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.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, October 7, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
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:
Time will tell, but I still feel my original prediction will come true.
...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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
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?
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?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, October 3, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)