Global Warming?

     For quite a while now we have been battered by global warming nonsense.  Even in the face of obvious record snow fall, like this past weekend, people still insist that Earth is cooling at an alarming rate.  Some claim the damage is done, and the world is doomed.  Others say we have a limited amount of time, as little as two years, and we must act now to save the planet.  So I decided to look at the facts and debunk some of the global warming myths.

Myth 1:  The Earth is warming.
     If anyone actually took the time to look at trends over the past ten years, Earth is actually cooling (WND.com).

Myth 2:  The glaciers are melting at an alarming rate.
     Many of the world's glaciers are expanding (IceAgeNow.com).  Plus, even if you concede the point that the northern glaciers are melting, the southern glaciers appear to be growing (CSMonitor.com).  I have also heard reports of the reverse, where the southern glaciers are disappearing, and the northern are thriving.

Myth 3:  The current weather patterns were all predicted.
     Really?  Where?  As a matter of fact, about ten years ago, leading global warming scientists warned that future generations would never see snow or even know what it is (NoFrakkingConsensus.com).

Myth 4:  The predictions were right: fewer snow storms with higher intensity.
     The winter of 2010/2011 saw a record snow fall, but it was spread out over many storms.  From what I remember, there were about six or seven storms last winter.  But putting that aside, I thought we were never going to see snow again (see Myth 3).

     I'm sure you have heard many more.  It's no surprise that the environmentalists now call global warming "climate change."  It's hard to keep people on board with your insane theories when science and mother nature keep proving you wrong.

Occupy Wall Street

     Occupy Wall Street turned violent last night as protesters ignored police barricades and marched through closed off areas (5NewsOnline.com).  This is just the type of incidences the left loves.  It's a chance to make the police look terrible, and the protesters seem innocent.  The above article speaks of protesters as "peaceful," recites their reasons for marching, and tells about the abuses of police officers.  How the media reports is not surprising to me though, it's the reaction of the residents.
     I caught this story last night while flipping through the channels.  I don't recall the station, I believe it was either Fox News or My 9, that interviewed non-protesters.  The major complaint?  The police.  One woman seemed to have a real problem with the police stopping the protesters and maintaining a presence in the area.  All I could think about was the stupidity of this lady.  Does she not realize that without the police windows most likely would have been smashed and stores looted?  Her complaints should be aimed at protesters, who leave areas filthy, have public displays of drug use, sex, and deification, and are loud (NY1.com & GlennBeck.com). 
     The traditional media as a strong force is illustrated here.  People still believe what they are told, and the media tells us to love Occupy Wall Street.  Some media professionals have been aiding the movement, telling them how to get better coverage and organize demands (BigJournalism.com).  The traditional media even covers up the fact that most don't like the protests.  Politico reports that a recent poll found only thirty-seven percent of Americans agree with Occupy Wall Street, but then quickly changes the subject and tries to draw similarities between the protesters and the rest of America (full article here).  The truth is that this movement is far from American, and without the media's help, these protests would have disbanded long ago.

Love Whomever We Choose?

     In two speeches the First Lady of the United States of America, Michelle Obama, mentioned that her husband's appointees to the United State Supreme Court will help protect everyone's right to "love whomever we choose." (CNSNews.com).  Now what does that mean exactly?  Who is preventing this and what legislation, current or introduced, hinders who people are involved with?  Is she referring to gay marriage?
     Barack Obama claimed he was opposed gay marriage (CNN.com), but in favor of civil unions.  That was lie.  Recently he instructed his Justice Department to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned the federal recognition of same sex marriages, in court, because it's unconstitutional (HuffingtonPost.com).  This is the only instance where a president, part of the Executive Branch, has taken it upon himself to declare something unconstitutional, a power of the Judicial Branch, and refuse to enforce it.  So why did Obama say he was against gay marriage?  To get elected.  But he has to make that clear to his base.  Hence, Michelle Obama steps in.
     This is how the left works.  They sneak in little comments that express their true beliefs.  The First Lady is telling the president's supporters that Obama isn't opposed to gay marriage.  He just needed to say that to win the presidency, because the majority of Americans are against it (Gallup.com).  In fact, she reassured them, he put people on the Supreme Court that will protect it, even if an amendment to the Constitution bans it (TheHill.com).  The left has to use backhanded, pseudo-subliminal messaging.  If they just came out and said what their true intentions and motives were, they would never be elected.  So watch out for the language the left uses.  What they say is rarely innocent rhetoric.

Mitt Romney

     New reports are out that show RomenyCare makes free health care available to illegal immigrants (USAToday.com).  Romney blames this slip up on the governor that replaced him  He stated that free health care for illegals was never intended; the law was changed after he left office.  Yet others claim this problem was brought up before its passage.  Clearly Romney has been caught in another health care scandal.  But why is Romney, the traditional media's choice, being hammered with this issue?
     For starters, he's Republican.  The traditional media doesn't actually like Romney, they just think Obama can beat him.  Obama needs to draw attention away from his own unpopular health care law, and what better way to do that than go after Romney's.  But why so early?  After all these stories don't help Romney with Republicans and may jeopardize his chances.
     The traditional media believes a Romney primary victory is a definite.  The Establishment Republicans are helping Romney by moving up primary votes in several states (WizBangBlog.com).  They hope to bring a quick end to the process before future bad news surfaces for Romney.  So the liberals don't care about hurting Romney, who appears to be the winner, it just makes it easier to attack him later.
     There may be another reason though.  Perhaps liberals know Obama is going to lose, and they hope they can convince Romney not to repeal ObamaCare.  When all is said and done, ObamaCare is merely a federal version of RomneyCare (MSNBC.com), and there have been some Establishment Republicans who like some parts of ObamaCare (Yahoo.com).  Plus, if Romney appeals the law, the left can scream hypocrisy.  The claim will be made that free health care should be available to all U.S. citizens, not just the citizens of Massachusetts.  Maybe to the left Romney is actually the best bet to keep ObamaCare alive if they lose power in 2012.  This is a scary thought for conservatives, who want ObamaCare repealed, and further evidence of a huge weakness in a Romney presidential run.

Hispanic Vote

     During the last Republican debate an audience member asked what message the candidates had for Latino voters.  Generally the answers were correct.  The Conservative message is the same for every American, regardless of background, ethnicity, race, gender, etc.  Conservatives do not separate people into groups and pit them against each other.  That is something the left does.  And it is doing it well when it comes to the Hispanic vote.
     The left is horrified over what may happen in 2012 and is doing everything it can to help Obama.  The traditional media is trying to warn Obama of an impending Latino loss, which is believed to be a key voting block and a major factor in choosing the next president of the United States (KTNV.com).  Not a good thing for Obama, whose approval rating has fallen eleven points with Hispanics according to the above article.  Many Hispanics, who are quoted with expressing several concerns and complaints regarding the administration, say they will not vote for him a second time (MiamiHerald.com).  In addition, the Atlantic points out that Perry has a good chance of picking up a lot of support from Latinos (full article here).
     But the traditional media also give Obama his strategy in the next election.  They scorn Republicans, who they state are doing terribly on the immigration issue when they should be capitalizing on it.  They also down play Obama's decreased status, saying that Hispanics won't vote for Republicans either.  In fact, they focus more on the Republicans than on giving Latino concerns any legitimacy.  They're main point of attack?  The same as always: stop the racist Republicans, who will deport all Hispanics, legal or not. 
     The traditional media is sounding a signal bell.  Liberal Latino leaders need to get out there and drum up support for Obama, or the consequences could be dire.  They need to attack Republicans on immigration and make them seem racist if the Obama presidency is to be saved.  The only problem though is the left's belief that the number one issue for Latinos is immigration, when the number one issue for everyone is the economy.  And on that Obama cannot deflect or escape blame.

Iraq

     President Obama has announced the end of the Iraq War by the holidays (Politico.com).  One explanation for the rapid withdrawal is Obama's inability to cut a deal granting U.S. troops immunity from Iraqi law.  What a nice thank you after spending ten years and billions of dollars freeing the country.  But more importantly, it shows the absolute impotence of Obama and the rest of the world's complete lack of respect for him.
     The terrorist world grows more bold in the face of the current U.S. presidency.  Just recently Iran, a terrorist country who has been trying to build a nuclear bomb, tried to kill the Saudi ambassador on American soil (FoxNews.com).  The apparent Arab Spring, the so-called Middle East democracy movement supported by the administration, is proving to be a terrorist Muslim dictatorship/theocracy movement.  In Egypt Christians are being murdered (TheGlobeAndMail.com), and Syria continues to slaughter its own people (PajamasMedia.com).  And the country we are withdrawing from makes supporting Israel a capital offense (CNSNews.com).
     President Obama knows this does not look good for him, and he is trying to pass this all off as beneficial for him and American national security.  He made the silly claim that ending the Iraq War has helped us get Osama bin Laden (CNSNews.com) and still takes credit for the "democratic" Arab Spring movement (Sweetness-Light.com).
     His main reason, I believe, for leaving Iraq: re-election.  His base is fiercely anti-war, and he needs to shore them up.  The Iraq War angered the far-left during the Bush administration.  By ending it he makes his cook, fringe, left-wing base happy and shows he is a man of his word for fulfilling a campaign promise.  Too bad he continues to lie about almost everything else.

Feminization of America

     Just the other day my sister received an email from her son's kindergarten teacher.  Apparently my nephew is too rought with dolls.  He does not enjoy playing with them, and this appears to disturb his teacher.  Several questions popped into my head.  What boy wants to play with dolls?  And what boy isn't rough with everything?  Does he have a choice of toys?  And if he does, why are they forcing him to use dolls?
     This is part of an alarming trend in American society: feminization.  Boys can no longer be boys, and men have become stupid, incompetent boys.  But more importantly, it switches gender roles and harms male identity.
     Just take a look at popular culture.  Many of the famous couples are now much older woman, who are seen as beautiful and mature, with much younger men, like Maria Carey and Nick Cannon, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, and Courteney Cox and David Arquette.  These women are praised as strong for going after what they want and expressing their sexuality.  Now flip this to an older man with a younger woman, which was the traditional paring.  Men were the providers, and an older man could provide for a younger woman.  Now though, the man is often looked as a pervert for chasing a young girl.  The older men who does end up with a young woman is an idiot, too stupid and involved in his genitals to realize he is being used in some way.  Anne Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall come to mind.
     Movies and television programs are no better.  The women are the powerful, smart characters that have all of the answers and fix all of the problems.  Many of their complaints are centered around inept male partners, who are dumb, impotent, and no help in any situation.  This can be seen in the television show Rules of Engagement.  Homosexual males are the exception.  They are fun, stable, and give great advice.  Men were once the solid foundations of families and societies.  In shows like Father Knows Best, their knowledge was sought after and common sense filled their teachings.  Those days are gone.
     Many of these concerns are echoed by WorldNetDaily, which describes the feminization in schools, homes, and culture (WND.com).  It describes some of the items listed above, and adds how boys are falling behind girls in school and tells of how divorces mostly intiatied by and ruled in favor of wives.
     The problem I have is not the upgraded status of women, but the downgrading of men.  So many little boys are forced onto drugs for AD/HD to suppress their natural tendencies.  What happened to boys will be boys?  What boy can sit still for hours and pay attention?  It's sad to see.  The feminists have been very successful at eliminating male influences and putting their progressive views in its place.  Men in society have gone from prominent, to pathetic.

Republican Debates

     As usual, Mitt Romney was declared the absolute winner of the debates (WashingtonPost.com, WTSP.com, & CBSNews.com).  No surprise there.  So let me offer you my take:
     Romney puts on a good show.  He is an excellent looking candidate.  He speaks well and appears unfazed by every attack.  He did look a little immature though, demanding time to speak instead of answering questions posed by other candidates (I call that stalling).  But he still has an atrocious record and is far from conservative.  And one who speaks well does not necessarily govern well (look at Barack Obama).  He still is not my choice, and will ever be, unless he is running against Obama.
     Cain owns up to his mistakes (like his support of TARP), speaks clearly, and has a decent tax plan.  This is a refreshing change from most politicians.  I don't totally agree with his 9/9/9 plan though.  I am suspicious about adding a national sales tax on top of the income tax.  Once government has a new tax, they will bump it up to higher levels in short time.  I support a national sales tax only if we abolish the income tax or pass the Balanced Budget Amendment (USPolitics.about.com) that requires a super majority in the Congress to raise taxes.  Yet, I still support him, and he is my number two choice.
     Newt Gingrich is gaining steam.  He is brilliant, but his past record makes him very undesirable.  It's better than Romney's, but not by much.  He does add lot of intellectual power to the stage though, so I think he should stick with it.  The debates may make him a winner. 
     Michele Bachmann is my number one choice, but she is floundering.  She is a solid conservative and has support the Tea Party since day one.  Unfortunately, her only highlight is winning the Iowa Straw Poll.  Her standing in the polls seemed to suffer when Perry entered the race, and there has not been a recovery.  She has done well in the House of Representatives, and if she does not get the nomination and remains a Congresswoman, it would not be a loss for conservatism.
     Perry cannot debate, and that will overshadow any other accomplishments.  He definitely shook things up when he entered, but he is terrible on stage, where Obama shines.  We need someone a bit stronger out there.  Plus his stance on immigration is weak, and he looked silly continuously attacking Romney.  The media of course praised the attacks (this can be seen in the above articles).  They take attention away from Obama and focuses it on Republican candidate's faults.  But it does not make for a good debate.
     The rest of the candidates are a long shot.  Ron Paul is all over the map, sometimes sounding conservative, other times isolationist or even liberal/populist.  Santorum appears to be a decent man, but his poll numbers are far too low at this point.  And Huntsman is barely visible.
     There is still plenty of time left, and anything can happen.  This was merely my reaction based on what I saw last night.  I am looking forward to the next debate and hearing even more from each candidate.

Occupy Wall Street and Jews

     According to the traditional media, Occupy Wall Street is a grassroots movement, just like the Tea Party, accept they are more mainstream and have more American support (Yahoo.com).  But what the media is not reporting is that the Occupy Wall Street protests originated with a Canadian website called AdBusters.org.  This is a left-wing, cook, fringe website.  But more importantly, its an antisemitic organization.
     You continuously hear about the ninety-nine percent of people the Occupy Wall Street group represents.  The media claims its the ninety-nine percent of people in the country that are not super-rich. But who is really represented by the one percent?  I believe it is the Jews.
     Adbusters.org has had a history of antisemitic behavior.  They have had their magazine removed from shelves (AOLNews.com) for anti-Jewish reporting and published an article that highlighted suspected Jews in the neocon movement (LIBCOM.org).  Plus, the magazine compared Jews to Nazis in their treatment of Palestinians (AdBusters.org).  Adbusters.org defended all of this (CommentaryMagazine.com.  Now look at the Occupy Wall Street crowd, which appears to share its organizers views (ThenNewAmerican.com).  They say Wall Street is controlled by Jews, who have all of the money (JTA.org & DailyCaller.com).
     Now look at some statistics.  People in the United States that earn around $100,000 a year or more make up about ten percent of the population.  Five percent make about $150,000 per year (FinancialSamurai.com).  Both categories would hardly be seen protesting with the organizers down on Wall Street.  As a matter of fact, one needs to make almost $400,000 per year to get into the top one percent.  And millionaires make up around five percent of Americans (CNBC.com).  So one percent is not just the super-rich.  It is code for Jews.  Jews make up about one percent of the American population (PewForum.org).  That is the hidden meaning behind the "ninety-nine versus one percent" mantra of the Occupy Wall Street protest.
     I am not saying that every protester believes this or is aware of this.  But it is clear that those who organized it, and some within it, are antisemitic, and I would not be surprised if they purposefully began this hated of the "one percent" as a backhanded way of attacking the Jews.

Uncle Tom

     In recent weeks Herman Cain has picked up steam.  He recently reached the top of the G.O.P. candidate list (MSNBC.com).  Even Romney has touted Herman Kain, saying if you won't vote for him, vote for Cain (Politico.com).  And of course this has garnered attention.  But why would Romney boost Cain?  Why would the media?  Some say Romney may choose him as his V.P. candidate, because he has Tea Party support.  But I have another theory, especially when it comes to the media.  I believe the administration wants to go up against Cain, either as a Presidential or V.P. candidate.  It will allow for the "Uncle Tom" accusation.
     Obama is not doing well in the polls, and that includes the African-American vote: his approval dropped from ninety-five percent to eighty-one percent (ChristianPost.com).  He needs a way to get his base back.  Cain may provide him with such an opportunity.
     ObamaCare is headed for the Supreme Court of the United States.  This left many conservatives puzzled.  After partly losing their case with the 11th Court of Appeals, many believed the Obama Administration would appeal.  This would have slowed the process and allowed for greater implementation of the law, making it harder to undo.  But the Administration allowed it be rushed into the Supreme Court, who will most likely hear it as early as June (Politico.com).  This move was made only days after Herman Cain won the Florida Straw Poll and got a boost in the overall polls (Yahoo.com).  Speculation is that the Administration either believes they will win, or they will use it as a campaign issue if they lose, which is what I lean toward.
     There have already been attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the first black Supreme Court Justice.  In a convoluted way, the Democrats demand Clarence Thomas's recusal from the case, stating his wife can financially gain from the overturn of ObamaCare (Examiner.com).  (Of course the Democrats have nothing to say about Judge Elena Kagan, who helped to pass ObamaCare (WSJ.com)).  They also attack him regarding ethics violations (Yahoo.com), and complain about his court rulings being too conservative (NPR.org).  How does this tie to Cain?  It marks them both as "Uncle Toms."
     An Uncle Tom is a derogatory term for black conservatives.  It claims that they have "sold out" to white people, agreeing with them rather than sticking with their race.  It is a ridiculous accusation, but one the Democrats have no problem using.  They already began to attack Herman Cain, claiming he is not "down for the struggle," a roundabout way of calling him an Uncle Tom (BreitBart.tv & LongIslandPress.com).
     So if Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself, and ObamaCare is repealed, they can claim another black Conservative has sided with the evil white Republicans.  That paves the way for saying Herman Cain, another black Conservative, will act similarly and take away rights from non-whites.  Obama can then rally his base and African-Americans using attacks against Herman Cain.  Despicable, but not past what the Democrats would do.

An American Story

     I recently attended an event with an inspirational key-note speaker.  She had an ideal American story.
     Born into an abusive and chaotic family environment, her path led to young motherhood.  She survived using welfare, till one day the decision was made that this was not the life she wanted for her or her child.  A low level job was procured, and through hard work and determination several promotions followed.  Her distinguished work led to employment by a U.S. senator and then at a prestigious college where she obtained a degree.  Now she speaks around the country and has at least one book published.  This is the kind of story conservatives point to and say, "Only in America!"  Yet, I believe she was a progressive.
     I base this assumption on several factors.  First off, she works for a university, and the vast majority of all college professors are progressive.  Second, she spoke of how she attended the Million Man March, which was led by Louis Farrakhan, the radical progressive leader of the Nation of Islam.  That could hardly be called a conservative venue.  Third, a couple of stories were told in which race played a major factor.  All of these are something that a conservative would rarely be associated with.   But the most convincing fact: she never expressed the greatness of America.
     In any other country she would have been doomed to a life of hardship.  In America though, inspirational stories like hers are recounted all the time.  So you would think that at some point the phrase, "Only in America!" would have been uttered.  But it never was.  Instead, you got the feeling that the phrase, "In spite of America," would be a better fit.
     This type of scenario, where successful people side with the progressive anti-American movement, is all too common.  Steve Jobs, the late founder of Apple, and Stephen King, one of the most successful modern writers, are representations of the contradictory ultra liberal American who has a truly American story.  You also have Doug Edwards, made rich through Google, who recently begged Obama to raise his taxes (Yahoo.com).  And so much of Hollywood is so rich, and yet so progressive, the very ideology that attacks wealth and achievement.  Is it guilt for having so much when so many others have so little?  It is protection against attacks from a government that has grown too powerful and too intrusive?  Or does being progressive somehow make one look more important, smarter, and caring?  I'm not confident in any one answer.
     Someone I know from Uganda would always say something like, "Around the world, it matters what race you are, where your from, and what social class you are in.  But in America, none of that matters.  Anyone can do anything and become whatever they want."  I hear that a lot from those immigrating to the U.S.  It's too bad so many inside don't realize it.

Mitt Romney

     I have been a huge critic of Mitt Romney.  I am no fan of his, and I believe he is a Progressive, not a Conservative.  There is doubt as to whether he would govern in a manner that would help get this country back to its Founding.   Is he committed to ridding the United States of ObamaCare, defending the Right to Bear Arms, and eliminating much of the crippling regulations and policies of the Obama administration.  A better choice would be Bachmann or Cain, and many would be happy with Santorum, Perry, or Gingrich.  Romney is Establishment Republican, which means he is a big government politician.  But don't misunderstand.  If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him.
     I am hearing some Conservatives claiming they will not vote for another Establishment candidate.  They say if Romney gets the nomination they will stay home and vote for no one.  This is exactly what Obama wants, and it is the wrong move.
     I have compared Romney and Obama, and the media's treatment of both.  But that does not mean I believe Romney will be another Obama.  Obama is a tyrannical socialist who refuses to obey the law.  Just look at a list of his successes since he has been in office.  He has taken over two car companies, student loans, and heavily regulated the financial industry.  Obama continues to enforce a drilling moratorium after the courts declared the action unlawful (Politico.com), refuses to enforce laws he disagrees with (HuffingtonPost.com), and gives huge loans to campaign supporters for green energy businesses that had no chance of succeeding (WashingtonPost.com).  His administration knowingly allowed firearms to be sold to Mexican drug lords (WashingtonPost.com), will go ahead with his latest "Jobs Plan" without it passing Congress (ABCNews.go.com), and continues to implement ObamaCare even though it has been declared unconstitutional (Examiner.com).  And on, and on, and on.  And this is within the first three years!  Imagine what an Obama who does not have to face re-election will do.
     I don't believe Romney will ever perpetrate corruption of this magnitude.  No matter who is the Republican candidate, they must defeat Obama.  Republicans have to keep this in mind and must not get discouraged.  Removing Obama from office is the most important act of our time.  His record as president proves this.

Romney Clear Winner, Again...

     It seems that all I hear about is how Romney is the clear winner after every debate, and Tuesday's G.O.P. Republican debate at Dartmouth was no different.  Again, Romney was touted as presidential, cool, calm, collected (article here and here).  That sounds suspiciously familiar, like a certain successful campaign ran in 2008.  In fact, I hear very little about anything else Romney stands for and even less about his past positions (also very familiar) in the traditional media.  You would think that after all the problems surrounding RomneyCare there would be some question as to how Romney would really govern.  There is recent news that Romney's team who worked on RomneyCare helped Obama's team, and Obama himself, with ObamaCare (MSNBC.com).  Yet, the only thing we hear about is how Romney looks so solid up there (again, so familiar).  But what is Romney's real fix for America's problems?  He criticizes Perry for calling Social Security what it really is, a Ponzi scheme (HuffingtonPost.com), but offers no solutions of his own for fixing the failing system.  In fact, what are his solutions to anything?
     In all honesty, I have heard very little specifics from the candidates.  I know Bachmann wants to undo all of Obama's policies, but that is pretty general.  I know Huntsman has an economic plan, but again, it's not exactly front page news.  And of course all of the candidates want to cut taxes and government spending.  Does this sound any different from Romney?  What plans does he have that eclipse the other candidates' ideas?  And if he presents no contrast, how is he always the clear winner?  Because he acts the best?
     The real difference is the liberal media and the establishment Republicans, both of which want him as the candidate.  The Republican Establishment thinks he is the only one who can win, and the liberals know they can beat him.  Romney's popularity in the northeast should tell us all we need to know.  He is one of the worst candidates the Republicans could put forward.

Romney and Christie vs. Palin

     Chris Christie has endorsed Mitt Romney (WashingtonPost.com).  Not only does this confirm that both are Progressive Republicans who believe in Obama's hope and change (just a slower version), but it also shows a stark contrast between Establishment Republicans and Conservative Republicans.
     Chris Christie's potential Republican presidential candidacy was a constant media roller coaster ride.  One day he refused to run, saying he didn't want the presidency with all of his heart.  Another day he was considering it, because so many wanted him to.  Then he would flop back, repeating that he had no plans to enter the race.  And every one of those days was a media event.  Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, an Establishment Republican publication, begged him to put his hat in the presidential primary.  He scolded Christie, telling him his personal wants didn't matter, because the nation needed him (WeeklyStandard.com).  The same article shows ordinary Americans pleading with Christie to get in the race.  In the end Christie decided not to, and he held a huge press conference just to announce it.  The media loved this and treated it like a soap opera, with the entire nation waiting with bated breath for its conclusion.  There was also a sense of this huge amount of support for Christie, and the country would be devastated without him.  In other words, just like with Barack Obama, it was a complete media creation, promoted by the establishment politicians and their willing allies in the media.
     Now let's look at the real side, the Conservative Republicans.  Many, including myself, were truly waiting anxiously for a decision from Sarah Palin.  When Palin finally decided not to run (ABCNews.go.com), many were devastated.  They had asked her to run before her announcement, and urged her to reconsider after (Sarah Palin's Facebook page).  And when the announcement was made, it was a simple, modest letter and an appearance on Mark Levin's Radio Program.  No media roller coaster, no media hype.  In fact, after the announcement, not much more was said.  Unlike the Chirstie farce, the swell of support for Sarah Palin was not shown, articles were not written begging her to run, and no press conferences were held to tell the country her decision.  She is not a media creation, and therefore the real deal. 
     And now Christie endorses Romney, and again we have the media going crazy and the press conferences lighting the news outlets' airwaves, showing who they believe are the most important people in politics.  So before anyone considers casting a vote for Romney as the Republican presidential candidate, recall how the media builds up those the Political Class wants in power.

Columbus Day

     When I was young, Columbus Day celebrated the beginning of the founding of America.  Without the brave Italian, Christopher Columbus, who sought a passage to the Indies and the Spanish royalty who backed him, we would not have discovered the New World.  And our name, America, came from Amerigo Vespucci, another Italian, who first noticed that America may not have been the Indies and marked this discovery on a map.  Italian-Americans celebrated their culture and invited all to join in.  Parades were plentiful, and a town carnival was the place to be.  Everyone knew about the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, and how the name "Indians" came from Columbus believing he was in India.  And students could recite the rhyme, "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue."  Most importantly, Christopher Columbus was a hero. 
     But now the name and legacy of Christopher Columbus, as with most Europeans, has been tarnished, and Amerigo Vespucci was nothing more than lucky.
     Most of the history taught in American schools today has switched from Eurocentric to Afro-Asian-Native American-centric.  If anything, Europeans have become horrible slave owning human beings who stole what they have and killed many to do it.
     According to modern history, Columbus never had any clue where he was.  The government of Spain wanted to make a lot of money by establishing colonies to exploit non-white peoples, so they hired Columbus to find a new water route.  All the other water routes were taken.  Columbus took off and accidentally landed in some part of North America.  Upon his arrival he enslaved the native peoples, killing most of them in the process, and took everything worth while.  All along, he believed he was in India, that is until Amerigo Vespucci made a map.  He made a map of something and signed it.  Those looking at Vespucci's map saw the signature and foolishly thought the land was named America.  Hence, North and South America.  Columbus was a mass murdering stealer, and Amerigo a lucky idiot.
     The true founders of America: the Native Americans of course.  They laid claim to this land, only God knows how long ago, and the Europeans had no right stealing it from them.  As a matter of fact, the Vikings were the first Europeans in the Americas, not the Italians/Spanish.  Besides, Columbus couldn't have discovered America, it was already there (although the definition of discovery is finding something that previously existed, its just that no one knew it was there: definition here).
     As I've gotten older I have learned new things about Christopher Columbus, both bad and good.  But I have always rejected the re-visionist history, researched the true history, and remembered the hero of my youth.

Nationalized Education

     Currently, education is handled at the local level.  School districts are free to decide how and what classes are taught.  Mandates that schools districts must follow are handed down from the state, which usually obtains requirements from the federal government.  If the state complies with the federal government requirements, federal funding is provided to the state.  In other word state and local governments get money for doing what the federal government says, but otherwise can choose how to implement federal requirements.  This give state government and local districts an enormous amount of power, especially when it comes to funding.
     For example, NCLB, a federal statute, requires all children in the United States to become proficient in mathematics and reading.  The states obtain funding from the federal government to do this.  The state then gets to choose how the requirement is met and where the money goes.  In New York, children from grades three through eight must take exams each year.  The exams determine if a local school, who chooses how to teach the curriculum, is meeting the state requirements, which mirror the federal requirements.  Schools deemed "failing" can apply for more funding to improve the school.
     So where am I going with this?
     At a recent school district CIO meeting, mention of a national list of commonly taught classes is being compiled.  This list would be used by every school in the country to match teachers to classes in a system designed to measure teacher ability.  Down the road, it would be used in teacher evaluation.  Sounds great right!  I mean what could be wrong with this?  Nationwide, teachers who teach algebra will be identified.  Schools with the best algebra teachers will be praised and sought after, and bad algebra teachers will be eliminated.  Just what everyone wants, right?  Wrong!
     The teacher's unions are some of the most powerful in the country, and they support Democrat candidates almost one hundred percent.  So then why would a Democrat administration go after teachers?
     I believe this is an attempt to nationalize curriculum and therefore schools.  With a national database of common classes, the federal government could, in the future, dictate how and which classes are taught.  This would take power away from the states and local districts and pass it to the federal government, which is done in some European countries (and we know how much the liberals love Europe!).  This is already taking place in other aspects of education.  On September 29, I blogged about Obama and NCLB.  Obama is trying to force states to accept federal teaching standards through the use of waivers.  So why is it a stretch to believe the federal government may force what classes are taught and the content of those classes?
     And to come full circle, the most important aspect: the funding, and the government has a few options here.  It can directly fund each district, punishing those they feel do not "comply" with their agenda.  It can keep schools fully funded, preventing any layoffs, and keeping union dues flowing in.  The dues then end up as contributions to the Democrat party, and funding is no longer a campaign issue Republicans can use.  It can also try to make teacher's, all unionized, into federal employees.  Federal employees do not have unions.  Starting with teachers, who have a well established union, may provide a pathway to unionizing federal workers.  More money for Democrats.
     Can't happen you say?  Too complex or too many variables, you might argue.  Well the federal government already dictates what food can be served in schools (see my blog titled "Cupcakes").  It also took over two car companies, student loan programs, and financial institutions and is about to take over the entire health care system.  Plus, it tells you what light bulbs you can buy and use and how much water is in your toilet, along with a whole host of other things.
     I don't expect this to happen over night, but I believe the groundwork is being laid for a national takeover of education.

I Was Right! Almost...

     On Wednesday, October 5, during the first hour of his radio program, Rush Limbaugh said he was growing suspicious of liberal news outlets attacking Obama.  He said the media may be setting up Obama for a comeback:

...I'm starting to get a little suspicious here folks.  I think we need to have a little bit of suspicion about all these reports in the media, reporting all the problems Obama has, all the trouble Obama's getting in.  As we know the mainstream media, the "drivebys," are agenda oriented.  They have got a purpose here... They could be setting up, "Wow! Look at this comeback!" theme...

     This is very similar to one of my blog posts on September 8, 2011, "Could liberals truly be turning against one of their own?...   Or, could it be that they are tearing [Obama] down just to build him up again? This to me seems the more likely answer."
     Time will tell, but I still feel my original prediction will come true.

Obama's Latest "Jobs Plan"

     The new Obama "Jobs Plan" does little to create jobs, but an enormous amount to raise taxes.  According to Reuters, Obama plans to raise $447 billion dollars to create jobs by taxing the rich. (full article here).  But the article, in typical traditional media fashion, trumpets this as a great idea and only hints at its faults.
     The article states that most Americans support the idea of raising taxes on the rich, making them pay "their fair share."  But if this is actually true, then why hasn't Harry Reid, Democrat Senate leader, brought the bill up for a vote?  Well, because no one running for re-election, including hard line, left-wing Democrats, want to be known for raising taxes during a recession.  It is bad policy and hurts their campaigns.  In 2009, during the debates to maintain the Bush Era tax cuts, Obama himself agreed that raising taxes on anyone during a recession would hurt the economy (TheGatewayPundit.com). 
Even fellow Democrats say they will never vote for a bill that raises taxes during a recession (PoliticusUSA.com).  So then why is Obama pushing this ridiculous bill that has no support even with Democrats?  Obama's re-election.
     Obama's re-election is looking bad.  Fifty-five percent of Americans say Obama will lose in the next election (ABCNews.com).  He desperately needs to re-energize his liberal base, who is leaving him (WashingtonPost.com).  So what better way to do so than with a little class warfare?
     And as far as jobs go, it would actually cause more jobs to be lost.  As taxes are increased, the wealthiest among us, who are also the job creators, would have less money to hire people and/or keep people employed.  Plus, if Obama's 2008 $787 billion stimulus package didn't create jobs (It was promised that the unemployment rate wouldn't go over 8% and it is not over 9% (MRC.org)), how is $477 billion dollars, nearly half of the original stimulus, going to do the trick?

Chris Christie out, Conservatives hurt

     Chris Christie has officially (again) claimed he is not running for the presidential candidate. (GlobalPost.com).  And for conservatives that is not good news.
     Chris Christie from afar looks to be the perfect candidate.  He is tough, opinionated, and takes on the unions. (ABCNews.com).  He seems to give as good as he gets.  Republicans have been aching for a candidate and a party that isn't always on the defense, and Chris Christie looks comfortable on offense.  But how much of a conservative is he?  Barely if you look at his record.
     According to ConservativeNewJersey.com he agrees with gun control, is soft on illegal immigration, and refused to take a stand against the Ground Zero Mosque. (full article here). 
     When it comes to gun control, Christie supports bans that were put forth during the Clinton administration.  His current attorney general also refuses to get rid of John Corzine's gun restriction laws.  He even admitted in an interview that he favors gun control, blaming impotence in fighting such laws on the Democrat legislature (thought he was tough enough to fight those Dems!).
     His stance on illegal immigration is no better.  He refuses to call illegal aliens "illegal," saying they are simply "undocumented." That is a huge understatement for people in the country illegally!  Also, he has only prosecuted thirteen cases of illegal immigration and is opposed to Arizon's push to deal with the issue by enforcing federal law.  To top it off, he favors the Democrats' and RINOs' plans for "a pathway to citizenship." (code for amnesty!).
     And on the topic of the Ground Zero Mosque, he sits on the fence.  He says that he understands people's emotions but buys into the liberal idea that denying the mosque is painting all Muslims with a broad "terrorist" brush.  He says he doesn't want to get involved in the political back and forth.  I expected a tougher stand from such a tough guy.
     Most importantly, his crowning achievement, taking on the teacher unions, was a failure.  The New Jersey Supreme court overruled him and designated $500 million in school funding he tried to eliminate.  He then refused to fight the courts and tossed it back to the legislature (NewsWorks.org).  Again, not very tough.
     So how can his refusal to run hurt conservatives?  If Chris Christie got in, then he would have split the Romney vote.  Right now conservatives have many to choose from, but the RINO's have only Romney, giving Romney a slight advantage.  Had Christie gotten in, he would stripped votes away from Romney and weakened him in the polls.  For now, Romney can breath a sigh of relief, and conservatives should breath a bit harder.

Post Office

     The postal service is in bad shape.  According to USA Today, it is projected to be in debt $238 billion in ten years.  It plans to cut services and raise rates to make up for the loss.  (USAToday.com).  So what is to blame?  Typical government mismanagement?  Heck no!  According to the post office, its the internet.
     This is part of an alarming trend.  One thing the liberals seem to hate is technology, claiming it takes jobs away from people and replacing them with machines.  They advocate technological repression to bring back American jobs.  Even President Obama blamed our current unemployment condition on inventions like ATMs (RealClearPolitics.com).  Apparently machines like ATMs allow companies to hire fewer workers by replacing them with machines.  Of course he didn't account for the jobs created building the machines, maintaing the machines, creating parts for the machines, shipping the machines, etc.  Even Chris Matthews echoed this sentiment (Blogrunner.com).
     So naturally for liberals, technology is to blame for bringing down the post office.  But what does email really replace?  It is my contention that it replaces the quick phone call more than the lengthy letter.  Personal letters, some invitations, post cards, etc. are still had written and sent out via the post office.  I will agree that some post office traffic is being sent through the internet, like junk mail turning into spam and party invitations going through Facebook.  Yet, the huge amount of internet commerce, which is a growing part of the economy, surely makes up for some of the loss. 
     The post office should be changing with the times and competing, like private companies are forced to do to stay open.  They seem to be making some progress on this, offering flat rate shipping options to compete with other shippers.  Is there a postal email service in the works?  Maybe there should be.
     So then what is really to blame?  It's not technology.  It's union pension plans, which is hinted at in the above USA Today article.  This plagues all government finances.