Using ignorance for benefit

I have continually pointed out that the Democrats generally try to cloud their argument to take focus off of the real issue – using a “straw man,” if you will.  The other thing they like to do is to prey on ignorance and use it to rally their followers.  “The Reverend” Jesse Jackson is no stranger to this tactic.

Consider this recent (3/4/2011) online article from The Progressive – Jesse Jackson Revs Up Madison Crowd.

Jackson criticized Walker and other Republican governors for using teachers and workers as “scapegoats.”

And he asked repeatedly, “Where is the money?”

He pointed out that there were trillions of dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for bailing out the banks. He said there were billions of dollars for tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies, even though they have made $1 trillion since 9/11.

But somehow there is no money, Jackson said, for teachers or for universal health care or for forgiving student loans or for HeadStart or for Pell grants.

If you have any clue at all about:

  • The history of our nation
  • Our Constitution
  • The Bill of Rights
  • The concept of a democratic, constitutional, representative republic

then you should readily see the problems with these statements.

To begin with, the money for wars and bailouts came from the federal government, as does all of the money that he mentions.  Never mind whether he is right or wrong about this money he mentions.  This editorial is not about whether any of this money should or should not be spent, who it belongs to, where it came from, or anything else.  The important thing is that all of this is federal.

But the issue for which he is arguing, so-called “workers rights,” the allowance of collective bargaining for state employees has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government.  It is a state issue.  It involves the ability of the State of Wisconsin to pay its workers.  The State of Wisconsin, last time I checked, was not in the business of funding international war efforts or bailing out banks, nor does it have anything to do with the IRS concerns of “big oil,” and it does not print it’s own money.

Jackson is resorting to a common democrat tactic.  If he gets you mad about federal money and can successfully tie the two arguments together, he can get you mad – mad at those evil corporations, mad at the evil stinking rich people, mad at those vile Republicans.

Incidentally, the federal government does not allow collective bargaining for its employees.  It simply can’t afford it.  If the federal government, who prints their own money, can’t afford collective bargaining for its employees, how on earth can a state; especially a state facing a budget deficit in the billions of dollars?

And if you are in a state that does not have a budget deficit (meaning your state is handling your money well), do you really want a state that has not shown responsible fiscal stewardship to receive money from the federal government, a portion of which comes from your federal taxes (if you pay taxes – nearly 50% of Americans have no federal income tax liability – but that’s another story).  And with money, come strings and control.  Do you want the federal government, with representation from New York, California, or Alabama, telling you in Wisconsin how you should run your schools?  If you get their money, then you have to take their control.

But none of that matters to Jesse Jackson.  He is only interested in keeping you rallied to “the cause,” whatever that may mean.  Never mind that it doesn’t make any real sense.

Spoken like a true communist

Michael Moore believes that the money people earn somehow belongs to the government (or the general community), not the people who earned it.

Moore On Wealthy People’s Money: “That’s Not Theirs, That’s A National Resource, It’s Ours”

The same with jobs – listen to the interview – he thinks that the jobs are owned by the people.  I am sorry Mr. Moore, but you are so completely wrong about what this country is about.  The Constitution is a document to define what government can and cannot do, and nowhere does is state that the jobs created by a private individual or the wealth created by a private individual belong to the government and/or the people.  If that was the case, this country would never have been as successful as it has been.

It should be scary to any reasonable person that Michael Moore is not the only American who thinks this way.  This is the general philosophy promoted by the Democratic Party.  It is communist and socialist in nature, and it is clearly their objective to transform this country to their socialist utopian ideal.

To paraphrase something I once heard from Michael Medved:

They love this country not for what it is today, but what it could be.  Try using that logic on your wife and see what happens.

An army of community organizers

An army of community organizers is a scary thought for those who love freedom and our form of representative republic.  To me, this phrase could easily be translated to “mob rule.”  Read this article from the LA Times Blogs – Obama recruits an army of community organizers to carry his ‘movement forward for years to come’.  This is high pressure revolutionary stuff.

I find this to be a scary thing, especially when I hear Democrats saying that it’s time to go out into the streets and “get a little bloody.” [ NH Journal original story | The Hill ]  And this army now has a theme song from the Dropkick Murphys with such lyrics as:

Let them know
We gotta take the bastards down
Let them know
We gotta smash them to the ground

I don’t think these are idle threats, and I certainly don’t take them lightly.  It is time for freedom loving Americans to take note that there is a violent Socialist agenda being thrust upon us, and that we need to prepare to defend our country from within.

Kinder, gentler civil discourse

Remember after the Tragedy in Tuscon how we were told that Republicans were guilty of inciting violence with their rhetoric, that we needed a more civil discourse, and that we should avoid violent symbolism?  Well, it is important to note that only applies to Republicans.  If you are a Democrat and you are protesting in Wisconsin, it does not apply.

And here’s a woman who compares Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Hitler

And that dude in the video saying the budget woes are because the rich refuse to pay their fair share; I would like to know exactly what defines “rich” and exactly what their “fair share” should be. Wisconsin already has a progressive income tax, and the upper brackets are already higher than its neighbor Illinois (even with Illinois’ recent income tax increase). How much is enough?

Protest for democracy or for unsustainable entitlements?

Michael Moore twittered that Madison has become the new Cairo

Madison is the new Cairo! Wisconsin teachers, nurses, firefighters — shut the state down! All of working America is with u!


Unfortunately, Moore is wrong.  These protests aren’t masses of oppressed people, rallying for freedom.  Madison has actually become the new Athens, where thousands rallied in protest against Greece’s austerity measures against an unsustainable level of spending on entitlements.

Facing a $3 billion budget shortfall, the public employees of the state of Wisconsin are going to have to learn to tighten their belts in tough times just like everyone in the private sector.

Obama and his budget failure

It is becoming more painfully obvious every day that President Obama is not capable of the job he has.  But we shouldn’t be surprised. What experience has he had? He’s never had to run a business, to meet payroll, or to manage a limited budget for a company that doesn’t actually print the money.

When a company or a family don’t have enough money coming in, they have to make tough choices.  In order to survive, they have to not only stop the bleeding, they have to reverse it. This is something the US Federal Government has yet to learn. That much is not necessarily Obama’s fault – it’s been going on for years.  But it certainly is his problem now, since he is on the job.  And he has been a dismal failure.

Now we are being told that he had to make some “tough choices” in this budget.  Those tough choices amount to $775 million in a budget whose deficit is $1.5 Trillion.

Part of the problem is that when the numbers all sound big, we lose perspective.  This is nothing more than smoke-and-mirrors misdirection.  In order to put things in perspective, we need to look at the deficit compared directly with the “tough” cuts.  I’ll align the numbers so that we see just how insignificant the cuts are so far:

Deficit: $1,500,000,000,000
“Tough Choice” Cuts: $775,000,000

Laid out this way, we can see the insignificance of the amount.  Here’s an analogy.  If Obama was running a small business that was losing $1.5 million dollars a year, his “tough choices” amount to cutting $775 from his budget.

The federal debt increased by $105.8 billion in January 2011 alone.  Obama’s “tough choice” spending cuts amount to 0.73% of that amount.  But remember that those cuts are annual and the $105.8 billion is a single month.

These cuts are insignificant.  That doesn’t mean these cuts shouldn’t be made.  They certainly should.  But there needs to be more; much more!

The smoke and mirrors don’t stop there.  The proposed spending freeze, which is being promoted as a cut, will reportedly save $400 billion over 10 years.  While that is also moving in the right direction, it’s still not big enough – even though it sounds that way.  This is how they want you to think of it:

Annual Deficit: $1,500,000,000,000
10 Year Spending Freeze: $ 400,000,000,000

$400 billion savings sounds like it’s taking a chunk out of the deficit. Except that those savings are over 10 years.  So it is actually $40 billion this year (the same year we have a projected $1.5 trillion deficit):

Annual Deficit: $1,500,000,000,000
Annual  Spending Freeze: $ 40,000,000,000

Certainly moving in the right direction, but the misdirection of the way it explained is an attempt by the Obama Administration to get let off the hook.  They are basically saying, “Hey, we’re cutting the deficit.  We cut $400 billion over 10 years.”   They’ll repeat this mantra over and over, until it becomes more like this, “Hey, we’re cutting the deficit.  We cut $400 billion.”  See the difference?

Now the Republicans have announced some real cuts, not just spending freezes.  Their cuts will amount to trimming $35 billion from the budget.  As we have seen, that’s not going to balance the budget, but spending freezes are not cuts and cutting $775 million isn’t going to get us there.  So $35 billion moves in the right direction.

The Left will never willingly move in that direction.  They are a party that believes in big government solutions.  That is completely at odds with the kind of meaningful cuts we need to fix this problem.  An annual $1.5 trillion deficit can only be fixed by shrinking the size of government, and that doesn’t sit well with the party of “Tax and Spend.”  The Left has issued a “call to arms” to fight these cuts. (Wait a minute.  Weren’t we just recently told by the Left that we should stop using violent metaphor in our rhetoric?)  So if you are concerned about this unsustainable deficit spending, how can you possibly support a party that refuses to take meaningful steps to cut the spending.

Oh, I can hear the dissenters now.  We had a budget surplus under Clinton and the evil Republicans blew it on an illegal war.  First, I will not argue that spending was mismanaged under the Bush Administration.  However, I will remind you that the balanced budget under Clinton came because he was forced to reign in spending by a Republican Congress.  In fact, the only point on the Contract With America that was left unfulfilled was getting a balanced budget amendment passed.  At least they were able to balance the budget.

We need the same kind of leadership now.  In fact, the times call for even bigger leadership as the perils are greater.  If that takes a government shutdown like we had in the 90s, so be it.  If we do not change course drastically and immediately, we are headed for certain disaster of apocalyptic proportions.

Keith Olbermann and Current TV

It is always comical to me how the die-hard Progressive Left gets bent out of shape over Fox News.  They absolutely go to pieces and demand a return to the Fairness Doctrine so their views can be heard.  But what they fail to realize is that no one (well, almost no one) wants to hear it.

Keith Olbermann is a great study in this phenomenon.  Olbermann is a man with an ego so giant, it’s a wonder that he can get into the studio.  And he has had a chip on his shoulder for Fox News for as long as I can remember.  But the more he ranted and raved, the more Fox News gained in the ratings.  You would think the executives at MSNBC would have figured out that he just wasn’t pulling the ratings (which means no one wants to watch him); and they finally did.

Fast forward to now.  Al Gore has gleefully announced that Olbermann will be coming to Current, Gore’s struggling cable channel.  And I can see why.  Current currently draws about 23,000 viewers in prime time.  And that’s not like other Nielsen ratings where you have to add the “000” at the end – it’s twenty-three thousand total.  For a channel that Gore has worked to make available to 58,000,000 households, that’s a reach of about 0.04%.  Olbermann could increase that by ten-fold, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

A ten-fold increase from the 23,000 viewers they have now would bring the prime time viewership for the channel to 230,000.  Even with that, it’s still less than one half of one percent of their reach; and a quarter of the viewers that Olbermann had at MSNBC.  Not exactly a move up.  And although Al Gore and Current TV sound ecstatic at the prospects, it is still a losing proposition.

Sure, Olbermann will be “Chief News Officer,” and I’m sure that being in charge will be a feed to his ginormous ego.  But the bottom line is this – while there will be a huge initial boost in ratings from Olbermann coming on board (it’s hard not to get a huge boost when you are on the bottom), only time will tell if that will translate into long term ratings success.  And my guess is that, if past performance is indicative of future results, it will be a long, drawn-out disaster.

America just doesn’t want to buy what Current TV is selling.  It is obvious that Olbermann is slanted to the Progressive Left, and that doesn’t resonate with Main Stream America.  Just ask Air America how that business model worked out for them.

Democrats and their agenda of death

Democrat Senetor Frank Lautenberg said yesterday to Republicans working on a bill to restrict federal funding of abortions, “Don’t Go Near My Daughters.

What Lautenberg fails to realize is that if his wife had chosen an abortion, one or more of those daughters wouldn’t be here.

“If they had their way, the reproductive rights of American women would be tossed away.”

Except that’s not what this bill is about.  It’s about whether the federal government should allow federal funding of abortions. Regardless of when you believe life begins, the bottom line is this: What will that fetus become? There is no other answer than “a human being.”  To destroy it at any point is to kill a human being, to take a life. If you are an American who believes that abortion is killing another human being, it must be sickening to know that your tax dollars, money taken from you at the point of a gun, are being used to fund the very thing you despise.

Joining Lautenberg were Barbra Boxer, Al Franken, and others vowed to block the bill. While they seem so concerned about the “reproductive rights” of women, what about the rights of the unborn?

But to focus on that is to fall into their trap – the misdirection of the argument into something that it is not.  This is not a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.  It is nothing more than an attempt to prevent federal funds being used for furthering the killing of the unborn.

Do you really want to give political power to a party that values death so much?

President Obama on free markets

President Obama made some comments in his weekly address that are rather troubling.  In speaking about his upcoming address to the US Chamber of Commerce, he said:

Supporting businesses with this kind of 21st century infrastructure and cutting-edge innovation is our responsibility.  But businesses have a responsibility, too.  If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America.  They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation.  That’s their obligation.

Obligation? Excuse me, Mr. President, but I beg to differ.  No one, including business has an obligation to do anything.  That is what freedom, and free markets are all about.

There is a difference between doing the right thing and being forced to do the right thing.  If a business builds American infrastructure and creates jobs for Americans, that is commendable.  But they are under no obligation to do so.  When they are, that is just one more reason for them to seek to do business elsewhere.

President Obama has tried to convince us that he is pro-business; that he is trying to make America the best place to do business.  But actions speak louder than words, and today is no different. The President’s new budget includes proposals for broader unemployment taxes.  While that may help to take some weight off of states that are depleting their resources, this is a direct cost to businesses.

Adding to an employer’s financial burden of hiring additional employees does nothing to improve the job situation.  In fact, it will hinder job growth.

Assault Weapons

According to The Associated Press, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has promised to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004 and a ban on so-called “high capacity” magazines (which are actually full capacity).  This is apparently supposed to make us safer since these types of things don’t happen when we take guns out of the hands of our citizens.

The Assault Weapons Ban lasted from September 13, 1994 to September 13, 2004.  Here is a list of some mass shootings that happened during that time:

  • August 2003 in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.

  • October 2002, a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.

  • March 5, 2001: Charles “Andy” Williams, 15, killed two fellow students and wounded 13 others at Santana High School in Santee, Calif.

  • Nov. 2, 1999: Copier repairman Byran Uyesugi, 40, fatally shoots seven people at Xerox Corp. in Honolulu. He is convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

  • September 1999, a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.

  • July 29, 1999: Former day trader Mark Barton, 44, killed nine people in shootings at two Atlanta brokerage offices, then killed himself.

  • April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing themselves in the school’s library.

  • May 21, 1998: Two teenagers were killed and more than 20 people hurt when Kip Kinkel, 17, opened fire at a high school in Springfield, Ore., after killing his parents.

  • March 24, 1998: Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13, killed four girls and a teacher at a Jonesboro, Ark., middle school. Ten others were wounded in the shooting.

That is a list of 9 high profile mass shootings during a period that “high-capacity” magazines were banned as were so-called assault weapons.
We have had mass shootings in the United States before gun control.  We have had them after AND during the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban.  Instituting more stringent controls on guns and magazines does nothing to prevent these violent crimes.  It only serves to take away our freedoms and present the perpetrators with an unarmed public ill equipped to defend themselves.