RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

CU Boulder Predicts Colorado (and Electoral College) for Romney

23 Aug

From the University of Colorado, Boulder:

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

“What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” said Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder.
 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

The Moral Case for the British Empire [Prager University]

20 Aug

A new course from Prager University was released today. Like all courses, this is a 5 minute video giving an overview of a certain topic with information that likely wasn’t presented to you in your undergraduate or graduate studies.

The Moral Case for the British Empire. Taught by H.W. Crocker, Author and Historian.

YouTube Preview Image

The British empire governed on Judeo-Christian values of freedom and peace-making. The largest worldwide empire was the empire the governed the least; without displacing cultures and often ruling side by side and through local leaders.

Ghandi said that he believed the best government was the government that governed least and that he found the British empire guaranteed his freedom and governed him least of all.

The British empire was the force that caused widow-burning to cease in India, and was the greatest force in ending the global slave trade.

My Take

The course does not present the empire as perfect, or deny there were abuses. For example, the abolition of slavery necessitates the presence of slavery first.  The emphasis, however, is that the British empire was a force that overall led to freedom, peace, and life. This is true especially in comparison to other empires throughout history. It’s this kind of comparative analysis that is emphasized in the course. Not that the British empire and everyone associated with it was perfect, but that it was the Empire with the most positive ethics and effects.

In the United States, we find that the freedom founded at the beginning of our nation carried on these ideals, not because the founders were against what Englishmen stood for, but because many were Englishmen  who were fighting for the continuation of the same values.

Another worthwhile course from Prager University. I’ve included the video above, but you can also enroll in Prager University for free and accrue credits just by watching the 5 minute videos online, taught by Dennis Prager, Adam Carolla, Jonah Goldberg, and many more.

 

2010 Obama: Ryan’s “is an entirely legitimate proposal” bad to say “the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens.”

16 Aug

In January, 2010, President Obama spoke about the Paul Ryan budget proposal at the time. He compliments Ryan as stepping above the political fray and proposing a serious and legitimate proposal.

There is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that’s probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul’s plan… I raise that because we’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as ‘Well, you know, that’s the other party being irresponsible…the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens.’ That’s why I say: if we’re going to frame these in the way that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out a) who is to blame; b) how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately that’s how our politics works right now… That’s how we operate. It’s all tactics. It’s not solving problems. (full text at the end of the post)

YouTube Preview Image

This was just 2 years ago. Today, unfortunately, Obama, his campaign, his party, and the Leftist media only seem to be carrying forward:

what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as ‘Well, you know, that’s the other party being irresponsible…the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens.’… That’s how we operate. It’s all tactics. It’s not solving problems.

The Obama campaign released a scare video about the Ryan budget that Obama praised in the above video.

YouTube Preview Image

Here’s the full text of 2010 Obama praising Paul Ryan and condemning the 2012 Obama’s campaign tactics:

President Obama: I think Paul [Ryan], for example, the head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. Ive read it. I can tell you whats in it. And there’s some ideas in there that I would agree with but there’s some ideas we should have a healthy debate about because I don’t agree with them. The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. That’s going to be what our children have to worry about. Now, Paul’s approach, and I want to be careful not to simplify this, I know you’ve got a lot of detail in your plan, but, if I understand it correctly, would say, were going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level No?

Congressman Ryan: No we protect the program for Americans 55 and above [those in and near retirement]

Obama: I understand there’s a grandfathering in.That’s why I said I wanted to make sure that I’m not being unfair to your proposal. I just want to point out that Ive read it, and the basic idea would be that, at some point, we hold Medicare cost per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn’t go way out of whack, and I’m sure there some details

Ryan: We increase the Medicare payments with a blend of inflation and health inflation. The point of our plan is, because Medicare as you know is a $38 trillion unfunded liability.

Obama: Right.

Ryan: It has to be reformed for younger generations because it wont exist. Its going bankrupt. The premise of our idea is look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? Thats the kind of reform were proposing for Medicare. [applause]

Obama: As I said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. There is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that’s probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul’s plan. And I raise that, not because we shouldn’t have a serious discussion about it; I raise that because we’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as ‘Well, you know, that’s the other party being irresponsible…the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens.’ That’s why I say: if we’re going to frame these in the way that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out a) who is to blame; b) how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately that’s how our politics works right now. Every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they have all the talking points, I see Frank Luntz up here, he’s already polled it. I’ve done a focus group, they way we’re going to box Obama in on this one, or make Pelosi look bad on that one. That’s how we operate. It’s all tactics. It’s not solving problems. And so the question is: at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious conversation about Social Security or serious conversation about budget and debt where aren’t simply trying to position ourselves politically. That’s what I’m committed to doing.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

A Gay Chick-Fil-A Employee Speaks Out… and Continually Contradicts Self

02 Aug

Sandwich, fries, and a drink From Chic-Fil-AThe Daily Beast has an article today written by a closeted homosexual employee of Chick-Fil-A, who states she wanted to vomit when she heard people singing God Bless America and wished that her customers would die of asphyxiation.

The self-contradictions really show the double standard that epitomizes this writer and probably those trying to shut down Chick-Fil-A because the president holds a different political opinion than they:

On the one hand, PLEASE DON’T PROTEST MY WORKPLACE. If you do, you’re just being self-righteous:

Boycotting Chick-fil-A doesn’t hurt the company. It hurts the employees. And it’s hard enough working for a place that doesn’t think you should get married. But it’s work. Don’t take it away because you feel righteous.

On the other hand, PLEASE DO PROTEST MY WORKPLACE, I’LL JOIN YOU.

We had two protestors outside, and I took five minutes to run out, hug them, and tell them: if I weren’t working here now, I’d be out here with you. 

On the one hand, hoping someone goes hungry for boycotting, you know, food is evil: arrogant, self-righteous, and desire for others to suffer:

One kid, age 19, said “I hope the gays go hungry.” I nearly walked out then and there. That epitomizes the characteristics of these evangelical “Christians”…

That arrogance, self-righteousness, and desire for their opponents to suffer: that’s the least Christ-like attitude of all.

On the other hand, wishing the family value advocates die is just fine:

I remember thinking, under stress, “I hope they choke.”

One of the silliest parts:

no one called the restaurants and said “Hey, you may be flooded with customers. Thaw extra chicken.” Not one of the employees in those congregations gave the restaurant a heads-up. That sort of consideration wasn’t even an afterthought. The ministers, and through them the congregants, didn’t think about the consequences of their actions, or who it might screw over. And it ended up screwing us rather thoroughly.

August 1 as Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was national news for more than a week beforehand, declared from Mike Huckabee on Fox News, not just a few local pastors. If your management or franchise owner wasn’t paying attention to a major news story about her/his business, that’s their fault, not your customers’ fault.

 
 

A Reagan Forum with Dennis Prager – 5/1/12

11 May

Here’s a very worthwhile video of Dennis Prager speaking at the Reagan Forum on May 1 this year:

YouTube Preview Image
 

Turning “Follow the Money” into Heroic Leadership. Obama on Gay Marriage.

10 May

How is Time considered credible to anyone with garbage like this?

They say the arc of history bends toward justice.

Who says it? Who are you quoting, or rather, misquoting? It was the Republican Baptist Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. who made this quote by Theodore Parker famous. Parker, it seems, was referring to the end of slavery, a world wide immorality that characterized the entire world until movements of Christians in England and Republicans in the US changed everything. King would respond to the question of how long it would be until equal rights with “Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

So “Toure” starts by framing the argument on MLK’s belief that denial of people’s Declaration rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) would end, but misquotes King to remove the absolute morality (inserted “history” and removed “moral universe”), which was the basis of King’s statement.

If that’s true then as a nation we’re having a hard time bending on the issue of gay rights.

Ok… If the arc of history bends toward justice, we’re having a hard time bending on one issue. So if the arc of history doesn’t bend toward justice, then we’re not having a hard time bending on this issue? We’re only at sentence 2 and the writer’s ability to construct sentences is already in question.

“gay rights.”

This is a curious phrase to apply to a discussion of marriage. My marriage is a marriage and would be regardless of whether the state recognized it. People were married before the government granted marriage licenses, thus it doesn’t seem that the government’s distribution of certificates actually affects marriage.

What are rights, anyway? Looking back to the founding documents, we see rights to life and liberty, to speech, gun ownership, the press, etc.

  • The Right fights for the right to life, even for unborn humans and people in comas. The Left seeks death in both cases.
  • The Right fights for the right to liberty (to do what one wishes with one’s self and the product of one’s labor without infringing on these same rights of others) by pushing for less regulation and lower taxation. The Left believes the government can decide what to do with you (Obamacare) and your stuff (taxation and redistribution of wealth) better than you.
  • The Right fights for the right to the pursuit of happiness through pushing for private property ownership and less regulation. The left fights against this, believing you are too dumb to pursue happiness and can’t be trusted with tough choices such as what food to eat and what snacks your kids can buy.
  • The Right fights for the right to free speech and press by pushing back against Leftist policies like the fairness doctrine.
  • The Right fights for the right to bear arms. The Left consistently seeks to limit this right.
  • The Right fights for the free exercise of religion by working to preserve people’s ability to live out their religious beliefs. The Left has made it illegal to do so in many situations and with Obamacare are working to force religious hospitals and other businesses to either cease exercising their religion or cease providing health care.

Rights are consistently defended by conservatives, and consistently assaulted by progressives. Apparently they’re just seeking progress in taking away your rights.

But this week will be remembered as an historic turning point because President Obama threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics in announcing his support for marriage equality. “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Robin Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.

After Joe Biden came out of the closet as a gay marriage supporter, news broke that several big dollar donors would stop supporting Obama unless he changed his position to support the same. That’s what the article’s author means when he “threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics” : He did what would get him more money. Wow. Caution to the wind, principle over politics. Reversing positions to get more money. That’s inspiring! It’s heroic!

With Obama’s declaration that he “personally” thinks one thing, and publicly thinks the opposite, believing the federal government should stay out of it, we have clarity: instead of still trying to hold both sides on the issue, he’s… trying to hold both sides on the issue. So, with his public policy as the president remaining exactly the same, what’s changed?

  • Obama’s earliest record on the issue was in 1996, when he answered questions, in writing declaring “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages” as he ran for Illinois Senate.
  • In 2008 he spoke on stage with Rick Warren, saying “For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union… God’s in the mix”

The only change here is that Obama’s temporary pro-traditional-marriage position was picked up when it would benefit his running for office to claim Christian values, and dropped when politically expedient as a fundraising effort for re-election.

The “Toure” article goes on to get facts wrong, contradict itself, and commit most logical fallacies you could name. If you enjoy pain, you can read the entire article. It’s disappointing that this type of poorly written inflammation of an article is considered reputable and worthwhile, but I’m not a leftist, so I’m not calling on people to destroy him and his employment as he has done with Rush Limbaugh.

 

Romney: I’m “entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God”

22 Feb

Who can still believe that Romney is a fiscal conservative?

Take 1:

YouTube Preview Image

 

you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. – Mitt Romney

This was a representation of those on the right who have a problem with the president speaking of Americans in classes of people, and pitting them against each other. Many conservatives lean toward a flat tax or a fair tax rather than the progressive tax that penalizes those who create wealth in order to redistribute their property to those who haven’t been creating wealth.

Obama had previously proposed in his “Jobs Bill” limiting deductions on the wealthiest Americans, which would result in fewer donations to charities, and would in effect be a war on non-government charities. The idea is consistent with Obama’s perspective that government is the answer to every problem. He’s simply working on putting charities out of business. First with the “Jobs Bill” reducing contributions, now restricting the exercise of religion on employers.

In addition to dividing Americans into classes, many conservatives object to the language of people paying their “fair share.” The questions are significant: Who decides my fair share? What is “fair”? Why is my “fair share” different than someone else’s? In America, do we even have shares to pay?

Take 2: Today Romney announced his newest tax plan: Drop everyone’s tax rates except for the 1%, who need to pay their fair share:

Romney said his plan to limit mortgage interest and charitable contributions deductions would not impact middle income families. Instead, he noted, he wants to “make sure the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”

Romney’s plan is everything he criticizes in Obama: Dividing Americans, and picking and choosing who to penalize because they aren’t paying their Fair Share.

Romney simply declared today that he is ” encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percentandentirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God

We have a liberal, 2 conservatives, and a libertarian running for the Republican nomination. Gingrich continues to lose steam, but will make a great advocate for conservatism. Vote Santorum.

 
 

Ron Paul’s Self-Defeating Narrative

21 Dec

There is power in story. Narrative conveys truth and is a powerful persuader.  With nearly every detail of his real life locked away, Barack Obama became the President in large part because of the created narrative – he is the smartest man in America (who said there were 57 states); his primary nomination meant the sea levels would change; he won a Nobel peace prize (though never did anything to earn it).

As we near the Iowa Caucus, Ron Paul is looking to win. (This is in large part because of Obama supporters switching parties just to vote Ron Paul in the Republican Primary then support Obama in the general.) Ron Paul also has a powerful narrative. Most Ron Paul supporters are only capable of shouting:

RON PAUL TWENTY TWELVE!!!!!! RON PAUL TWENTY TWELVE!!!!!!

But the real narrative goes something like this:

Ron Paul alone stands as the libertarian messiah, much as Obama stood as the leftist messiah. In Ron alone can the country attain salvation. Ron alone has been standing against all other politicians regardless of party affiliation. RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!

Our lingering teenage angst and our desire to rage against the machine find a lone rebel appealing. Yet a few aspects of this are troubling. Here’s the first:

What has the man actually gotten done in all his years in Washington?

Ron Paul couldn’t get anything done, he’s just one guy, and the two party system is a crock – they’re all united against Ron Paul. RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!

And herein lies the problem. The guy has proven that he can’t accomplish anything. For decades. And that’s from his own campaign website. His supporters tell me he finally got a partial audit of the Federal Reserve. That’s great. Decades of being paid from taxpayer dollars, and he has one accomplishment? And a partial audit at that. He has never gathered a coalition. He has never convinced others to go along with something he wants to get done. The president needs to be someone who can get things done.

If his own narrative is correct, then everyone in government is against him. That means that all he can do is veto – but congress can overpower a veto with enough votes, and they’re all supposedly united against him.

If Ron Paul supporters are right about their candidate, he’s incapable of even advancing his own policies as President.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Bridge to nowhere, vote conservative

26 Nov

image

Near Wadsworth and Bowles in Littleton, Colorado, a bridge was built over a crosswalk.

The bridge connects Southwest Plaza mall, with its huge parking lot to a huge parking lot of a strip mall that is largely abandoned, save a Staples and a few other stores.

This unused and poorly planned structure carries a price tag in the millions for tax payers. On Black Friday, some people finally used the bridge – to protest it.

 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Thomas Sowell on Occupy Wall Street [video]

17 Oct

Thomas Sowell discusses the liberal-organized “Occupy Wall Street” protesters, responding to a quote from his book, “No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce.”

“I can’t imagine when I was their age that I could have enough money to hang around in a park not doing any work, not bringing in any income… Whenever they are interviewed they are incoherent. They will toss out a few scraps of  rhetoric and they feel that they’ve said something. They can’t tell you really what they want, they can’t tell you what they’re really complaining about, other than that the world is not built to their specifications.”

He also discusses and explains why Herman Cain would be a better president than Obama.

YouTube Preview Image