State's Rights have been maligned by Democrats and the Left as of late. Congressman Rand Paul made press time while discussing state's ability to nullify federal laws that are stifling to individual states.
Yet be careful, Democrats, what arguments you take up. As far back as the Constitution Convention, the Democratic-Republicans fought for a Bill of Rights on the premise of State's Rights. Andrew Jackson's vice president John C. Calhoun looked to remove South Carolina from a burdensome federal tariff. Democrats continued to staunchly support rights of the individual states throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in regard to slavery, Jim Crow and disenfranchisement.
For whatever reasons the battle over State's Rights was fought, the concept of a republic stands strong under differences between the states, unfettered in most respects from a centralized federal government. At times our rights and mechanisms of the separate levels of government work in favor of ideals we disagree with. Harken back a few decades to Skokie, Illinois. A group used the First Amendment as protection to hold a parade most found deplorable; the ACLU saw fit to protect their right to march in court.
In short, Democrats arguing State's Rights has been used as a tool of the racist is correct (yet they have primarily been Democrats using the defense), but their admonition is tantamount to claiming freedom of speech is a tool of the National Socialist Party. Because both have been held up as justifications to anger us, is that any reason to remove whole mechanisms?
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Campaign "donations"?
Yesterday The DrudgeReport linked to a pair of blog posts (here and here) reporting the 2012 Obama presidential campaign is accepting wedding and birthday gift donations in the recipient's name.
Today (6/24) Drudge linked to a Politico article (complete with video) of the emcee at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference instructing the attendees to use their utensils before a Secret Service protected speaker speaks. The Service was going to collect the forks; apparently knives had not part of the initial silverware offering.
Perhaps the Obama campaign was planning on melting down the metal for campaign lucre?
Today (6/24) Drudge linked to a Politico article (complete with video) of the emcee at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference instructing the attendees to use their utensils before a Secret Service protected speaker speaks. The Service was going to collect the forks; apparently knives had not part of the initial silverware offering.
Perhaps the Obama campaign was planning on melting down the metal for campaign lucre?
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
David Maraniss, author of Barack Obama, The Story, was heard defending President Obama's memoirs written when the young man was apparently an aspiring fiction writer. Publishing self laudatory tales in the form of two autobiographies, we are to believe the 30-year-old community activist Barry Obama had no political aspirations.
What is most telling of this light shed upon inflation, conglomeration ("composite character") and yarn spinning through race-centered perspective is that until now, we were to understand this is what shaped the man who became president. These were true stories, each one deeply impacted his psyche to shape the man he became.
Just as the "seriousness of the charges" is to be considered, the emotion of the claims are to be held above the veracity of the experience. Today Rush Limbaugh played two clips from CNN's Starting Point on his radio show, both illustrated David Maraniss's downplaying of claims from the book.
It comes as no surprise that the party who used disagreement over the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, tacitly defending Xavier Alvarez, would poo-poo the seriousness of Obama's memoir's discrepancies. After all Barack Obama did play basketball, just not suffering the injustice he claims to have endured at the hand of a white coach.
The Occupy movement gained a lot of traction with a law student on his knees in the middle of a New York street pleading to those who could not hear to give his parents back their home. The thespian effort is what the Left feels is important, while the facts behind the petition are baseless and fantasy (The Blaze).
Put aside those "loosely" similar examples and lets examine a more pertinent notion. From the previously mentioned clip, Mr. Maraniss deflects responsibility from Obama by suggesting a certain amount of this information came from family members. Ignoring his books may be constructed on second-hand stories, this is not a problem. Except for Marco Rubio, that is. Ironically the New York Times political blog reminds the reader who conveniently believes a double-standard is not enough of a reason to discredit a Democrat, inaccurate family history is only a problem when it comes to Republicans.
You see, Senator Rubio wrote about his parents travel between America and Cuba during the Castro Revolution. Either his timeline was fuddled or his parents never "fleed" by the skin of their teeth, this negates his whole book. No other outright lies and aggrandizement have been contended that I am aware of... yet.
Oprah felt compelled to apologize for believing and thereby promoting a fraudulent memoir; not the last one about a Holocaust survivor. No, not the one I discovered while web searching for the one I was thinking of about an L.A. gangbanger, but the first one, "A Million Little Pieces". Didn't Oprah also hail "Dreams from My Father"?
What is most telling of this light shed upon inflation, conglomeration ("composite character") and yarn spinning through race-centered perspective is that until now, we were to understand this is what shaped the man who became president. These were true stories, each one deeply impacted his psyche to shape the man he became.
Just as the "seriousness of the charges" is to be considered, the emotion of the claims are to be held above the veracity of the experience. Today Rush Limbaugh played two clips from CNN's Starting Point on his radio show, both illustrated David Maraniss's downplaying of claims from the book.
It comes as no surprise that the party who used disagreement over the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, tacitly defending Xavier Alvarez, would poo-poo the seriousness of Obama's memoir's discrepancies. After all Barack Obama did play basketball, just not suffering the injustice he claims to have endured at the hand of a white coach.
The Occupy movement gained a lot of traction with a law student on his knees in the middle of a New York street pleading to those who could not hear to give his parents back their home. The thespian effort is what the Left feels is important, while the facts behind the petition are baseless and fantasy (The Blaze).
Put aside those "loosely" similar examples and lets examine a more pertinent notion. From the previously mentioned clip, Mr. Maraniss deflects responsibility from Obama by suggesting a certain amount of this information came from family members. Ignoring his books may be constructed on second-hand stories, this is not a problem. Except for Marco Rubio, that is. Ironically the New York Times political blog reminds the reader who conveniently believes a double-standard is not enough of a reason to discredit a Democrat, inaccurate family history is only a problem when it comes to Republicans.
You see, Senator Rubio wrote about his parents travel between America and Cuba during the Castro Revolution. Either his timeline was fuddled or his parents never "fleed" by the skin of their teeth, this negates his whole book. No other outright lies and aggrandizement have been contended that I am aware of... yet.
Oprah felt compelled to apologize for believing and thereby promoting a fraudulent memoir; not the last one about a Holocaust survivor. No, not the one I discovered while web searching for the one I was thinking of about an L.A. gangbanger, but the first one, "A Million Little Pieces". Didn't Oprah also hail "Dreams from My Father"?
Friday, May 4, 2012
Superficiality
This past week, senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren defended her placement on Harvard faculty by claiming "high cheek bones" proves her Native American lineage.1
My, how the tables have turned. From the days of Democrat Andrew Jackson relocating the Cherokee people of George and American southeast, a former Democrat presidential appointment is proud of her 1/32nd Cherokee heritage; so proud she hoped to use it to be invited to luncheons!
Further signs of the times is the "one drop rule." Democrats prevented free slaves from voting and other undesirable races from participating in government. Even white people were tainted by genealogical lineage that could be traced to Africans.2
From The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture:3
On the other hand, perhaps she racially profiled herself?
2. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
3. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=5365
My, how the tables have turned. From the days of Democrat Andrew Jackson relocating the Cherokee people of George and American southeast, a former Democrat presidential appointment is proud of her 1/32nd Cherokee heritage; so proud she hoped to use it to be invited to luncheons!
Further signs of the times is the "one drop rule." Democrats prevented free slaves from voting and other undesirable races from participating in government. Even white people were tainted by genealogical lineage that could be traced to Africans.2
From The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture:3
In 1911, Arkansas passed Act 320 (House Bill 79), also known as the “one-drop rule.” This law had two goals: it made interracial “cohabitation” a felony, and it defined as “Negro” anyone “who has...any negro blood whatever,” thus relegating to second-class citizenship anyone accused of having any African ancestry. Although the law had features unique to Arkansas, it largely reflected nationwide trends.Progressive eugenicists sterilized those deemed disabled by "one drop."
On the other hand, perhaps she racially profiled herself?
Links:
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57427355-503544/warren-explains-minority-listing-talks-of-grandfathers-high-cheekbones/2. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
3. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=5365
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Algorithmic Help?
I recently found a very educational video posted on Facebook by Frantz Kebeau of StolenHistory.com. The historian/author runs down the dynamics of slavery and race relations with the Democratic Party in a very digestible format. YouTube is where the video is hosted and has allowed the video to become viral.
In case you did not take time to watch the video, Mr Kebeau alternates textual facts of historical moments with a photo of a current Democrat politician, stating they support the Democratic Party. Very impactful and illustrative of how history has been revised for political aims.
Yet, as striking as the video is, what comes afterwards that is jaw dropping.
I first watched the nearly eight minute video embedded in the Facebook site, at the end there were two suggestions YouTube provided as of being potential interest to visitors. Typically, YouTube, links to other videos from the author, if there are any, and similar offerings from other contributors. The image below is a screenshot of what was suggested:
Seeing a donkey mount another and a women (dare I mention white) with a large sausage in her mouth led me to re-watch the video at the YouTube site. Despite Mr Kebreau having 48 videos posted at YouTube, not one was included in the video viewing area, nor on the right side where about fifteen videos are linked as a menu (as can be seen below):
After the "worlds [sic] fastest deer cleaning" video, other selections include videos of a drunk President Bush; gastritis; Robin Williams stand-up comedy on alcoholics; modifying an AK-47 to fully automatic or semi-automatic. Granted there are a few "right wing" selections, the choices are questionable.
Watching as many videos as I do, contributors with numerous videos typically include their own movies. Algorithms may be random, but the way they are programmed to operate is where the influence is written into the details.
In case you did not take time to watch the video, Mr Kebeau alternates textual facts of historical moments with a photo of a current Democrat politician, stating they support the Democratic Party. Very impactful and illustrative of how history has been revised for political aims.
Yet, as striking as the video is, what comes afterwards that is jaw dropping.
I first watched the nearly eight minute video embedded in the Facebook site, at the end there were two suggestions YouTube provided as of being potential interest to visitors. Typically, YouTube, links to other videos from the author, if there are any, and similar offerings from other contributors. The image below is a screenshot of what was suggested:
Seeing a donkey mount another and a women (dare I mention white) with a large sausage in her mouth led me to re-watch the video at the YouTube site. Despite Mr Kebreau having 48 videos posted at YouTube, not one was included in the video viewing area, nor on the right side where about fifteen videos are linked as a menu (as can be seen below):
After the "worlds [sic] fastest deer cleaning" video, other selections include videos of a drunk President Bush; gastritis; Robin Williams stand-up comedy on alcoholics; modifying an AK-47 to fully automatic or semi-automatic. Granted there are a few "right wing" selections, the choices are questionable.
Watching as many videos as I do, contributors with numerous videos typically include their own movies. Algorithms may be random, but the way they are programmed to operate is where the influence is written into the details.
Friday, October 30, 2009
A few draft-versions of health care reform have been offered since this spring; all of them have had one thing in common. Conservative pundits have done a great job of highlighting a commonality in all of them: 2013. The regulations limiting freedom in choice will begin in 2013. So much for the plea that we need reform now!
Commentators have forwarded the notion that those in leadership now facing re-election in 2012 will be, beating the ill effects of government-controlled healthcare as they are not implemented for another year. I consider this "Plan A."
Politicians like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other liberal congressman have little to fear. The districts they are elected from will continue to elect them. Voters in these locales have drunk the Kool-Aid. The only thing that matters is that we are one step closer to Universal Healthcare. Any problems with the new will be moot. As President Obama says at every option, "this is not a perfect bill. But it is a step closer..."
Plan A relies on the Democrats being re-elected en masse under the belief that they were successful in causing reform. And it any loss of seats or control would come after 2013. Kind of a drive-by lawmaking. Consequences be damned, the change enacted.
Plan B relies on realization that over the next three years, enough light will be shed on aspects of the bill. "Regular" people will be so upset with the unintended and intended consequences alike that they vote out the Democrats in 2012. Given enough time - a single election cycle is a lifetime - the assumed new Republican majority will pegged with causing any downsides relating to the healthcare regulation. In 2016 another Democratic sweep will take place as the Fourth Estate successfully paints the Republicans responsible.
Don't think it is possible? It worked for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and W. My wife gets all the Union magazines for educators. Every issue contains how George Bush messed up the law or wasn't funded properly. There is no mention of NCLB's author, Ted Kennedy! Never mind that the president neither writes legislation nor controls the "purse strings."
Plan A is the optimal option, it keeps power going. Plan B, less desirable, is still suitable for the Dems. They have a scapegoat for the complications which will reverberate through America on all levels. 2016 isn't too far away for them.
Commentators have forwarded the notion that those in leadership now facing re-election in 2012 will be, beating the ill effects of government-controlled healthcare as they are not implemented for another year. I consider this "Plan A."
Politicians like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other liberal congressman have little to fear. The districts they are elected from will continue to elect them. Voters in these locales have drunk the Kool-Aid. The only thing that matters is that we are one step closer to Universal Healthcare. Any problems with the new will be moot. As President Obama says at every option, "this is not a perfect bill. But it is a step closer..."
Plan A relies on the Democrats being re-elected en masse under the belief that they were successful in causing reform. And it any loss of seats or control would come after 2013. Kind of a drive-by lawmaking. Consequences be damned, the change enacted.
Plan B relies on realization that over the next three years, enough light will be shed on aspects of the bill. "Regular" people will be so upset with the unintended and intended consequences alike that they vote out the Democrats in 2012. Given enough time - a single election cycle is a lifetime - the assumed new Republican majority will pegged with causing any downsides relating to the healthcare regulation. In 2016 another Democratic sweep will take place as the Fourth Estate successfully paints the Republicans responsible.
Don't think it is possible? It worked for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and W. My wife gets all the Union magazines for educators. Every issue contains how George Bush messed up the law or wasn't funded properly. There is no mention of NCLB's author, Ted Kennedy! Never mind that the president neither writes legislation nor controls the "purse strings."
Plan A is the optimal option, it keeps power going. Plan B, less desirable, is still suitable for the Dems. They have a scapegoat for the complications which will reverberate through America on all levels. 2016 isn't too far away for them.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Where Does It Stop?
The Pitchforks and Torches Are Raised into the Air
In the past day, the Obama Administration released its preliminary findings regarding the compensation of CEOs of companies receiving Troubled Assest Relief Program (TARP). The executives will be, if the plan as proposed remains, will have 90% of their compensation snatched back by the federal government. The "Pay Czar" can arbitrarily set the pay of private businesses - some of which were forced to take TARP money.
Where does the Pay Czars reach end?
No one thought they would go below middle management, but the Fed admonished of the horrible misdeed in giving mail room, file room, and kitchen employees bonuses. The likely non-salaried, lowest on the proverbial totem pole, are being slammed for receiving up to a few thousand dollars.Sure, Rush Limbaugh questioned will dealings with the government, such as Lockheed-Martin selling jet engines, constitute "taking tax payers money" and therefore, allow the bony fingers of Uncle Scrooge into Lockheed-Martin's day-to-day compensation? This is why Home Depot just a few years ago welcomed government shoppers but required they pay in cash. It was a way to keep the requirements and constraints from hamstringing the "Big Box" retailer.
Where does it government's reach cease?
In Minnesota Legislators could not successfully determine what and how welfare recipients spend our taxpayers money. They willingly - have to seek out - accept said subsidies from the government, but have very little responsibilities with our money.Then there are corporate subsidies. Taxpayer monies such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are doled out for sports teams, retailers and corporations. Can governments at all levels, now determine how employees of Target or the Twins or Honeywell - from the top down - are compensated? Will the Pay Czar determine bonus amounts or even if they are paid out at all?
I Haven't Even Gotten to the Most Frightening Aspect
We do not know how far the government will go. We can only speculate at this time.Allow me to speculate. Several weeks ago I posted the text of a bill attempting to "save" the printed press. The newpapers would become non-profits. The would also become tax-exempt in some cases. The would be free from tax liability. Would the government stop at determining compensation? As Obama did with his car company, would the Administration install "their" editor?
The class-envy slope can be the slipperiest!
Links
- Home Depot Refuses Sales to Federal Government - Wall St Journal; 06/18/2002 (subscription required)
- Home Depot Changes Tune on Government Business Atlanta Business Chronicle; 06/28/2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)