burnett
...Romney had to tack to the right to secure his base and this turned off self-defined centrist voters. Obama overwhelmingly carried both liberal and centrist voters. The electorate has gotten wise to the Republican Party; they understand that they are radical conservatives -- out-of-touch with the middle class. Ultimately, that's why Romney lost. It indicates that no Republican presidential candidate would have been electable.
============================================
Commentary by walford
I only agree with a small amount of both assessments. The roots of the GOP's loss in the Presidential election are deep. The NEA has had a near monopoly on our childrens' education for several generations now and its self-serving secular humanist, collectivist agenda has had its effect. The continually declining test scores stand as testament. Each succeeding generation must struggle independently to be fully informed on American history and our role in the world. Most cannot be bothered and should not be blamed for that.
Beyond that, the Left and the Democrat Party that it dominates considers politics to be a blood sport. They play for keeps and for them, the end justifies any means. They played what in basketball is called a full-court press. They utilized their domination of the media and entertainment industry to full advantage, making sure that any facts that would undermine the Obama/Biden campaign would be suppressed and any that would harm the GOP challengers would be distorted and exaggerated. Out-right lies were not off the table.
The moderator insinuating selective "fact-checking" in real-time during one of the debates -- thus making herself a third participant -- stands as an example. The fact that her assertions [about Obama specifically labeling the Benghazi attacks as terrorism on Sept. 12, 2012] were later debunked made no difference. Most people didn't see that because the mainstream media didn't cover it, so for most Americans, this and many other factual falsehoods -- as well as policies that have impoverished us at home and made us unsafe abroad -- simply didn’t happen.
If a tree falls in the forest and the mainstream doesn't cover it, it doesn't make a sound.
For their part, the Republicans were naive, thinking that sticking to the facts in response would be sufficient. Romney and Ryan in particular were too polite when it came to challenging their opponents when they evaded exposure of their numerous flaws with respect to foreign and domestic policy. Romney failed to confront Obama and his minions touting a video that nobody had seen when the attacks were underway. The President bleated about this "horrible" video that "we had nothing to do with" six times during his Sept. 25 UN speech and also added that "the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam." Romney failed to point out how one of the makers of video was paraded before the cameras in a handcuffed “perp-walk” a few days after the attacks, thus giving the impression that Shari’a Law is being enforced at the expense of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
Huffington Post’s Bob Burnett said that Romney “blew his chance to score points on Benghazi.” During the Vice-Presidential debate, Ryan also allowed Biden to slither away with the curt dismissal of “mistakes were made and we need to make sure it doesn’t happen again” and “we didn’t know” without pressing for specifics and offering what should have been done if an effective administration were in charge.Most importantly, Romney/Ryan failed to make the case as to why all Americans have been put into danger by demonstrating weakness to a culture that regards such behavior as an invitation for further bloodshed.
They were not asked who decided to immediately blame a video that nobody had seen being the cause of “spontaneous demonstrations” when in fact a coordinated attack took place. And fewer still have looked into how the inflammation of deadly protests in at least twenty predominantly Islamic countries may have any relationship with Obama’s repeated statements of mea culpa on America’s behalf. Of course, the media should have been pressing Obama/Biden on this, but when the question was [meekly] asked, the President responded, “we’re conducting an investigation” and reporters took this as sufficient and did not press the issue further.
The GOP challengers also did not bring this up, which surrendered the issue to those who are actually responsible for the housing bubble and the financial crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed mortgages to people who demonstrably could not make the payments. In 2005, Republicans warned of this and were dismissed by Barney Frank and the Democrats as doom-sayers.
After Obama was sworn in, the Democrat Congress pushed through a “financial reform” package that not only left Fannie and Freddie conspicuously exempt, it put the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for a blank check on their behalf.
Obama touted the taxpayer-funded and federal government-managed bailout of the auto industry -- basically as a Shining Example of the virtues of central planning. He successfully smeared Romney with advocating GM and Chrysler being dismantled, with the plant and equipment sold off and all of the employees fired. Romney did not effectively counter this, explaining in layman’s’ terms that the auto bailout was actually done for political reasons and accomplished the very political end of preserving union jobs and leaving their exorbitant contracts off-the-table when costs and efficiencies were evaluated. Romney did not explain that if these automakers had been allowed to go into bankruptcy, the courts would have husbanded decisions being made for economic reasons rather than political ones and that the result would have been companies that were more efficient, producing vehicles that people would want to buy -- and would not have cost the U.S. taxpayer a cent.
With respect to illegal immigration, the Democrats successfully perpetuated the canard that Republicans want soldiers knocking on doors in the middle of the night, rounding up families and sending them anywhere, so long as it’s south of the border. [Given that many here illegally come from places where this is a real possibility, this fear is palpable to them.] The GOP does not at this time have a coherent response and policy. Some say to put up a fence and militarize the border. Others say the local police should round up illegals and keep them until the Federal government gets around to doing something with them. Still others slouch toward amnesty masked as “immigration reform.”
A simple, humane and cost-free solution would be to reserve taxpayer-funded benefits for U.S. citizens and summarily deport anyone arrested committing a crime while being here illegally. Also, the incentive for the cruel spectacle of pregnant women braving the desert to give birth to a taxpayer-funded meal ticket should be removed. The spirit and purpose of the 14th Amendment should be honored by making it so those born to non-citizens are legally considered citizens of their parents’ native lands -- which is how it is in most countries in the world, including Mexico. The Republican leadership must make it clear that they are not beholden to commercial interests addicted to cheap, easily exploitable labor. They must make it clear that they will do what is best for the American people so wages will not continue to be kept flat in part by a huge labor glut fueled by millions of economic refugees.
The Supreme Court had no business issuing legislation from the bench on the subject of abortion in 1973, making it so only other unelected judges with life tenure can change the ruling. [This is why the Democrats are so hysterical about which President is appointing Supreme Court justices.] The American people are divided on this issue and this matter should therefore be left to the states, with the respective legislatures making law that is subject to review and revision based upon popular will as it evolves. Adding contraception to the mix, the First Amendment guarantees not only free speech, but freedom of religion as well. That means that Catholics, Muslims and Jews should not be compelled to pay for someone else’s abortions and contraceptives.
I have found some of Rush Limbaugh observations on the Democrat rank-and-file's mindset to be insightful, regarding how it compares to that of the Republicans. He points out that the Democrat Party is actually more diverse in perspectives on various issues, many are conflicting in fact. Black Democrats might not want Heather’s Two Mommies imposed on their children in the classroom -- which is why may of them are increasingly drawn to vouchers -- but they are willing to hold their noses and vote for the Party of Jim Crow anyway because nearly all Democrats are united on the prospect that government is the solution for just about anything.
But I disagree with Rush on his observation that the majority of the American people have chosen government as Santa Claus because that is more attractive than being told the truth and that it involves thinking and working for yourself.
The fact that Romney/Ryan got a significant bump in the aftermath of the first debate demonstrates that there are enough Americans who are willing to keep an open mind and will revise their opinions if given relevant facts.
The Republican Party certainly needs to do some soul-searching now if we are to remain relevant -- and if America is to have a chance at recovering prosperity and security. We must not listen to those who call on the GOP to emulate an European conservative party by touting that we could more efficiently manage a social welfare state. Those within our ranks who think this way must be identified and unceremoniously purged.
We must unabashedly stand for freedom and courageously expose our opponents as standing for poverty, oppression and ignorance -- intentionally or not. And I urge our Libertarian friends to stop dividing those who advocate for freedom and re-join the Party of Abraham Lincoln.
We have struggles ahead and must be united in purpose and clear in resolve if freedom is to have a chance. If your way is right, your ideas being implemented means everybody wins. If your way is wrong, everybody loses -- including you!
Monday, October 1, 2012
To Our Libertarian Friends
Commentary by walford
If you are a collectivist and vote for the Communist or Socialist Party candidate instead of Obama, your vote might as well be for Romney.
If you favor personal/economic freedom and vote for the Libertarian or other third party candidate instead of Romney, your vote might as well be for Obama.
The American electorate has been acclimated toward increasing collectivism and central planning for several generations now. Even most Republicans cannot conceive of an America without the Income Tax, Social Security, Medicaid, the Federal Reserve, public schools, welfare and other government institutions that are at best unnecessary in a free society.
Private charity that is geared toward getting people out of poverty rather than government entitlement that is geared toward keeping people dependent -- at cost of their own freedom -- would be far better at providing for those truly in need. Private investment in which companies must convince people they would get a good return on their own dollars would be far better at allocating capital to everyone’s benefit rather than companies that are only competent at convincing politicians to give them other peoples’ money.
Only a small minority of us understands these things today. So sorry.
Too many of us think that the people are the State and the State is the people [“we are the government”], so the more powerful the government is, the more empowered are the people. Private property is increasingly seen as only to be tolerated if it serves the State. True freedom and justice is increasingly seen as only possible through the State. It has taken a long time for America to get where it is socially, economically and politically and it will take a practical, patient approach to arrest this process.
You cannot take a train that is hurtling toward a cliff and abruptly reverse its course. Inertia is a powerful force in physics and in society. Romney/Ryan is only promising to slow that process down, which is the most that an ever-thinning majority of voters are willing to accept at this time. I'm not happy about this either, but that's the way it is right now.
Much of Obama’s disastrous economic policies will be slowed down, stopped and even reversed if Romney is in the White House. The private economy will improve significantly with the uncertainty taken away. That would be a good start. Then we can make the case for how much better off America would be under economic freedom. But it will take time and demonstrable results, which I am confident that the current Republican candidates will deliver. Romney has a proven track record of improving things in the private sector and finding ways to get things done in government even in an environment hostile to freedom like Massachusetts.
We can look to Greece as an example of what beckons if we choose poorly. People there and in much of Continental Europe are so addicted to social welfare programs that to threaten to even slow down the growth of one turns them out into the streets rioting. Obama and his minions lust for the day when this happens in America on a large scale so they can reap the political benefits of being our Sugar Daddy -- and pimp.
America stands at the precipice of the Abyss and the upcoming election will determine whether we will choose the shared poverty and dependency of collectivism or the prosperity and self-determination that comes with economic freedom. The upcoming election will determine which way America goes. It may indeed be seen as the tipping point when the United States sank into oblivion until history is sanitized of the fact that at one time, we had a choice.
There are some social conservatives who believe that America deserves to be punished with the Democrat if the Republican candidate does not 100% support the evangelical agenda.
I'm sorry if the current Republican candidate is not as pure on the economic front as you would like. Does this mean that America must be punished with four more years of Obama? I fear that another term for him will do us in for good.
The Obamanites have gotten an increasing number of us thinking that they are better off taking from the government rather than working for themselves. Such people don’t mind if taxes are raised, because that is not seen as affecting them. To them, raising taxes means they will get more.
It was a mistake to found the Libertarian Party and abandon the Party of Abraham Lincoln to the Jerry Falwells. The best chance of having libertarian policies enacted is to libertarianize the Republican Party from within and diminish the influence of those who think the government should be used to impose theocracy. They are just as bad as the Leftists who wish to impose Secular Humanist dogmatism via the coercive power of government.
We must make the case to the American people that the G.O.P. has always stood for equality under the law, personal responsibility and opportunity while the Democrat Party has stood for inequality, oppression and dependence since the days prior to the Civil War.
If you think that voting third party in order to make a statement is more important than preventing America from irretrievably sinking into collectivism, you are not a part of the Cause of freedom. I invite you to leave the country, buy an island, call it Galt’s Gulch and live out your purist libertarian fantasies.
Leave America to those of us who actually care and are willing to determine what will actually work and how it can be made to happen rather than wallowing on what should be and could be.
If you are a collectivist and vote for the Communist or Socialist Party candidate instead of Obama, your vote might as well be for Romney.
If you favor personal/economic freedom and vote for the Libertarian or other third party candidate instead of Romney, your vote might as well be for Obama.
The American electorate has been acclimated toward increasing collectivism and central planning for several generations now. Even most Republicans cannot conceive of an America without the Income Tax, Social Security, Medicaid, the Federal Reserve, public schools, welfare and other government institutions that are at best unnecessary in a free society.
Private charity that is geared toward getting people out of poverty rather than government entitlement that is geared toward keeping people dependent -- at cost of their own freedom -- would be far better at providing for those truly in need. Private investment in which companies must convince people they would get a good return on their own dollars would be far better at allocating capital to everyone’s benefit rather than companies that are only competent at convincing politicians to give them other peoples’ money.
Only a small minority of us understands these things today. So sorry.
Too many of us think that the people are the State and the State is the people [“we are the government”], so the more powerful the government is, the more empowered are the people. Private property is increasingly seen as only to be tolerated if it serves the State. True freedom and justice is increasingly seen as only possible through the State. It has taken a long time for America to get where it is socially, economically and politically and it will take a practical, patient approach to arrest this process.
You cannot take a train that is hurtling toward a cliff and abruptly reverse its course. Inertia is a powerful force in physics and in society. Romney/Ryan is only promising to slow that process down, which is the most that an ever-thinning majority of voters are willing to accept at this time. I'm not happy about this either, but that's the way it is right now.
Much of Obama’s disastrous economic policies will be slowed down, stopped and even reversed if Romney is in the White House. The private economy will improve significantly with the uncertainty taken away. That would be a good start. Then we can make the case for how much better off America would be under economic freedom. But it will take time and demonstrable results, which I am confident that the current Republican candidates will deliver. Romney has a proven track record of improving things in the private sector and finding ways to get things done in government even in an environment hostile to freedom like Massachusetts.
We can look to Greece as an example of what beckons if we choose poorly. People there and in much of Continental Europe are so addicted to social welfare programs that to threaten to even slow down the growth of one turns them out into the streets rioting. Obama and his minions lust for the day when this happens in America on a large scale so they can reap the political benefits of being our Sugar Daddy -- and pimp.
America stands at the precipice of the Abyss and the upcoming election will determine whether we will choose the shared poverty and dependency of collectivism or the prosperity and self-determination that comes with economic freedom. The upcoming election will determine which way America goes. It may indeed be seen as the tipping point when the United States sank into oblivion until history is sanitized of the fact that at one time, we had a choice.
There are some social conservatives who believe that America deserves to be punished with the Democrat if the Republican candidate does not 100% support the evangelical agenda.
I'm sorry if the current Republican candidate is not as pure on the economic front as you would like. Does this mean that America must be punished with four more years of Obama? I fear that another term for him will do us in for good.
The Obamanites have gotten an increasing number of us thinking that they are better off taking from the government rather than working for themselves. Such people don’t mind if taxes are raised, because that is not seen as affecting them. To them, raising taxes means they will get more.
It was a mistake to found the Libertarian Party and abandon the Party of Abraham Lincoln to the Jerry Falwells. The best chance of having libertarian policies enacted is to libertarianize the Republican Party from within and diminish the influence of those who think the government should be used to impose theocracy. They are just as bad as the Leftists who wish to impose Secular Humanist dogmatism via the coercive power of government.
We must make the case to the American people that the G.O.P. has always stood for equality under the law, personal responsibility and opportunity while the Democrat Party has stood for inequality, oppression and dependence since the days prior to the Civil War.
If you think that voting third party in order to make a statement is more important than preventing America from irretrievably sinking into collectivism, you are not a part of the Cause of freedom. I invite you to leave the country, buy an island, call it Galt’s Gulch and live out your purist libertarian fantasies.
Leave America to those of us who actually care and are willing to determine what will actually work and how it can be made to happen rather than wallowing on what should be and could be.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Free Speech and Islamic Outrage: What Was Said, What Should Have Been Said
What was said -
@USEmbassyCairo (Tweeted 9/11/2012):
“The Embassy of the United
States in Cairo
condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious
feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all
religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks on the United States,
Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the
fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is
a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who
abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of
others."
United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (9/14/2012):
"The United
States government had absolutely nothing to
do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and
reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a
great religion and to provoke rage.
I know it is hard for some people
to understand why the United
States cannot or does not just prevent these
kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. I would note
that in today's world, with today's technologies, that is virtually impossible.
But
even if it were possible our country does have a long tradition of free
expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not
stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful
they may be."
Commentary by walford
She reiterated the point that the
U.S. government had “nothing to do” with the “offending” video as she gave a
speech while the bodies of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and
three other Americans were later being unloaded at Andrews Air Force Base.
President Barack Obama (9/25/2012):
“In every country, there are those
who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who
love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate
freedom for others.
That is what we saw play out the
last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the
Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had
nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by
all who respect our common humanity.
The future must not belong to those
who slander the prophet of Islam."
He later gave a speech before theU.N. General Assembly saying that no religion should be denigrated, even allowing
this for Christianity. This is an improvement for him, but it misses the point
and thus leaves ambiguity for those who mean us harm to interpret to suit their
own intolerant -- and self-serving -- needs. Our freedom of speech should have
been at the forefront and our resolve to defend it unequivocal.
What should have been said -
This is what any President who has sworn to protect the US Constitution should have said on the day the rioting started and repeated ever since -- especially in front of the UN:
This is what any President who has sworn to protect the US Constitution should have said on the day the rioting started and repeated ever since -- especially in front of the UN:
"The United States of America
is a free country with free speech. That is what makes our country
great. That is what makes our country prosperous. People who are free to
express themselves without fear have their creativity unbound to the benefit of
all. There is no individual and no group in our country who is too powerful to
be exempt from robust and uninhibited criticism. And this right of free
expression is extended to everyone, regardless of connections or lack thereof.
People who suffer under oppression
and poverty owe their condition in great part to their lack of free speech. We
in the United States
will certainly not emulate this to appease those who will resort to violence
because of speech that offends them.
Our government is not in a position to
endorse or undermine in any way the free speech of private individuals. Our
government has a responsibility to defend it, however. Specifically with regard
to speech supporting, glorifying, lampooning or criticizing a particular
religion, that is not prohibited in our country.
We understand that picturing or
discussing the Prophet of Islam in a way that is not in accordance with Islamic
teaching and scriptures is prohibited under Shari'a law, under penalty of
death. We do not have Shari'a law in the United States of America. We have a
Constitution which we are sworn to defend, even if that means with blood.
As President of the United States,
I am prepared to defend our freedom of speech using all the means at my
disposal. Those who would threaten or harm Americans lawfully expressing their
freedom of speech should know unequivocally that they do so at risk of their
very lives."
Monday, September 24, 2012
GOP's "War on Women" vs DNC's "Choice"
Risky Choice
The Democrats double down on abortion
National Review October 1, 2012 Issue
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Watching the Democratic convention in Charlotte, at least in the hours before the networks started covering it, one might have gotten the impression that the chief threat to the common good in America is that some people want to restrict what was variously called “reproductive health care,” “the right to choose,” and, most simply if least frequently, “abortion.”
This subject was the theme of speeches by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood; Nancy Keenan, the president of a group called NARAL Pro-Choice America; and activist Sandra Fluke, famous for having been called a slut by Rush Limbaugh. Maria Ciano, addressing the convention as a former Republican, endorsed the right to choose. So did Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and San Antonio mayor Julián Castro. Caroline Kennedy, herself famous for being the daughter of a former president, said that she was especially concerned about reproductive health care “as a Catholic.” Actress Kerry Washington mentioned the right to choose in her speech. The president did as well.
==================
Commentary by walford
The National Review article notes that several pro-abortion speakers addressed the DNC this year, increasing the prominence of the issue. The Republican Party's position on this issue has not changed and GOP candidates have not addressed it unless asked.
It was the Democrat Party that decided to make abortion and contraception synonymous with "women's health." In campaign ads, one of the things that is cited against the Republicans is that they oppose forcing employers and taxpayers to pay for abortion and contraception. That is true.
The Obama administration certainly cannot run on its economic record, so I can see how it would be tempting to divert attention elsewhere by fanning the flames of fear by showing videos of a Republican pushing an old lady off the cliff or implying that they will, as Obama had said, see to it that girls like his daughters would be "punished with a baby" should they "make a mistake."
Republicans object to controversial social issues like these being settled in the courts, understanding that the American people are divided and that their perspectives change over time. Law should only be made in the legislatures by our elected representatives, subject to revision and review.
In that arena, we can debate whether unlimited abortion and contraception are actually in women's interests [as well as society at large] and whether it is proper to force people to go against their conscience and/or religious principles -- in direct contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution -- by paying for these things. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the issue would revert to the states wherein multiple approaches would be tried and changed as is determined by the people themselves.
It is clear, however, that the dominant view in the Democrat Party, is that some issues are too important to be trusted to a popular mandate. They prefer that a non-elected coterie of berobed Philosopher Kings settle the issue once and for all.
So which party is actually "pro-choice" and which is not?
It is one thing to say that the government should not be involved in the removal of a liver or kidney -- which would make the argument that a woman should have the right to determine what is done with her own body. Secular humanist Utopians, in their self-serving hubris, seem to regard the fact that women of child-bearing age are vessels of life as some form of male-conspiratorial oppression. There is a palpable sense that they hold that the child developing in the womb is some sort of STD and should be treated as such.
Slavery, denying the vote and other forms of oppression were made legally possible by defining a certain class of people as second-class citizens -- if not as sub-human.
Many of the arguments in favor of killing an innocent baby in the womb can also be made in favor of a child who has been born.
Princeton ethicist Peter Singer advocates killing babies as long as a year after being delivered if the infant is determined [by whom?] to be "defective." And let us remember that Planned Parenthood was founded as a eugenics organization whose mission was to rid the world of undesirables [viz. people of color] and the disabled. One could argue if a mother had sex with her husband and was subsequently raped, the baby could be subject to execution if the child is determined to be the rapist's offspring.
These are the sorts of things should be subject to debate, revision and review according to a popular mandate. Neither those who are inconvenienced by someone's existence nor a panel of judges are qualified to resolve this issue on a personal level nor in issuing the Law of the Land, respectively. The defining of human life and whether someone is entitled to the protection under the law is much more than a personal choice. Society at large is affected and invested, therefor this essential human rights issue.should be subject to open and continuous debate.
The Democrats double down on abortion
National Review October 1, 2012 Issue
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Watching the Democratic convention in Charlotte, at least in the hours before the networks started covering it, one might have gotten the impression that the chief threat to the common good in America is that some people want to restrict what was variously called “reproductive health care,” “the right to choose,” and, most simply if least frequently, “abortion.”
This subject was the theme of speeches by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood; Nancy Keenan, the president of a group called NARAL Pro-Choice America; and activist Sandra Fluke, famous for having been called a slut by Rush Limbaugh. Maria Ciano, addressing the convention as a former Republican, endorsed the right to choose. So did Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and San Antonio mayor Julián Castro. Caroline Kennedy, herself famous for being the daughter of a former president, said that she was especially concerned about reproductive health care “as a Catholic.” Actress Kerry Washington mentioned the right to choose in her speech. The president did as well.
==================
Commentary by walford
The National Review article notes that several pro-abortion speakers addressed the DNC this year, increasing the prominence of the issue. The Republican Party's position on this issue has not changed and GOP candidates have not addressed it unless asked.
It was the Democrat Party that decided to make abortion and contraception synonymous with "women's health." In campaign ads, one of the things that is cited against the Republicans is that they oppose forcing employers and taxpayers to pay for abortion and contraception. That is true.
The Obama administration certainly cannot run on its economic record, so I can see how it would be tempting to divert attention elsewhere by fanning the flames of fear by showing videos of a Republican pushing an old lady off the cliff or implying that they will, as Obama had said, see to it that girls like his daughters would be "punished with a baby" should they "make a mistake."
Republicans object to controversial social issues like these being settled in the courts, understanding that the American people are divided and that their perspectives change over time. Law should only be made in the legislatures by our elected representatives, subject to revision and review.
In that arena, we can debate whether unlimited abortion and contraception are actually in women's interests [as well as society at large] and whether it is proper to force people to go against their conscience and/or religious principles -- in direct contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution -- by paying for these things. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the issue would revert to the states wherein multiple approaches would be tried and changed as is determined by the people themselves.
It is clear, however, that the dominant view in the Democrat Party, is that some issues are too important to be trusted to a popular mandate. They prefer that a non-elected coterie of berobed Philosopher Kings settle the issue once and for all.
So which party is actually "pro-choice" and which is not?
***
The Constitution does not guarantee abortion, but it does indeed explicitly address the right to life.It is one thing to say that the government should not be involved in the removal of a liver or kidney -- which would make the argument that a woman should have the right to determine what is done with her own body. Secular humanist Utopians, in their self-serving hubris, seem to regard the fact that women of child-bearing age are vessels of life as some form of male-conspiratorial oppression. There is a palpable sense that they hold that the child developing in the womb is some sort of STD and should be treated as such.
Slavery, denying the vote and other forms of oppression were made legally possible by defining a certain class of people as second-class citizens -- if not as sub-human.
Many of the arguments in favor of killing an innocent baby in the womb can also be made in favor of a child who has been born.
Princeton ethicist Peter Singer advocates killing babies as long as a year after being delivered if the infant is determined [by whom?] to be "defective." And let us remember that Planned Parenthood was founded as a eugenics organization whose mission was to rid the world of undesirables [viz. people of color] and the disabled. One could argue if a mother had sex with her husband and was subsequently raped, the baby could be subject to execution if the child is determined to be the rapist's offspring.
These are the sorts of things should be subject to debate, revision and review according to a popular mandate. Neither those who are inconvenienced by someone's existence nor a panel of judges are qualified to resolve this issue on a personal level nor in issuing the Law of the Land, respectively. The defining of human life and whether someone is entitled to the protection under the law is much more than a personal choice. Society at large is affected and invested, therefor this essential human rights issue.should be subject to open and continuous debate.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
To Our Vegan/Vegetarian Friends
Commentary by walford
If our ancestors did not eat meat, we would not be sitting at our keyboards arguing this point at all. Period.
After the australopithicines diverged from the genuses that later became the apes [we are not descended from apes; we are related, via a common ancestor] there was a split in the evolutionary tree.
One of these was Homo, which later became man. The other was Paranthropus, which was a strictly plant-eating anthropoid. This creature had a crest at the top of the skull, much like the modern -- and herbivorous -- gorilla.
This cranial structure served to anchor the jaw muscles necessary to be able to chew on raw plant matter. These muscles, however, limited the possibility for brain development.
The Homo genus on the other hand, was omnivorous and had to develop brain capacity to overcome its physical disadvantages in order to take game -- oftentimes much larger than itself.
The physical difference between Paranthropus and the gorilla is that the former had a human-like body, with an ape head, while the latter was many times more powerful. Put simply, Paranthropus was stupid, weak and slow.
Consequently, this was a failed experiment and Paranthropus left no progeny that carried on into the present day. It was a genetic dead-end.
So if you wish to emulate this extinct species to make you feel better about yourself, know that you are being just as stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, I have steaks to put on the grill.
If our ancestors did not eat meat, we would not be sitting at our keyboards arguing this point at all. Period.
After the australopithicines diverged from the genuses that later became the apes [we are not descended from apes; we are related, via a common ancestor] there was a split in the evolutionary tree.
One of these was Homo, which later became man. The other was Paranthropus, which was a strictly plant-eating anthropoid. This creature had a crest at the top of the skull, much like the modern -- and herbivorous -- gorilla.
This cranial structure served to anchor the jaw muscles necessary to be able to chew on raw plant matter. These muscles, however, limited the possibility for brain development.
The Homo genus on the other hand, was omnivorous and had to develop brain capacity to overcome its physical disadvantages in order to take game -- oftentimes much larger than itself.
The physical difference between Paranthropus and the gorilla is that the former had a human-like body, with an ape head, while the latter was many times more powerful. Put simply, Paranthropus was stupid, weak and slow.
Consequently, this was a failed experiment and Paranthropus left no progeny that carried on into the present day. It was a genetic dead-end.
So if you wish to emulate this extinct species to make you feel better about yourself, know that you are being just as stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, I have steaks to put on the grill.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
An Open Letter to Mitt Romney on Illegal Immigration and Caving in General
Romney's immigration stance may soften to appeal to Latino voters
Mitt Romney may adopt a softer tone on illegal immigration now that the long and divisive primary is over and he gears up for a head-to-head battle with Barack Obama....
"We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," he told donors, according to NBC. Latinos' overwhelming support for Democrats and Obama "spells doom for us," he said.
Commentary by walford
Not all Latinos support illegal immigration and those who do would NEVER vote GOP in the first place. We don't need them. They are either hell-bent on Reconquista or they are not eligible to vote. Both of those groups will be voting Obama in November.
Rather than enforce existing laws, is Romney willing to try to be more of an appeaser to illegal immigration than is Barack Obama? If so, he will fail at this and instead only serve to alienate the Republican base who will be only more inclined to either stay home or vote third party.
What should be done instead? We do not need to militarize the border, build a wall or seek mass deportations. Instead, three things that will cost no money will more than suffice in addressing the illegal immigration issue effectively.
- Reserve all taxpayer-funded benefits for U.S. citizens and legal residents. No driver's licenses. No welfare. No food stamps. No education. Such services should be sought in their native lands. The United States is not obligated to provide for the rest of the world.
- Clarify the 14th Amendment so it applies as it was intended when enacted. Those born slaves or born to slaves in U.S. territory are citizens. Those born to non-citizens -- particularly those who are here illegally -- are citizens of their home countries. The United States is one of the few countries of the world that do not have this policy. There is no good reason for pregnant women braving the desert in pursuit of giving birth to a taxpayer-funded meal ticket.
- All who are convicted of crimes in this country and found to be here illegally should be summarily deported.
These and similar measures will result in many who are here illegally deporting themselves as well as those who are contemplating coming here remaining home and reforming their own countries. The number of American unemployed will have more job opportunities and higher wages as the labor glut is alleviated. By all means, compare the number of unemployed Americans to the number of people in this country illegally.
It is said that Americans would not pick strawberries or pluck chickens, so we must allow illegal immigration, guest worker programs and/or amnesty. In actuality, Americans would not do such work at the wages paid to people here illegally by exploitative employers.
Fostering or even tolerating illegal immigration is not compassionate. It is cruel.
Mexican governments over the past couple of generations have been spared internal pressures to curb the cronyism, respect human rights and foster a business-friendly environment. Why? Because the United States has been serving as a political and economic safety valve for various despotic regimes in the world. The results have been bad for ordinary people on both sides of the border.
Gov. Romney, I implore you to reconsider on this and all other major issues that you may be considering conceding in pursuit of so-called moderate voters. Ronald Reagan won decisively in two national elections because he unabashedly held to the principles upon which the Party of Abraham Lincoln was founded. Unity. Freedom. Family. Self-Reliance. Empowerment. God. Country. Security at home and abroad.
We have had enough of having the GOP leadership taking the base for granted and attempting to placate the squishy middle. They will be attracted to those who actually stand for something. Prove your conservative detractors wrong and don’t betray us. Show us the courage of convictions and don’t apologize for who you are or for America.
Both parties know well what the will and interests of the American people are with respect to illegal immigration and have let us down.
Too many Democrats consider them voters to be bought with taxpayer-funded largesse. Many also are attracted to the fact that they come from places where questioning government authority is hazardous to one's health.
Let us not count you, Gov. Romney as among those Republicans who are beholden to commercial interests that are addicted to cheap, easily exploitable labor.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Redistribution, collectivism and economic freedom
Commentary by walford
Governments cannot redistribute wealth; they can only redistribute poverty. Governments cannot eliminate or curb poverty, they can only eliminate or curb wealth.
The only choice we have is a shared poverty under collectivism and central planning or "the disparities" that accompany the prosperity that is enabled by economic freedom.
There is no way to grow an economy to the benefit of all w/o the rich getting disproportionately richer. So if the very poor will have their wealth tripled, the very rich may have their wealth multiplied a thousandfold. Is this bad? Is a shared poverty preferable?
That is because Economic Freedom raises the bar on how much wealth that it is possible to create. And the concept of created wealth is something that collectivists cannot possibly fathom.
Do not begrudge Bill Gates his fortune. He did not attain it at our expense, taking a larger share of finite pies than the rest of us as the advocates of redistributionist central planning would have us believe. That may have been true under pre-industrial agrarian economies, but not since then.
Bill Gates and those like him have baked new, better, cheaper pies. In the process of enriching himself making computers more powerful and easier to afford, he has also increased what it is possible for us all to attain.
He is a greater benefactor to mankind than Mother Theresa could have been in 10 lifetimes.
Governments cannot redistribute wealth; they can only redistribute poverty. Governments cannot eliminate or curb poverty, they can only eliminate or curb wealth.
The only choice we have is a shared poverty under collectivism and central planning or "the disparities" that accompany the prosperity that is enabled by economic freedom.
There is no way to grow an economy to the benefit of all w/o the rich getting disproportionately richer. So if the very poor will have their wealth tripled, the very rich may have their wealth multiplied a thousandfold. Is this bad? Is a shared poverty preferable?
That is because Economic Freedom raises the bar on how much wealth that it is possible to create. And the concept of created wealth is something that collectivists cannot possibly fathom.
Do not begrudge Bill Gates his fortune. He did not attain it at our expense, taking a larger share of finite pies than the rest of us as the advocates of redistributionist central planning would have us believe. That may have been true under pre-industrial agrarian economies, but not since then.
Bill Gates and those like him have baked new, better, cheaper pies. In the process of enriching himself making computers more powerful and easier to afford, he has also increased what it is possible for us all to attain.
He is a greater benefactor to mankind than Mother Theresa could have been in 10 lifetimes.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Gay Marriage: "Conservatives Understand Liberals. Liberals Don't Understand Conservatives."
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Understand-Liberals.-Liberals-Don-t-Understand-Conservatives/%28page%29/1
"Liberals see conservatives as being motivated by an opposition to liberals’ core values of compassion and fairness, as well as being motivated by their own (non-moral) values of in group loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and spiritual purity. For instance, when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights."
Commentary by walford
When Rick Santorum was recently being interrogated at a college forum about his opposition to gay marriage -- when he wanted to talk about the economy -- a part of his response [that was ignored by the media] was that civil unions are available. [I would add that a person can designate anyone to have financial and medical power of attorney.] He also went on to say that those who wish to change existing laws should make their case [democratically] in the legislatures by our elected representatives rather than in the Courts [by an unelected elite with lifetime tenure whose rulings are only subject to review by other appointed judges].
I would go on to add that marriage is an institution that has developed independently in every society and pre-dates written history. The community as a whole is invested in it because a major aspect and result of marriage -- under what circumstances children are born and reared -- has an effect upon us all. When humans were rare and vulnerable, our ancestors developed social structures and norms that had a direct effect upon survival of the group. We are each descended from those who made the right decisions in that regard.
If the vital institution of the family is to change via government sanction as well as by social mores, this is something the general population needs to discuss at length and any laws enacted be subject to revision and review as consequences make themselves apparent.
Conservative opposition to taxpayer-funded birth control -- beyond any religious objection -- is that it, in combination with abortion, greatly contribute to Westerners selecting ourselves for extinction and women being expected to sexually service men with no commitment. We do not regard this as being liberating or respectful. Behaviors are enabled that in turn create opportunities for micro-organisms to develop -- which our vaunted technology then helps to spread globally -- that otherwise would affect local populations only. Our fertility and continued survival is thusly undermined further. Conservatives consistently hold that Nature's Laws cannot be cheated and that we cannot change the rules of life on this planet to suit fleeting urges.
The pattern is familiar enough. First we are lectured about being tolerant. Then we are pressed to be accepting. All too often it is finally demanded of us to subsidize.
I will be so bold as to say that the above more typifies the conservative mindset than the Straw Men that are so routinely offered to be knocked down.
Instead, it is alleged that conservatives are waging a war on women's freedom and prudishly desire to impinge upon everybody's fun. We are telling people with whom they can be intimate because we are homophobic. And let us entertain this widely offered accusation for a moment. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals because the afflicted person fears that exposure will bring forth his/her own latent homosexuality. A phobia is a mental disorder. Therefore, those who think that homosexuality is anything but something one is born as; if it is considered anything other than an equally valid alternate lifestyle -- are proof-positive mentally ill. This blanket diagnosis is issued on a regular basis, regardless of the nature of the contrary view -- be it religious, biological, psychological and/or..."ew".
This demonstrates how Leftist caricatures of conservatives are ultimately based upon elitism. They cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with them without being by definition stupid, ill-informed, and/or evil. Also, it is quite possible for Leftists to insulate themselves into intellectual enclaves of the like-minded with little exposure to the contrary.
For our part, we conservatives would have to take great lengths to avoid the Leftist viewpoint. They dominate the entertainment industry, the media, academia and the political class. Predictably, they look upon this from an elitist lens as well. In candid moments, they let it slip that they think that this is so because they are better informed.
The reality is the Aristocracy has shifted from being by birth to that of political pull. It is no less medievalist. The general population is on a visceral level distrusted as incorrigibly ignorant and should therefore be silenced or marginalized if it cannot be manipulated into accepting dicta from Our Betters.
We are constantly barraged with The Cause from the schools, the news and entertainment. This in turn has created a hunger for alternatives -- hence the increasing interest in vouchers, home-schooling as well as the high ratings of conservative news and commentary. The general population may not have had the level of access to information as did the self-appointed elites -- the Internet has served greatly to equalize that disadvantage -- but they have always had Common Sense. People know when they are being lied to and when they are being sold a bill of goods.
We are neither stupid, ignorant nor evil -- as the Left thinks and hopes we are.
Hence, the majority -- knowingly or not -- still holds to the essential conservative values of freedom, individual responsibility, objective reality and morality as being something that is externally generated and thus must be discovered, rather than made.
This frustrates, infuriates and terrifies the Left.
"Liberals see conservatives as being motivated by an opposition to liberals’ core values of compassion and fairness, as well as being motivated by their own (non-moral) values of in group loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and spiritual purity. For instance, when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights."
Commentary by walford
When Rick Santorum was recently being interrogated at a college forum about his opposition to gay marriage -- when he wanted to talk about the economy -- a part of his response [that was ignored by the media] was that civil unions are available. [I would add that a person can designate anyone to have financial and medical power of attorney.] He also went on to say that those who wish to change existing laws should make their case [democratically] in the legislatures by our elected representatives rather than in the Courts [by an unelected elite with lifetime tenure whose rulings are only subject to review by other appointed judges].
I would go on to add that marriage is an institution that has developed independently in every society and pre-dates written history. The community as a whole is invested in it because a major aspect and result of marriage -- under what circumstances children are born and reared -- has an effect upon us all. When humans were rare and vulnerable, our ancestors developed social structures and norms that had a direct effect upon survival of the group. We are each descended from those who made the right decisions in that regard.
If the vital institution of the family is to change via government sanction as well as by social mores, this is something the general population needs to discuss at length and any laws enacted be subject to revision and review as consequences make themselves apparent.
Conservative opposition to taxpayer-funded birth control -- beyond any religious objection -- is that it, in combination with abortion, greatly contribute to Westerners selecting ourselves for extinction and women being expected to sexually service men with no commitment. We do not regard this as being liberating or respectful. Behaviors are enabled that in turn create opportunities for micro-organisms to develop -- which our vaunted technology then helps to spread globally -- that otherwise would affect local populations only. Our fertility and continued survival is thusly undermined further. Conservatives consistently hold that Nature's Laws cannot be cheated and that we cannot change the rules of life on this planet to suit fleeting urges.
The pattern is familiar enough. First we are lectured about being tolerant. Then we are pressed to be accepting. All too often it is finally demanded of us to subsidize.
I will be so bold as to say that the above more typifies the conservative mindset than the Straw Men that are so routinely offered to be knocked down.
Instead, it is alleged that conservatives are waging a war on women's freedom and prudishly desire to impinge upon everybody's fun. We are telling people with whom they can be intimate because we are homophobic. And let us entertain this widely offered accusation for a moment. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals because the afflicted person fears that exposure will bring forth his/her own latent homosexuality. A phobia is a mental disorder. Therefore, those who think that homosexuality is anything but something one is born as; if it is considered anything other than an equally valid alternate lifestyle -- are proof-positive mentally ill. This blanket diagnosis is issued on a regular basis, regardless of the nature of the contrary view -- be it religious, biological, psychological and/or..."ew".
This demonstrates how Leftist caricatures of conservatives are ultimately based upon elitism. They cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with them without being by definition stupid, ill-informed, and/or evil. Also, it is quite possible for Leftists to insulate themselves into intellectual enclaves of the like-minded with little exposure to the contrary.
For our part, we conservatives would have to take great lengths to avoid the Leftist viewpoint. They dominate the entertainment industry, the media, academia and the political class. Predictably, they look upon this from an elitist lens as well. In candid moments, they let it slip that they think that this is so because they are better informed.
The reality is the Aristocracy has shifted from being by birth to that of political pull. It is no less medievalist. The general population is on a visceral level distrusted as incorrigibly ignorant and should therefore be silenced or marginalized if it cannot be manipulated into accepting dicta from Our Betters.
We are constantly barraged with The Cause from the schools, the news and entertainment. This in turn has created a hunger for alternatives -- hence the increasing interest in vouchers, home-schooling as well as the high ratings of conservative news and commentary. The general population may not have had the level of access to information as did the self-appointed elites -- the Internet has served greatly to equalize that disadvantage -- but they have always had Common Sense. People know when they are being lied to and when they are being sold a bill of goods.
We are neither stupid, ignorant nor evil -- as the Left thinks and hopes we are.
Hence, the majority -- knowingly or not -- still holds to the essential conservative values of freedom, individual responsibility, objective reality and morality as being something that is externally generated and thus must be discovered, rather than made.
This frustrates, infuriates and terrifies the Left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
